|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 16, 2011 18:30:14 GMT -5
Ted wrote: The name "David" may be used to refer to the princely line of David. We know that "David" refers to the succession of princes because of the plural reference to "princes" and also because the son of each prince takes over. Therefore, the succession of Davidic princes is IMPLIED: Author Harry Whittaker correctly says that Ezekiel cannot have a future fulfillment and that the "prince" is a succession of princes: A succession of Davidic princes is implied in the statement that the prince will beget a son who will beget a son, etc. (45:8). Ted wrote: Absolutely not! David cannot be Christ. The prince (David) will be required to offer a sacrifice for his own sins. Do you believe that Christ will be required to offer a sin offering for Himself as well as for the people? I have already pointed out these things. Are you not paying attention? Are you really a Partial Pret? I ask because you show some Futurist tendencies regarding Ezekiel. Roo Ted, I second Jack's general thesis. Hebrew doesn't have words like Adamite, Israelite, Jew or Judahite, Benjamite, etc. A descendant of one of these folks, is literally called by his "father's" name. In Hebrew, he is his father. I haven't paid attention as to whether this applies to the specific example here. But as a general rule, what Jackaroo said is solid. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 16, 2011 19:12:33 GMT -5
Vaughn wrote: Jackaroo.  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 16, 2011 20:13:22 GMT -5
... Absolutely not! David cannot be Christ. The prince (David) will be required to offer a sacrifice for his own sins. Do you believe that Christ will be required to offer a sin offering for Himself as well as for the people? Jesus was baptized, yet had no sin to confess and repent of, so it's not inconceivable that he could be said to "offer a sin offering for Himself as well as for the people." ...Are you not paying attention? Are you really a Partial Pret? I ask because you show some Futurist tendencies regarding Ezekiel. I'm just trying to be helpful here, but don't you think statements like that are a little provocative? By that, I mean they might provoke a defensive response. I just think they are the kinds of statements that launch volleys that could have been avoided by not challenging a person in that way. You are challenging the person there, and not the position. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 16, 2011 20:27:51 GMT -5
Bev wrote:
Now please note what Ted said,
Ted could have said, "Roo, please give your rationale for saying that David is a succession of princes." Ted employed a little sarcasm Himself and I was inclined to oblige.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 16, 2011 20:38:38 GMT -5
Bev wrote: Now please note what Ted said, Ted could have said, "Roo, please give your rationale for saying that David is a succession of princes." Ted employed a little sarcasm Himself and I was inclined to oblige. Roo Well, as long as you both take each other's comments in a spirit of fun, then no harm, no foul. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 16, 2011 21:49:34 GMT -5
I haven't paid attention as to whether this applies to the specific example here. But as a general rule, what Jackaroo said is solid. Okay by me. So, you agree with KJ that all of Ezekiel was fulfilled well BEFORE 30 AD? I don't see it that way, but I hate the book...  |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 16, 2011 22:51:56 GMT -5
I haven't paid attention as to whether this applies to the specific example here. But as a general rule, what Jackaroo said is solid. Okay by me. So, you agree with KJ that all of Ezekiel was fulfilled well BEFORE 30 AD? I don't see it that way, but I hate the book... Nope, just Jack's comments on David. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 17, 2011 9:45:23 GMT -5
Okay by me. So, you agree with KJ that all of Ezekiel was fulfilled well BEFORE 30 AD? I don't see it that way, but I hate the book... Nope, just Jack's comments on David. Jeff, And all this time I thought that the expression "Fulfilled Eschatology" meant that ALL prophecy has been Fulfiiled. I told you that I go further than a lot of Full Prets. The difference is that I am consistent. The fulfillment of "EVERY vision" was "AT HAND" (Chapter 12). Roo |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 17, 2011 10:13:04 GMT -5
Nope, just Jack's comments on David. Jeff, And all this time I thought that the expression "Fulfilled Eschatology" meant that ALL prophecy has been Fulfiiled. I told you that I go further than a lot of Full Prets. The difference is that I am consistent. The fulfillment of "EVERY vision" was "AT HAND" (Chapter 12). Roo Roo, I hadn't been following this thread. I have not studied Ezekiel enough. What visions were at hand? What vision was part of every vision? Joel's visions? Peter's visions? Isaiah's visions? Daniel's visions? The visions Ezekiel hadn't had yet? When was Ezekial 12 given? Ezekiel 14:14 speaks of Noah, Job, and Daniel. When was that vision given? When was it fulfilled? |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 17, 2011 16:09:08 GMT -5
The visions of Ezekiel 12 are explicitly about the cleansing of the land (vs. 22). It says that there would be no more false vision or flattering divination within the house of Israel. It says that the fulfillment was "at hand."
Chapter 37 is also about the cleansing of the land. The fulfillment began with those who had already been scattered. They would be regathered and David their prince, that is, the succession of princes from David's line would rule over them and their children and their children's children (37:21-26). There would be no more profaning the name of the Lord.
The reference to Noah, Daniel and Job in 14:14 begins with "even if" indicating a hypothetical situation.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 17, 2011 16:47:56 GMT -5
After being able to look at Ezekiel 12 more closely I can now speak on these "visions" mentioned in verse 22. I think these visions are not the ones that would follow afterward in the book of Ezekiel, but are the ones that false prophets were giving to the people.
The people had fallen away from the Lord and worshiped other gods, yet the prophets assured them that all is fine and no judgment is coming to them, saying "You shall have peace" and "No evil shall come upon you". "They speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the LORD". (Jeremiah 23)
This is what is being paralleled in Ezekiel 12. (Even the use of the Hebrew word for "burden" is used in both passages). God was about to carry them away into captivity yet the so-called prophets told the people the opposite. The proverb was that they would continue in the land despite what the real visions said, "If you do not obey...". Note Ezekiel chapter 13.
In other words, what God warned the people about was coming, and coming very soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 17, 2011 17:27:34 GMT -5
One more thought. What an amazing picture the return from captivity paints for the work of Christ!
Ezekiel 39:17
"And as for you, son of man, thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Speak to every sort of bird and to every beast of the field:
Assemble yourselves and come; Gather together from all sides to My sacrificial meal Which I am sacrificing for you, A great sacrificial meal on the mountains of Israel, That you may eat flesh and drink blood."
John 6:53
"Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you."
1 Corinthians 11:24,25
"and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” "
I thought I'd share since it spoke to me.
|
|
