It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by pthena
Later, during the "last supper" Jesus said "do this to remember me" rather than saying anything about remembering the Law of Moses.
Replacement theology? Perhaps.
The question, I think, from Pthena that this was the answer to was, "Is there some actual benefit to mankind to be derived from a new temple?"
To answer your question. Yes. Why? For Judaism.
So you mean there is no value to Christian theology?
Christanity is not a replacement theology. Its a rescue mission. A kludge essentially. A patch. A construct bolted on the orignal.
If Christanity was a replacement theology it would be in violation of the Leviticus 26 compact.
Our debt still stands under the Law, but He effectively cancels out the debt.
We've gotten a bit off topic now, but I thought that was an important point to touch on.
According to the Talmud, the Midrash, and the ancient Kabbalistic work, the Zohar, the Messiah must arrive before the Year 6000 from the time of creation. (According to Orthodox Jewish belief, the Hebrew calendar dates to the time of creation. The year 2011 corresponds to the year 5771 from creation).
The Midrash comments:
"Six eons for going in and coming out, for war and peace. The seventh eon is entirely Shabbat and rest for life everlasting."
There is a kabbalistic tradition that maintains that each of the seven days of the week, which are based upon the seven days of creation, correspond to the seven millennia of creation. The tradition teaches that the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath day of rest, corresponds to the seventh millennium, the age of universal 'rest' - the Messianic Era. The seventh millennium perforce begins with the year 6000, and is the latest time the Messiah can come. Supporting and elaborating on this theme are numerous early and late Jewish scholars, including Rabbeinu Bachya, Abraham ibn Ezra, the Ramban, Isaac Abrabanel, the Ramchal, the Vilna Gaon, Aryeh Kaplan, and the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
5^ Pirke De Rabbi Eliezer, Gerald Friedlander, Sepher-Hermon Press, New York, 1981, p. 141.
6^ Zohar, Vayera 119a
7^ Bachya on Genesis 2:3
8^ Ramban quoting Ibn Ezra at Leviticus (25:2)
9^ Ramban on Genesis (2:3)
10^ Abarbanel on Genesis 2
11^ Derech Hashem 4:7:2
12^ Safra D'Tzniusa, Ch. 5
13^ Page 318, The Real Messiah, online access
14^ Sefer HaSichos 5750:254
Advent of the Messianic Era
CHAPTER XVI.--THE SPIRITUAL TEMPLE OF GOD.
Moreover, I will also tell you concerning the temple, how the wretched [Jews], wandering in error, trusted not in God Himself, but in the temple, as being the house of God. For almost after the manner of the Gentiles they worshipped Him in the temple. But learn how the Lord speaks, when abolishing it: "Who hath meted out heaven with a span, and the earth with his palm? Have not I?""Thus saith the Lord, Heaven is My throne, and the earth My footstool: what kind of house will ye build to Me, or what is the place of My rest?" Ye perceive that their hope is vain. Moreover, He again says, "Behold, they who have cast down this temple, even they shall build it up again." It has so happened. For through their going to war, it was destroyed by their enemies; and now: they, as the servants of their enemies, shall rebuild it. Again, it was revealed that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be given up. For the Scripture saith, "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Lord will deliver up the sheep of His pasture, and their sheep-fold and tower, to destruction." And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is--where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, "And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord." I find, therefore, that a temple does exist. Learn, then, how it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, as being indeed like a temple made with hands. For it was full of idolatry, and was a habitation of demons, through our doing such things as were opposed to [the will of] God. But it shall be built, observe ye, in the name of the Lord, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built in glory. How? Learn [as follows]. Having received the forgiveness of sins, and placed our trust in the name of the Lord, we have become new creatures, formed again from the beginning. Wherefore in our habitation God truly dwells in us. How? His word of faith; His calling of promise; the wisdom of the statutes; the commands of the doctrine; He himself prophesying in us; He himself dwelling in us; opening to us who were enslaved by death the doors of the temple, that is, the mouth; and by giving us repentance introduced us into the incorruptible temple. He then, who wishes to be saved, looks not to man, but to Him who dwelleth in him, and speaketh in him, amazed at never having either heard him utter such words with his mouth, nor himself having ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.
You did better than I, when I tried to read it not too long ago. I was not too happy with the translation available online. I found this book on Amazon and ordered it (delivery by USPS): Apostolic Fathers: Volume II. Epistle of Barnabas. Papias and Quadratus. Epistle to Diognetus. The Shepherd of Hermas (Loeb Classical Library No. 25N), by Bart D. Ehrman. Along with what I assumed would be a more modern translation based on the best texts, it has has an introduction and bibliography that he recommends in his other book, Lost Christianities, reading. Hopefully I can find something in the bibliography that would give some sort of commentary on it if even an essay in a theological journal.
I read the Epistle of Barnabas to figure out what he(whoever wrote it) may have thought about a dual covenant theory.
intends to impart to his readers the perfect gnosis (special knowledge), that they may perceive that the Christians are the only true covenant people, and that the Jewish people had never been in a covenant with God. His polemics are, above all, directed against Judaizing Christians (see Ebionites, Nazarenes, Judaizing teachers).
In no other writing of that early time is the separation of the Gentile Christians from observant Jews so clearly insisted upon. The covenant promises, he maintains, belong only to the Christians (e.g. 4.6-8), and circumcision, and the entire Jewish sacrificial and ceremonial system are, according to him, due to misunderstanding. According to the author's conception, Jewish scriptures, rightly understood, contain no such injunctions (chapters 9-10).
Maybe why it did not make it into the NT canon, where the bulk of those that did make it drops any pretense to holding onto the old The Lord character.
It is my opinion that such beliefs as Barnabas holds lead to bickering over the god and the covenant of the god. "He's mine!" "No, mine." "The covenant is with me!" "No, with me!
Who are the "we" I'm talking about? Read the Genesis 48 and 49 prophesies. Quite literally according to the prophesy the descendants of Israel were to become a multitude of nations.
There is a blessing in Genesis 48, made by the old patriarch, May they grow into a multitude on the earth. I see no way to take that and interpret it to be a valid argument for my being an Israelite. Then in chapter 49 he gives blessings for his individual sons. I don't see anything in there that I would consider relevant to my status in some sort of nationhood.
16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
There is a parallel that can be made in Revelation but it is not a reciprocal interpretation, meaning you can see the imagery from Genesis being employed by the writer of Revelation but you can not use that passage in Revelation to interpret the passage in Genesis from which it is drawn.
And then add the Romans 11 olive tree parable. Essentially a Christian is an adopted Israelite. And as such they have all the rights, privileges and obligations of a natural Israelite.
It never says that in Romans 11 and your saying it does seems to be an indication that you are still under the spell cast by your cult indoctrination.
As such I would say that 80-90% of the world's population has at least 1 Israelite in their family tree now. Which makes the Leviticus 26 compact binding on them irregardless of their current religion. And before you mention it yes it's still valid and binding.
It is brought out by Jesus in the Gospel that there is a fundamental law that exists independent of a written law (which he describes as being inferior) that is spiritual in nature and what is the law of the new covenant. That law, the one Jesus gave, will never pass away, while the temporary law of Moses met its match in Jesus and not recedes into oblivion.
And the other problem is that the curse of Malachi is a long curse.
1 Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
It's a 2000 year top level Leviticus 26 curse. It's still running. And according to the historical evidence the Jews have been serving it. Plus this curse would have been triggered in the 69th week of the Daniel 9 seventy weeks. The 70th week is still waiting to run. Unfinished business.
This seems to be a theory unique to you. There is nothing to say that two days means 2000 years and even if it was, it would be completely irrelevant. Those curses were nailed to the cross. Any curse that existed in the past was nullified and a new beginning established by the reign of Christ. I think any hearkening back to those detracts from the reality of the rule of God through His son who he has enthroned.
Actually it is taught in the bible. To start with the Leviticus 26 agreement specifies that no matter how bad the punishment eventually the Israelites would be restored to God's good graces. A nation of Israel is required in order for a new temple to be built. Now they are merely waiting for the branch to show up to build it.
None of those quotes answers my question of where a third temple is taught in the Bible.
Genesis 12 I don't see being a "compact", where that would have a connotation of an agreement. It looks like a conditional statement of intent by The Lord. If Abraham will do as asked, He is saying He would make Abraham a great nation. That would have been fulfilled in Solomon's kingdom, where it reached greatness, according to the story.
You are trying to ignore the Genesis compacts.
There is no "end times" in Genesis, just a reference to days beyond the present one.
The blessings of the Genesis compacts go through the seed of Abraham. His descendants. And the later chapters tell us the blessing went through Isaac to Jacob and his descendants.
Basically this is world conquest through genetics. And according to Genesis 48 and 49 by the end times the world will be filled with the descendants of Jacob/Israel.
You have that backwards.
That faith has been added to the Genesis compact.
I am studying this analogy used by Paul in Romans and am right now reading about it in the Hermeneia Commentary on Romans by Robert Jewett. What Jewett is doing is describing the rhetoric as a sort of diatribe with an imaginary interlocutor (the other person in the discussion) who would be the metaphorical wild branch.
Accept Jesus Christ and you are added to the olive tree. But then you have ask this question. "What is the olive tree?" It's the family tree of Abraham, Issac, and Israel. So when you become a Christian you are becoming an "adopted Israelite". You are being grafted into the family tree through faith.
So as a Christian you are now an Israelite. And the covenant of Leviticus 26 is now binding on you and your descendants.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by DarkKnight21
Yeah, the first video is really interesting. The math is a little tricky though in its calculation of the 7000th year. I need someone else to check it and see if I am missing something.
Which one of the three versions of Daniel are you using?