Then you should have no problem reading his book for his full testimony.
Zechariah 14:20–21 states prophetically: “On that day … all who come to sacrifice [in Jerusalem] will take some of the pots and cook in them.” Most premillennialists agree that this passage is speaking of a time after Christ’s first coming. Why is it so problematic for them? Because they understand these events to occur during the 1000-year reign of Christ over an earthly kingdom with its capital at Jerusalem.
Here’s the rub. After Christ has died and set up His kingdom, why would sacrifices be resumed? There is absolutely no good Protestant response to that question. Evangelicals are adamant about the fact that priesthood here on earth is no longer needed. Sacrifices after the passion of Christ are unnecessary. The crucifixion of Christ was the last sacrifice ever needed. So why rebuild Jerusalem’s temple? This verse had remained an enigma to me for sixteen years, ever since seminary. When I was investigating Catholic Church teaching, I realized that Zechariah was actually talking about a sacrifice offered in Jerusalem every day now. He was referring to the Eucharist!
This sounds like a wannbe RC who is desperate to find some text of Scripture to justify his claim to be a fundy who found Scriptural basis for Rome, but fails in his attempt to do so, and who also must misrepresent evangelical teaching in so doing, or display an ignorance that is contrary to the claims of his testimony.
Unless one makes this allegorical, Zech. 12 is clearly referring to the future as anyone who understands context (and a fundy harps on that) should be able to tell you, even amazingly describing what sounds like a nuclear holocaust almost 200 years before such as known.
Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. (Zechariah 14:3)
And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. (Zechariah 14:4)
And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth. (Zechariah 14:12)
And the sacrifices are not referring to the Catholic mass, but the reinstitution of Jewish sacrifices consistent the rebuilt tempt and David reigning as king, as Ezekiel describes. Thus before we get to Currie's out-of-context verses, Zechariah states,
And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. (Zechariah 14:16-17)
And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. (Zechariah 14:18-19)
Then we come to Currie's proof text,
In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE Lord; and the pots in the Lord's house shall be like the bowls before the altar. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the Lord of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts. (Zechariah 14:20-21)
But regardless of how much Curries wants this to confirm to his belief, rather than Zechariah actually talking about the Eucharist being offered in Jerusalem every day now, it is clear he was referring to a future temple and time when Jewish sacrifices take place. For as the "blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in,"(Romans 11:25) and then the curse of blindness is removed, then the remnant of Jews that remain shall believe (and the CCC supports a latter-day Jewish conversion).
And in the millennium, in which believers will be reigns as kings and priests, (Revelation 5:10) many texts teach that the Jews will manifest their faithfulness in that period. And for saints to rule they must have someone to rule over, and it is evident in Rv. 20:7-9 that unbelievers are part of the population, and who will be temporally punished as Zechariah foretells, before being burnt by fire from Heaven at the end.
Some do spiritualize this all, but not only are the specs for the temple Ezekiel describes at length different than that of Exodus, but the description by Ezekiel in cps 36-48 (besides other prophecies) would be unique for figurative language in their extensive detail, and do not lend themselves well to the extensive figurative interpretation required, but correspond well to the futurist understanding of Revelation with its Jewish tribes.
In addition is the absurd claim of this sppsd fundamentalist, that
There is absolutely no good Protestant response to that question. Evangelicals are adamant about the fact that priesthood here on earth is no longer needed. Sacrifices after the passion of Christ are unnecessary.
For the belief in a future temple and Jewish priesthood offering memorial sacrifice is quite common among fundamentalists, while the fact that the NT nowhere refers to pastors distinctively as priests does not pose a problem as futurist fundies understand that the coventantal changes that the 1k year reign of Christ signifies allow for a sacerdotal priesthood offering memorial sacrfiices, and it seems incongruous that Currie would not know this was not a problem if he was as learned as he seems to convey.
The popular Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown states on Zechariah 14:16:
every one ... left — (Isa_66:19, Isa_66:23). God will conquer all the foes of the Church. Some He will destroy; others He will bring into willing subjection.
And on Zec 14:20:
The priesthood of Christ will be explained more fully both by the Mosaic types and by the New Testament in that temple of which Ezekiel speaks. Then the Song of Solomon, now obscure, will be understood, for the marriage feast of the Lamb will be celebrated in heaven (Rev_19:1-21), and on earth it will be a Solomonic period, peaceful, glorious, and nuptial. There will be no king but a prince; the sabbatic period of the judges will return, but not with the Old Testament, but New Testament glory (Isa_1:26; Eze_45:1-25) [Roos].
And more recently, about a year ago wmfights posted "Theological Implications of Zechariah 14" from fundamentalist Michael J. Vlach, with a Ph.D.from in Systematic Theology from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, which holds the futurist position, and many more could be added, including futurists from both Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2420732/posts?page=67#67, which Currie lists in his parent pedigree
As a former weekly RC (who had became born again while still a Catholic) and fundamental Baptist, i am skeptical of this man's testimony.
I agree. In fact I’m more inclined to out and out believe he has been deceived.
Then you should have no problem reading his book for his full testimony.
His testimony is about how he was raised obviously to tell us he thought he had the truth to begin with. Since he was snatched from The Father's Hand shows He was never His to begin with.
And here's the rub..When I was investigating Catholic Church teaching, I realized that Zechariah was actually talking about a sacrifice offered in Jerusalem every day now. He was referring to the Eucharist!
If someone 'supposedly' had the truth being a PK and being in seminary to boot - how came he never knew Jesus - as His Word clearly shows what He says about man made teachings and their worship is in vain as it comes from the lips and not the heart.
He looks at what catholicism calls 'church fathers' - what man says instead of the HEAD of His Church - Jesus The Word says or what Isaiah and Paul said through the inspired Word of God.
All these double minded people look in all the wrong places for Truth. We don't look to our parents or any man but to JESUS The Word. All his pomp about how many times he went to church being a PK means nothing because I attended church every day during the school year from 1st through 12th. Church before school was a necessity since the church was attached to the school. Then Saturday was for confession and Sunday for mass.
He makes it all about himself/what he did and/or upbringing and NOTHING about what Jesus already did. It's all about Jesus and a personal relationship with The Father. He can't achieve a personal relationship by simply being a church goer, a seminary graduate or through one's parents. He never allowed his heart to be circumcised nor knew he must. The Holy Spirit is The Teacher.
i am skeptical of this man's testimony.
He never knew Jesus so his testimony is more about himself/pride and nothing what Jesus did for him. It's not surprising he ended up with man made teaching as his guide and not the Holy Spirit.