Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For Yashua to begin his physical political reign on Earth (assumingly after the age of Tribulations), he must rebuild the Temple as prophecied.
I just realized you posted this.I believe this is called Replacement theology.
...sorry, just realized Sojourner already pointed this out.
It is still the sacrafice for our sins. It only makes you think of the idea as a "re-sacrifice" because that it what you want it to. It happen, and it happens everyday. The Body and Blood is sacraficed to and for all.Here's the part I'm interested in:
"Re-presenting" (as in anamnesis), is not the same thing as "the sacrifice made every day." Anamnesis is taking the singularity and pulling it into the present so that we may participate in it. "Sacrifice made every day" connotes more the idea of a "re-sacrifice" -- a "mulligan," if you will. The sacrifice cannot be made "every day," because it happened only once. The sacrifice, made once, can be, and is re-presented
every day (assuming that the Mass is said every day).
Perhaps if your rhetoric were a little more terse, it wouldn't take on the appearance of slander...
I just realized you posted this.
In which case, I should tell you that you are wrong. Replacement theology would include the belief that the old covenant was replaced by the new. I never claimed to believe such.
Why is it that some Christians insist the ancient Jewish Temple must be rebuilt for Christ's 'second coming' to occur? I mean Jesus was the one who accurately predicted the Temples destruction 'not one stone upon another', Matthew Chp. 24, right? Where does He say...and I will not come again until you rebuild it etc?
I was referring to the theology or belief which says that the church has replaced Israel, God is finished with Israel, and that God's promises in the OT to Israel no longer apply to the nation of Israel or now apply to the church. I believe such a view distorts one's understanding of history, prophecy and God's purpose and plans for the church, Israel, and the nations of the world.
I believe that now during this church age or the age of grace God does dwell in believers as indicated in the NT, but when the fullness of gentiles is complete (Romans 11:25) God will again begin working through Israel and this will include the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.
Jesus never spoke of a church age. He said the Kingdom of God was present and still coming.
You just explained a bit more of replacement theology. In short, the New replaced the old. I do not believe that. The Church is a continuation. Not a replacement.I was referring to the theology or belief which says that the church has replaced Israel, God is finished with Israel, and that God's promises in the OT to Israel no longer apply to the nation of Israel or now apply to the church. I believe such a view distorts one's understanding of history, prophecy and God's purpose and plans for the church, Israel, and the nations of the world.
I believe that now during this church age or the age of grace God does dwell in believers as indicated in the NT, but when the fullness of gentiles is complete (Romans 11:25) God will again begin working through Israel and this will include the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.
You just explained a bit more of replacement theology. In short, the New replaced the old. I do not believe that. The Church is a continuation. Not a replacement.
The Church that Christ built, carries on the mission Israel served and still serves today. They both work at the same mission, just disagree on the outcome.[FONT="]I still think this idea of continuation is a type of replacement theology. I do not believe the church existed in the OT. God was working through a nation, specifically the nation of Israel. So to say that the church is a continuation usurps and replaces Israel as Gods elect vessel during that time period. In Matthew 16:18 the Lord Jesus said, I will build My Church. This is future tense and indicates that the building of the Church had not yet begun when Jesus said these words. John the Baptist stated the he baptized with water, but that Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit and this is what took place on the Day of Pentecost, which I believe was the beginning of the church.[/FONT]
[FONT="]A Comparison and Contrast Between[/FONT][FONT="] Israel and the Church[/FONT] Comparison & Contrast Between Israel and the Church
But as Christians, we know the Law is not the way.
Thats nice Shermana. But this isn't the thread. Go take your rhetoric to an appropriate thread.1 John says quite differently.
So its appropriate for you to say on this thread that the Law is not applicable but not appropriate for me to disagree. Because a discussion about the Temple and Christ's return has nothing to do with the Law whatsoever and whether Christians' still must follow it. It's nice to have your cake and eat it too I must admit. The Sacrifices will resume once again when that day happens, so I say that the Law will apply indeed to those who claim to follow the Moshiach.Thats nice Shermana. But this isn't the thread. Go take your rhetoric to an appropriate thread.
This isn't a thread to argue over the law being needed to followed or not by Christians.So its appropriate for you to say on this thread that the Law is not applicable but not appropriate for me to disagree. Because a discussion about the Temple and Christ's return has nothing to do with the Law whatsoever and whether Christians' still must follow it. It's nice to have your cake and eat it too I must admit. The Sacrifices will resume once again when that day happens, so I say that the Law will apply indeed to those who claim to follow the Moshiach.
Hint: Don't make such claims if you don't want them challenged. It's very relevant whether Christians must follow the Law in accords to when the Temple returns. Isaiah 66 will in fact apply when that day happens, just like how Isaiah 53 applied when he first arrived.
Yeah, because the Temple and the return of sacrifices has nothing to do with the Law. So why did you say that Christians aren't bound to follow it on this thread? What was your reason?This isn't a thread to argue over the law being needed to followed or not by Christians.
Because I do not believe the Temple must be rebuilt.Yeah, because the Temple and the return of sacrifices has nothing to do with the Law. So why did you say that Christians aren't bound to follow it on this thread? What was your reason?