"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]

Our (Jehovah's Witness) interpretation of Ezekiel's vision of a restoration temple and its land is a description of Gods (Jehovah's) standards for worship since 1919 extending through to the end of the millenium. The chieftan (the prince) represent earthly adimistrators that care for worshippers.



JW

RELATED POSTS

What happened in 1919?
viewtopic.php?p=1021307#p1021307

To read more please go to other posts related to...

RELIGION, CHRISTIANITY and ...JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

[Athetotheist]

Our (Jehovah's Witness) interpretation of Ezekiel's vision of a restoration temple and its land is a description of Gods (Jehovah's) standards for worship since 1919 extending through to the end of the millenium. The chieftan (the prince) represent earthly adimistrators that care for worshippers.

Why, in 1919, would God's standards for worship revert to a focus on bulls and kid goats if the whole idea was that a self-sacrificing Messiah had replaced them? Doesn't it make more sense to just interpret it literally as it was written to exiled Jews?

[JehovahsWitness]

Our (Jehovah's Witness) interpretation of Ezekiel's vision of a restoration temple and its land is a description of Gods (Jehovah's) standards for worship since 1919 extending through to the end of the millenium. The chieftan (the prince) represent earthly adimistrators that care for worshippers.

Why, in 1919, would God's standards for worship revert to a focus on bulls and kid goats if the whole idea was that a self-sacrificing Messiah had replaced them?

You seems to be thinking in literal terms, we on the the other hand take Ezekiel's vision to be SYMBOLIC.

There is my earlier post on what symbolism means.
viewtopic.php?p=1011457#p1011457

Doesn't it make more sense to just interpret it literally as it was written to exiled Jews?

No, not really. The description doesnt lends to a literal reading

1. Mount Moriah can hardly be described as a "very high mountain" and certainly not higher than surrounding summets.

2. The proportions provided were huge and couldn't fit in the literal location.

3. The topology of the region doesnt allow for literally straight borders between the tribes, as described in the vision.

4. A literal river could not literaly desalinate the Mediterranean sea.

[Athetotheist]

You seems to be thinking in literal terms, we on the the other hand take Ezekiel's vision to be SYMBOLIC.

Is 37:24 also symbolic? Will God's servant David not literally rule over them, and will they not literally have one shepherd? If part of it is symbolic, could the rest of it be symbolic as well?

[JehovahsWitness]

You seems to be thinking in literal terms, we on the the other hand take Ezekiel's vision to be SYMBOLIC.

Is 37:24 also symbolic? Will God's servant David not literally rule over them, and will they not literally have one shepherd? If part of it is symbolic, could the rest of it be symbolic as well?

Yes of course ils symbolic; Isaiah 37: 22-29 is what would be described as a prophetic poem: Israël isnt a virgin girl (v22b), God doesnt have literal feet (v25) and there is no record of King Sen·nachʹer·ib having a hook in put in his nose. Its obviously symbolic.

Will God's servant David not literally rule over them ...?

No. All David's literal servants would have been long dead by the time Isaiah penned those words.

.... will they not literally have one shepherd?

No; a literal shepherd probably wouldn't be best qualified for government.

.... If part of it is symbolic, could the rest of it be symbolic as well?

Rest of what?



JW





JW

[Athetotheist]

You seems to be thinking in literal terms, we on the the other hand take Ezekiel's vision to be SYMBOLIC.

Is 37:24 also symbolic? Will God's servant David not literally rule over them, and will they not literally have one shepherd? If part of it is symbolic, could the rest of it be symbolic as well?

Yes of course ils symbolic; Isaiah 37: 22-29 is what would be described as a prophetic poem: Israël isnt a virgin girl (v22b), God doesnt have literal feet (v25) and there is no record of King Sen·nachʹer·ib having a hook in put in his nose. Its obviously symbolic.

Will God's servant David not literally rule over them ...?

No. All David's literal servants would have been long dead by the time Isaiah penned those words.

.... will they not literally have one shepherd?

No; a literal shepherd probably wouldn't be best qualified for government.

.... If part of it is symbolic, could the rest of it be symbolic as well?

Rest of what?

The rest of the book......?

If it's all symbolic, where's the Messiah?

[JehovahsWitness]

The rest of the book......?

Which book? The book of Isaiah ? Like the other books of the bible, some of Isaiah is symbolic (figurative, poetry...) and some is prose.


JW

[Athetotheist]

The rest of the book......?

Which book? The book of Isaiah ? Like the other books of the bible, some of Isaiah is symbolic (figurative, poetry...) and some is prose.

The book I've been talking about all along: Ezekiel.

How much is poetry and how much is prose? Is it only a symbolic temple they're to rebuild? How does symbolism "make atonement"?

[JehovahsWitness]

The rest of the book......?

Which book? The book of Isaiah ? Like the other books of the bible, some of Isaiah is symbolic (figurative, poetry...) and some is prose.

The book I've been talking about all along: Ezekiel.

How much is poetry and how much is prose? Is it only a symbolic temple they're to rebuild? How does symbolism "make atonement"?

Okay, its just you asked about Isaiah 37: 22 i post #5 too . ...How much is poetry and how much is prose in Ezekiel? I don't know I haven't done a comparative study. Off the top of my head I say at least 60% , that and the prophetic set pieces he was asked to perform.... but like I said a verse by verse count I have not done, so I couldn't say.

Is it only a symbolic temple they're to rebuild? How does symbolism "make atonement"?

They? They who? (It would help if you used a few more prosper nouns)

How does symbolism "make atonement"?

I dont understand the question? Did I say symbolism makes atonement? I can't begin to decifer what that even means.






JW



RELATED POSTS

What is God's spiritual temple?
viewtopic.php?p=1021279#p1021279

What is pictured by the chariot the Prophet Ezekiel saw in a vision?
viewtopic.php?p=1023112#p1023112

Will all of God's people collecte on a literal mountain?
viewtopic.php?p=1021243#p1021243

What is the New Jerusalem spoken of in the book of Revelation?
viewtopic.php?p=1021283#p1021283