"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?

[Athetotheist]

...the text in Ezekiel isn't just a visual illustration; it includes a set of instructions for specific things to be done. Some of those things are the sacrifice of bulls and goats as sin offerings, which in no way invites a Christian interpretation.

Who not? The Apostle Paul just just that. He gives a detailed explanation of how the entire temple based system ( including its features of sacrificing and various ceremonies) was symbolic of a spiritual reality ( See Hebrews Chapter 8). When talking, (as the bible offer does) of "types and antitypes", anything and anyone can be used to represent something entirely different whether future physical events , abstract ideas or spiritual realities.

"Thus says the Lord God: In the first month, on the first day of the month, you shall take a young bull without blemish and cleanse the sanctuary. The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the doorposts of the temple, on the four corners of the ledge of the altar and on the gateposts of the gate of the inner court. And so you shall do on the seventh day of the month for everyone who has sinned unintentionally or in ignorance. Thus you shall make atonement for the temple." (Ezekiel 45:18-20)

This is a second-person directive and indicates nothing about any third person, like a self-sacrificing Messiah, doing anything.

[Athetotheist]

Wasn't there also supposed to be something special about 1874, 1914, 1925 and 1975 ....

Yes according to our (Jehovahs Witness) beliefs, there was.

I'm still not clear on 1919. ....

Well generally when people don't understand something they ask a question of someone that is in a position to help them . Was there something you wanted to ask? if so what is your question ?

I asked my question at the end of post #18.

[JehovahsWitness]

I asked my question at the end of post #18.

How does one distinguish between not being "worthy" to understand something and just concluding that there's no evidence that anything happened?

Who are you asking me about being worthy to understand something ? Did I mention worthiness in this thread and how is worthiness relevant to the OP?



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

...the text in Ezekiel isn't just a visual illustration; it includes a set of instructions for specific things to be done. Some of those things are the sacrifice of bulls and goats as sin offerings, which in no way invites a Christian interpretation.

Who not? The Apostle Paul just just that. He gives a detailed explanation of how the entire temple based system ( including its features of sacrificing and various ceremonies) was symbolic of a spiritual reality ( See Hebrews Chapter 8). When talking, (as the bible offer does) of "types and antitypes", anything and anyone can be used to represent something entirely different whether future physical events , abstract ideas or spiritual realities.

"Thus says the Lord God: In the first month, on the first day of the month, you shall take a young bull without blemish and cleanse the sanctuary. The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the doorposts of the temple, on the four corners of the ledge of the altar and on the gateposts of the gate of the inner court. And so you shall do on the seventh day of the month for everyone who has sinned unintentionally or in ignorance. Thus you shall make atonement for the temple." (Ezekiel 45:18-20)

This is a second-person directive and indicates nothing about any third person, like a self-sacrificing Messiah, doing anything.

Well that would be a symbolic you not a literal one.

....indicates nothing about any third person, like a self-sacrificing Messiah, doing anything.

So?

[1213]

Do you know why it is regarded as Messianic age? Is there something in the scripture that says so?

"My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will also walk in my judgements and observe my statutes, and do them.......The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore." (Ezekiel 37:24, 28)

Interesting interpretation. It is also interesting what is God’s sanctuary, because according to the Bible, Jesus is the God’s temple, God dwells in Jesus.

But what do you think, who is the second lord of David?

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

[Athetotheist]

I asked my question at the end of post #18.

How does one distinguish between not being "worthy" to understand something and just concluding that there's no evidence that anything happened?

Who are you asking me about being worthy to understand something ? Did I mention worthiness in this thread and how is worthiness relevant to the OP?

I thought I saw worthiness mentioned in a thread one of your links went to. Maybe I was mistaken. If so, I will assume that you don't consider those who question your position on lack of evidence unworthy.

[Athetotheist]

...the text in Ezekiel isn't just a visual illustration; it includes a set of instructions for specific things to be done. Some of those things are the sacrifice of bulls and goats as sin offerings, which in no way invites a Christian interpretation.

Who not? The Apostle Paul just just that. He gives a detailed explanation of how the entire temple based system ( including its features of sacrificing and various ceremonies) was symbolic of a spiritual reality ( See Hebrews Chapter 8). When talking, (as the bible offer does) of "types and antitypes", anything and anyone can be used to represent something entirely different whether future physical events , abstract ideas or spiritual realities.

"Thus says the Lord God: In the first month, on the first day of the month, you shall take a young bull without blemish and cleanse the sanctuary. The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the doorposts of the temple, on the four corners of the ledge of the altar and on the gateposts of the gate of the inner court. And so you shall do on the seventh day of the month for everyone who has sinned unintentionally or in ignorance. Thus you shall make atonement for the temple." (Ezekiel 45:18-20)

This is a second-person directive and indicates nothing about any third person, like a self-sacrificing Messiah, doing anything.

Well that would be a symbolic you not a literal one.

It wouldn't have been symbolic to those in Ezekiel's time anticipating the building of a new temple, would it?

....indicates nothing about any third person, like a self-sacrificing Messiah, doing anything.

So?

So if this messianic age is being ruled by a self-sacrificing Messiah, why all the bulls and goats and no mention of him?

[Athetotheist]

Do you know why it is regarded as Messianic age? Is there something in the scripture that says so?

"My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will also walk in my judgements and observe my statutes, and do them.......The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore." (Ezekiel 37:24, 28)

Interesting interpretation. It is also interesting what is God’s sanctuary, because according to the Bible, Jesus is the God’s temple, God dwells in Jesus.

But what do you think, who is the second lord of David?

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

[JehovahsWitness]

It wouldn't have been symbolic to those in Ezekiel's time anticipating the building of a new temple, would it?

Why not ? The exiled Jews were familiar with the concept of sybolism and would have known enough about 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.

Should de take Ezekiels visions literally ? LINKS
viewtopic.php?p=1023959#p1023959
viewtopic.php?p=1023954#p1023954

... if this messianic age is being ruled by a self-sacrificing Messiah, why all the bulls and goats and no mention of him?

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

[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?

Should de take Ezekiels visions literally ? LINKS
viewtopic.php?p=1023959#p1023959
viewtopic.php?p=1023954#p1023954

... if this messianic age is being ruled by a self-sacrificing Messiah, why all the bulls and goats and no mention of him?

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"?