Walid Shoebat in his paper the following question:
"Instead, I will direct a Jesus-style challenge to all who are anti-transubstantiation, that is, the daily sacrifice of the Eucharist, they argue, is re-sacrificing Christ. If this is true, the challenge to the common Messianic assumption, regarding Daniel 9, that if such ‘abomination’ will occur only at a rebuilt Temple by the Jews, for this to become true I ask: how could non-apostolic-succession accuse apostolic-succession believers of re-sacrificing Christ when they are accepting the re-institution of Jews re-sacrificing the Messiah who had already come?
We can’t have it both ways. If this is the case, as westerners say “what should be good for the geese (the Jews) should it not also be good for the ganders (apostolic succession churches)?"
Let me explain.
Firstly, read the following chapters with respect to the Temple that Ezekiel sees before carrying on reading the article in context.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=?Ezekiel+40-48
Though the concept of a third temple is not referred to by all Christians, I consider the third temple has a future. The chapters give a description of what is present in the temple and what is going to transpire within the confines of the temple. This I believe will occur in the Millennial Reign of Christ, which has not occurred yet but shall transpire in the future. Offerings are presented at the temple and they are literal offerings within the context.
"Ezekiel 40:38 A room with a doorway was by the portico in each of the inner gateways, where the burnt offerings were washed. 39 In the portico of the gateway were two tables on each side, on which the burnt offerings, sin offerings[n] and guilt offerings were slaughtered. 40 By the outside wall of the portico of the gateway, near the steps at the entrance of the north gateway were two tables, and on the other side of the steps were two tables. 41 So there were four tables on one side of the gateway and four on the other—eight tables in all—on which the sacrifices were slaughtered. 42 There were also four tables of dressed stone for the burnt offerings, each a cubit and a half long, a cubit and a half wide and a cubit high.[o] On them were placed the utensils for slaughtering the burnt offerings and the other sacrifices. 43 And double-pronged hooks, each a handbreadth[p] long, were attached to the wall all around. The tables were for the flesh of the offerings."
These offerings wouldn't present a problem, they are going to be present within the Millennial Reign itself, but the reason they are going to be carried out, is in commemoration of what the Messiah has done for them, the atonement for the sins of humanity and that those who have continued to believe in him would have salvation. Another noteworthy point are the priests of Zadok who are going to be administering in the temple. Again it is worth noting that these offerings are literal offerings as stated earlier:
"Ezekiel 40:44 Outside the inner gate, within the inner court, were two rooms, one[q] at the side of the north gate and facing south, and another at the side of the south[r] gate and facing north. 45 He said to me, “The room facing south is for the priests who guard the temple, 46 and the room facing north is for the priests who guard the altar. These are the sons of Zadok, who are the only Levites who may draw near to the Lord to minister before him.
47 Then he measured the court: It was square—a hundred cubits long and a hundred cubits wide. And the altar was in front of the temple."
"Ezekiel 43:18 Then he said to me, “Son of man, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: These will be the regulations for sacrificing burnt offerings and splashing blood against the altar when it is built: 19 You are to give a young bull as a sin offering[bh] to the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok, who come near to minister before me, declares the Sovereign Lord. 20 You are to take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the upper ledge and all around the rim, and so purify the altar and make atonement for it. 21 You are to take the bull for the sin offering and burn it in the designated part of the temple area outside the sanctuary."
"Ezekiel 44:15 “‘But the Levitical priests, who are descendants of Zadok and who guarded my sanctuary when the Israelites went astray from me, are to come near to minister before me; they are to stand before me to offer sacrifices of fat and blood, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 They alone are to enter my sanctuary; they alone are to come near my table to minister before me and serve me as guards."
Now you may ask "How are the priests of Zadok going to administer in the temple?" Easy answer, They will be resurrected from the dead to not only reign with Christ as saints saved by him, which is another topic regarding how the saints in the TANAKH were saved by his blood. Not only this, after the resurrection and during the Millennial reign, they shall administer in their priestly offices and run the temple as they should.
That is one way one can refute transubstantiation and yet hold to a rebuilt temple with sacrifices at the same time. This particular part regarding the re-institution of sacrifices during the millennial reign of Christ occurs when the third temple is built.
"If it is literal temple sacrifices in Jerusalem, that scripture alludes to, the other Jesus style question is this: how could non-apostolic succession churches accept such “sacrifice” be used metaphorically, from a new covenant perspective, while Israel, so they say, will re-institute temple sacrifices literally and from an old covenant perspective?
Even perhaps if our Jesus-style questions here are still not convincing or convicting, let us even delve into Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple (Ezekiel 40-44) which we will address first before we get into the meaty subject on how Islam will fulfill this “abomination of desolation”."
Again, this harkens back to what I said earlier and I hope to look at Shoebat's points on the subject of Ezekiel 40-48 a little later. A refutation of our position doesn't prove transubstansiation, even if that is not the intention of Shoebat.
"Astonishingly Ezekiel’s temple, in Ezekiel 42:13-14, even links to the same key element in Daniel’s prophecy regarding the “grain offering” as a “meat offering” and a “sin offering” even including “priestly garments”:
Daniel 9, “daily grain sacrificial offering” is in the strictest sense also in Ezekiel, if these sacrifices are a “memorial” as many claim to only be “do this in remembrance of Me” why then it is a “sin offering”? This would means that they too, the non-apostolic-succession would have to make an exception to also accept a ‘re-sacrifice of Christ’. Yet they reject this because they do not believe that a sin offering is necessary since once-saved always saved."… where the priests that approach unto the LORD shall eat the most holy things: there shall they lay the most holy things, and the meat offering, and thesin offering, and the trespass offering; for the place is holy. When the priests enter therein, then shall they not go out of the holy place into the utter court, but there they shall lay their garments wherein they minister; for they are holy; and shall put on other garments, and shall approach to those things which are for the people.
Wow, I don't believe in OSAS and that is an egregious misrepresentation of it.
There are two types of OSAS however, Some use it in the sense of Perseverence of the Saints, that those who are truly saved persevere in holiness to the end. The other type is a non lordship, carnal, antinomian version. Believers in the former version sometimes use the phrase OSAS, but they mean it differently from the non lordship type.
Also, the offering being a sin offering is irrelevant to the fact that the offerings in Ezekiel are literal offerings done in commemoration of what the Messiah has done. Bringing up what the offerings are doesn't tackle the reason WHY they are offered as commemorative tokens.
"It becomes impossible therefore to ignore or refute; this is the daily sacrifice of the mass regardless how many of us in the non-apostolic denominations object. Only these have a “daily offering”. Joel 1 &2 confirms “an offering” to being the case even at the time just prior to Christ’s coming on “the day of the Lord” when Antichrist would have stopped the daily sacrifice:
“The grain offering and the drink offering. Have been cut off from the house of the Lord; The priests mourn, who minister to the Lord … Alas for the day! Forthe day of the Lord is at hand; It shall come as destruction from the Almighty.”
And amazingly here in Joel, like Daniel, Joel is speaking of the technical (literal) application, tells us as well, not only of the “grain offering” (Eucharist) but also of the “drink offering” (the wine).
While when scripture speaks technicality, it is precise, no animal sacrifice, while when it speaks allegorically, as in Ezekiel, there is a symbolic animal sacrificial offering. To ensure that this is regarding the end times, Joel confirms the abolition of communion just prior to Christ’s second coming: “the day of the Lord is at hand”. This happens 3.5 years, just prior to Christ’s coming.
In other words, the Caliphate is established stemming from Turkey with an allegiance for this coming presidency (caliphate) where Muslims give allegiance to this man of sin for a seven year term, and in the midst of it, Islam’s aspiration for Jihad rejuvenates and Sharia will be implemented where wine is forbidden and by extension of this Sharia law, churches throughout are prohibited from observing communion."The grain and drink offering have no connection to the Eucharist, this is wishful thinking. Reading through Joel, I do not see anything with respect to an abolition of communion. Mainly because it is not there. Let us look at Joel 1:
"1 The word of the Lord that came to Joel, the son of Pethuel:
2 Hear this, you elders;
give ear, all inhabitants of the land!
Has such a thing happened in your days,
or in the days of your fathers?
3 Tell your children of it,
and let your children tell their children,
and their children to another generation.
4 What the cutting locust left,
the swarming locust has eaten.
What the swarming locust left,
the hopping locust has eaten,
and what the hopping locust left,
the destroying locust has eaten."
Locusts are released into the land of Israel because of their sins and the locusts consume the crops completely, bringing ruin onto the land. This leads into the next section of the chapter:
"5 Awake, you drunkards, and weep,
and wail, all you drinkers of wine,
because of the sweet wine,
for it is cut off from your mouth.
6 For a nation has come up against my land,
powerful and beyond number;
its teeth are lions' teeth,
and it has the fangs of a lioness.
7 It has laid waste my vine
and splintered my fig tree;
it has stripped off their bark and thrown it down;
their branches are made white.
8 Lament like a virgin[a] wearing sackcloth
for the bridegroom of her youth.
9 The grain offering and the drink offering are cut off
from the house of the Lord.
The priests mourn,
the ministers of the Lord.
10 The fields are destroyed,
the ground mourns,
because the grain is destroyed,
the wine dries up,
the oil languishes."
and in the same chapter:
"13 Put on sackcloth and lament, O priests;
wail, O ministers of the altar.
Go in, pass the night in sackcloth,
O ministers of my God!
Because grain offering and drink offering
are withheld from the house of your God.
14 Consecrate a fast;
call a solemn assembly.
Gather the elders
and all the inhabitants of the land
to the house of the Lord your God,
and cry out to the Lord.
15 Alas for the day!
For the day of the Lord is near,
and as destruction from the Almighty[c] it comes.
16 Is not the food cut off
before our eyes,
joy and gladness
from the house of our God?"
The grain and wine offerings are not a reference to communion or the Eucharist being cut off in the context of the passages, What is shown is that the offerings are useless in light of the fact that judgement is coming and will not be deterred. While it can be considered a referrence to the final day of judgement, it is a stretch to somehow interpret the offerings as the Lord's Supper.
"So if communion was not as essential as some claim, how is it that Christ warned of this event “stopping the grain offering” as the abomination where it makes holy worshipdesolate and the sacrificial system obsolete?
In addition, only an apostolic succession style churches insist on real wine while non-apostolic-succession do away with it. So many fail to link Joel with Daniel which in Joel 2: “Who knows if He will turn and relent, And leave a blessing behind Him—A grain offering and a drink offering For the Lord your God?”
The “drink offering” has always been wine."Christ wasn't even referring to communion when he was talking about the abomination of desolation, Again, the grain offering in Joel and Daniel do not refer to the Lord's Suppers, they refer to wine offerings and grain offerings, period. This whole point by Shoebat is moot.
We shall continue in the next part.
Answering Judaism.
No comments:
Post a Comment