"Memorials"?

[Athetotheist]

The last chapters of Ezekiel are generally regarded by Jews and Christians alike as a picture of the messianic age. From a Jewish perspective this may work, but Christian doctrine runs into a problem in chapter 45 when "the prince" makes sacrificial offerings----including sin offerings----for the people and for himself, which doesn't paint a very strong picture of a messianic age ruled by Jesus who already made the ultimate atoning sacrifice. Some apologists claim that the prince isn't Jesus and that the latter is in the background of the scenario, but that doesn't solve the problem since Jesus is supposed to have made the final sacrifice for everyone, so no further sacrifice should be necessary.

Here apologists resort to the claim that these are "memorial" sacrifices which are made to "remind" those living in the messianic age of what Jesus did. The problem with this is that the text itself gives a reason for the sacrifices, and that's not it:

"He (the prince) shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel. (Ezek. 45:17, bolding mine)

If those sacrifices are to be offered to make atonement, that means atonement hasn't been made until the sacrifices are offered. How then are they supposed to be "memorials" to some atonement already made by some sacrificial Messiah?

[JehovahsWitness]

The exiled Jews were familiar with the concept of sybolism and would have known enough with the topology of the region in question to see there must be a nonliteral application of at least some of the elements of Ezekiel's visions.

How would instructions for animal sacrifice be interpreted as the idea that a heavenly being would come to earth in human form and be sacrificed instead of animals? How do you get from that point A to that point B?

I could explain but as YOU said.,.

Never mind what I think. Let's consult the experts:

LINK #1
https://www.bible.com/bible/116/HEB.8.NLT

LINK #2
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Because the bulls and gifts where symbolic *of* him.

What makes you so sure? Is there a translation of the Bible in which Ezekiel meticulously records specific details for sacrificing bulls and goats and then declares, "So shall 'you' (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) make atonement"?

See above (link provided)



JW

[1213]

...
A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Psalm 110:1

Never mind what I think. Let's consult the experts:

https://www.jewsforjudaism.org/knowledg ... erspective

Ok, I agree that it does not mean Jesus is the God. But, I don’t think it is reasonable idea that the second lord is David in that. If we would think it means David, it would read: “The LORD said unto my David…”, in which the word “my” would not be reasonable, even if we would believe David is speaking of himself in third person.

[Athetotheist]

The exiled Jews were familiar with the concept of sybolism and would have known enough with the topology of the region in question to see there must be a nonliteral application of at least some of the elements of Ezekiel's visions.

How would instructions for animal sacrifice be interpreted as the idea that a heavenly being would come to earth in human form and be sacrificed instead of animals? How do you get from that point A to that point B?

I could explain but as YOU said.,.

Never mind what I think. Let's consult the experts:

LINK #1
https://www.bible.com/bible/116/HEB.8.NLT

LINK #2
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Because the bulls and gifts where symbolic *of* him.

What makes you so sure? Is there a translation of the Bible in which Ezekiel meticulously records specific details for sacrificing bulls and goats and then declares, "So shall 'you' (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) make atonement"?

See above (link provided)



JW

The letter to the Hebrews and the first epistle of Peter......so the Christian claim is true because Christian authors said so? I would provide a link to an explanation of circular reasoning, but I'm sure that isn't necessary.

The Hebrews link mentions the promise of the new covenant laid out in Jeremiah 31 ("no more will they teach each other, they will all know me). If to "know the Lord" means knowing Jesus, then Jesus clearly didn't establish that covenant (most Jews remain highly resistant to Christianity), which indicates that the covenant has nothing to do with him.

[Athetotheist]

...
A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Psalm 110:1

Never mind what I think. Let's consult the experts:

https://www.jewsforjudaism.org/knowledg ... erspective

Ok, I agree that it does not mean Jesus is the God. But, I don’t think it is reasonable idea that the second lord is David in that. If we would think it means David, it would read: “The LORD said unto my David…”, in which the word “my” would not be reasonable, even if we would believe David is speaking of himself in third person.

David could be writing about the Jewish Messiah without suggesting that he would be divine:

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... vine-being

I've heard Christian preachers slip the word "Adonai" into their commentary on this verse ("Adonai" being a biblical name for God) when the word in the text is adoni , which is used to refer to a mortal human lord.

[JehovahsWitness]

....so the Christian claim is true because Christian authors said so? I would provide a link to an explanation of circular reasoning, but I'm sure that isn't necessary.

Firstly You did not ask about the truth of Christian claims, you asked ....

How would instructions for animal sacrifice be interpreted as the idea that a heavenly being would come to earth in human form and be sacrificed instead of animals? How do you get from that point A to that point B?

The link provided the information requested.

The Hebrews link mentions the promise of the new covenant laid out in Jeremiah 31 ("no more will they teach each other, they will all know me). If to "know the Lord" means knowing Jesus, then Jesus clearly didn't establish that covenant (most Jews remain highly resistant to Christianity), which indicates that the covenant has nothing to do with him.

The me in Jeremiah 31 is not Jesus. Thus your point is moto.

[Athetotheist]

Firstly You did not ask about the truth of Christian claims, you asked ....

How would instructions for animal sacrifice be interpreted as the idea that a heavenly being would come to earth in human form and be sacrificed instead of animals? How do you get from that point A to that point B?

The link provided the information requested.

The truth of Christian claims hangs on whether or not the author's "information" makes any sense.

The Hebrews link mentions the promise of the new covenant laid out in Jeremiah 31 ("no more will they teach each other, they will all know me). If to "know the Lord" means knowing Jesus, then Jesus clearly didn't establish that covenant (most Jews remain highly resistant to Christianity), which indicates that the covenant has nothing to do with him.

JehovahsWitness wrote:

The me in Jeremiah 31 is not Jesus. Thus your point is moto.

I didn't say it was Jesus but, according to the author of Hebrews, Jesus is the "High Priest" who "mediates" the new covenant. So the author of Hebrews is definitely linking Jesus to the covenant in Jeremiah. The problem with this has been pointed out.

[JehovahsWitness]

I didn't say it was Jesus but, according to the author of Hebrews, Jesus is the "High Priest" who "mediates" the new covenant. So the author of Hebrews is definitely linking Jesus to the covenant in Jeremiah. The problem with this has been pointed out.

The only thing problematic with the above is attempting to impose a literal interpretation on symbolic langage. The entire book of Hebrews is an explanation of the real meaning behind the Hebrew temple based system. The argumentation therein is flawless.

Feel free to argue otherwise,


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

The truth of Christian claims hangs on whether or not the author's "information" makes any sense.

Truth, any truth, doesn't "hang" on anything. It is what it is and exists entirely independently of whether it makes sense or not. While there seems to be an intrinsic logic to our universe, our perceptions are largely based on our understanding. There was a time when a spherical earth hurtling through space made absolument no sense at all. Strangly enough, that kept right on being true regardless.

Biblical, religious, spiritual philisophical truth are what they are. One can be convinced to believe or not , but this has no bearing on the truth in such matters.



JW

For more go to other posts related to...

GOD, TRUTH and ...RELIGION

[Athetotheist]

I didn't say it was Jesus but, according to the author of Hebrews, Jesus is the "High Priest" who "mediates" the new covenant. So the author of Hebrews is definitely linking Jesus to the covenant in Jeremiah. The problem with this has been pointed out.

The only thing problematic with the above is attempting to impose a literal interpretation on symbolic langage. The entire book of Hebrews is an explanation of the real meaning behind the Hebrew temple based system. The argumentation therein is flawless.

Feel free to argue otherwise,


JW

Hebrews isn't an "explanation" of the temple system; it's an interpretation of it, and a highly questionable one at that. How did the "High Priest" mediate the new covenant when the conditions of that covenant haven't been realized? Or was the covenant itself "symbolic" and, if so, who's to say when it's been established and by whom?

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... -testament

[Athetotheist]

The truth of Christian claims hangs on whether or not the author's "information" makes any sense.

Truth, any truth, doesn't "hang" on anything. It is what it is and exists entirely independently of whether it makes sense or not. While there seems to be an intrinsic logic to our universe, our perceptions are largely based on our understanding. There was a time when a spherical earth hurtling through space made absolument no sense at all. Strangly enough, that kept right on being true regardless.

Biblical, religious, spiritual philisophical truth are what they are. One can be convinced to believe or not , but this has no bearing on the truth in such matters.

The difference being that a spherical earth was recognized through empirical observation, which moved it from the philisophical realm of "truth" to the scientific realm of "fact".