Saturday 20 February 2016

The Abomination of Desolation: A response to Walid Shoebat 3

More arguments to get through ladies and gentlemen. Let's dive into them.

"In regards to a rebuilt temple, one key to unlock everything and end this argument once and for all, is to see where when Jesus said ‘Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up.’ Then the Jews said, ‘This Temple was forty-six years building, and will you rear it up in three days?’
Jesus Himself was that temple, while the confused, just as I used to be, were speaking of a literal temple. When it comes to heavenly issues, always think in reverse of what the earthly carnal minds think; the ways of God are not the ways of man.
And so lets examine all the divisive argumentation regarding Ezekiel’s Temple and see; Daniel, Ezekiel and even John, were all speaking of the same temple making clear this isnot an earthly temple on the Temple Mount, where Ezekiel’s temple, if one takes the literal measures, its about one square mile, larger than the entire ancient walled city of Jerusalem, and the holy portion for priests and Levites (about 40 by 50 miles) would cover an area ten times the circumference of Jerusalem. And if this temple is what some group in Israel called the Temple Institute are planning to build with all the implements, of lamp stand and altar of incense, Ezekiel’s temple has no showbread, no golden lamp stand, no altar of incense, no vail covering the entrance of the holy of holies and even no ark. For this temple to be rebuilt by some Temple Institute in Israel, these non-apostolics must first convince this Jewish group to follow Ezekiel’s design, which spiritually matches Christian theology, and as it appears, these Jews will refuse to do this in order to please non-apostolic Christians just to win an argument."

Jesus referring to himself as the temple is not a refutation of a literal temple to come. It is debatable whether or not it is a literal or spiritual or both. Eschatology is one topic that needs to approach with caution and as I said before, what I say about end times is conjecture on my part. Again, examine the claims of me or anyone with respect to eschatology. I personally don't claim an organization builds the temple such as the Temple Institute or any organization with a similar function.

And stop calling us non-apostolic Christians, Roman Catholicism HAS NO apostolic succession. But I digress.

"Ezekiel’s temple, its altar is approached by steps from the east (Ezekiel 43:17) where steps previously were forbidden because of nakedness, yet here, the Lord has removed our nakedness, or perhaps better put, we’re in a state of nakedness now as were Adam and Eve before they sinned, the east gate was shut and now its open and there is no shame.
No matter how one slices and dices the verses, objections abound, because many believe they can fully comprehend God’s mysteries which these frequently ignore. Many literalize Ezekiel’s Temple while others completely spiritualize it. This is done because many today ignore the ancient golden rule: the ancient church interpreted using the standard they call “the two senses” by applying both the spiritual and the literal."

And you can comprehend God's mysteries Mr Shoebat? I am not even sure how the steps are even relevant to his point. I have already said that Eschatology is to be approached with caution. I leave you guys to examine the comments.

"The Eucharist, for example, can be defined in the ‘two senses’ – one as the actual celebration of remembering the last supper of Jesus (the Rite/Sacrament) as well as the bread and wine which is consecrated and through transubstantiation becomes the body and blood of Christ.
The temple is said to “make atonement for the house of Israel” (45:17) and this excludes it from being just a memorial (not that its not). Again, Christ Himself instituted the use ofwine and bread to both commemorate His death (1 Cor. 11:24–26) and to be consumed literally. Unless one understands this duality, we should expect more divisions in the church as if there is not enough which Christ warned never  to do."

And we all know how much of a lie transubstansiation is, let's nip the misuse of 1 Corinthians 11-24:26 in the bud:

"1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world"

Paul in the context lays down in the chapter how to approach the Lord's Supper, what the conduct should be etc. He also makes it clear that coming to the Lord's Supper with unconfessed sin, will bring judgement to a person, either by illness or dying prematurely.

Some have claimed that Paul is referring to those who deny transubstantiation, However that misses the entire premise Paul is laying out in his letter. See my article on John 6 for other points on other texts:

"For Christ to re-institute animal sacrifice upon His return defies scripture where God replaced animal sacrifices in which God never found any particular pleasure (Ps. 40:6; 51:16; Heb. 10:6). Even the “prince” they speak about who enters the temple, Ezekiel says that “the prince” will offer a sin offering “for himself and for all the people” (45:22). This prince cannot be what many believe as the Messiah. Ezekiel’s prince is required to offer sacrifices for his own sins, this would militate against any theory that identifies him with Christ, who never sinned. So obviously, this is the church’s leader.
Is it possible then that this temple is a centralized worship in a specified geographical place? How could this be, especially when Jesus announced to the Samaritan woman that levitical temple worship will end and be replaced with spiritual worship (John 4:21–24; cf. Acts 7:48–50)? The folly always occurs when we either strictly spiritualize orcompletely literalize Ezekiel’s text."
Regarding the two texts from the Psalms:
"Psalm 51:16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;

    you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.

17 My sacrifice, O God, is[b] a broken spirit;

    a broken and contrite heart

    you, God, will not despise."

"Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire—

    but my ears you have opened[c]—

    burnt offerings and sin offerings[d] you did not require."

These texts do not suggest that God is against sacrifices in and of themselves nor a denial of them or he takes NO delight in them. In fact Samuel said to obey God's voice is better than many sacrifices but this is not a denial of sacrifice. Although God prefers to have our constant unflinching obedience, these texts don't help Shoebat's case.

As for the point in Ezekiel 45, let us read the last section in question:
"21 “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall celebrate the Feast of the Passover, and for seven days unleavened bread shall be eaten. 22 On that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a young bull for a sin offering. 23 And on the seven days of the festival he shall provide as a burnt offering to the Lord seven young bulls and seven rams without blemish, on each of the seven days; and a male goat daily for a sin offering. 24 And he shall provide as a grain offering an ephah for each bull, an ephah for each ram, and a hin[j] of oil to each ephah. 25 In the seventh month, on the fifteenth day of the month and for the seven days of the feast, he shall make the same provision for sin offerings, burnt offerings, and grain offerings, and for the oil."

Like Ezekiel 44:27 (See this article where I respond to someone who uses that text:, The sacrifices are done in commemoration of what the Messiah has done with respect to the atonement that he provides. If there is a third temple and the NT is true at the same time, it is safe to say exegetically that the sacrifices are done for their reason. Jesus doesn't offer a sin offering because he needs it, but because it is commemoration of what he has done of behalf of The Jews and the Gentiles, namely his sacrificial death. That is how the sacrifices are conducted. See Contra Blumenthal for a discussion on this matter, specifically the section "Role of the Temple in the Messianic Era":

The temple is present during the Millennial reign of Christ, not while the Gospel is being preached to all the nations. I agree that we will worship the Father in spirit and in truth and where we worship will not matter, but does that deal with the point about a literal temple? Not really.

We'll continue the response if the Lord Wills.

Answering Judaism.

No comments:

Post a Comment