The Book of Ezequiel

What does this Book describe/discuss?

Glowpun said:

What does this Book describe/discuss?

Click to expand...

Its been awhile but if I remember it correctly he basically telling the Israelites that if they don't change their ways they will be up **** creek without a paddle and he likens their interaction with pagans and behavior is metaphorically to that of prostitutes except without any befit to themselves while actual prostitutes at least get paid for what they do.

Glowpun said:

What does this Book describe/discuss?

Click to expand...

It is a prophetic book about Israel, based on several visions of Ezekiel (Ezequiel, spelled a dozen different ways) while in exile.

The best way to describe the organization of the book boils down to a harsh judgement and warning for Israel, a harsh judgement and warning about surrounding nations, and lastly the conditions for rebuilding Israel with God's grace. The entire book is riddled with various warnings and an explanation for the fall of Jerusalem, in a sort of nationalistic way concerning God's laws. The writings came off as both a warning about the future and an explanation for why certain things occurred. Ezekiel presented a prophecy about Israel's "triumph" over adversaries. He also presented several notions of Israel's role, including the notion of the righteous and the wicked as being those with or without "Yahweh's" laws. He concluded with the idea of a high priest, instead of a King, as one responsible for political, religious, and international affairs. Which was a real departure from prior understandings on the relationship of royalty to God. In all of its phases, basically you are talking about a prophecy for Israel.

As both inclusion and criticism, some of those notions made their way into important aspects of Judaism and Christianity. Both in the older world sense of looking at God and laws as a means of righteous action against enemies, a way to warn people of wrath, and a bridge between aristocracy and theocracy. In historical context there is question on exactly the conditions Ezekiel wrote this, but for the time period it stands to reason why these writings could be looked at as a strong basis for Israel nationalism and importance in terms of God's will.

Glowpun said:

What does this Book describe/discuss?

Click to expand...

Ezekiel is one of the major prophets of the bible following Isaiah and Jeremiah. If I remember correctly there are 5 major prophets in the old testament.
Their job was to put Israel back on the straight and narrow with God. As it was there constant falling into pagan ways that got them in trouble and conquered.

Their disobedience and corruption lead to them being conquered by babylon and exiled from Israel.
It also references the coming of Christ and that he would be of the line of David.

It is a book of hope and warning like most books of prophecy, however one interesting thing about the prophets of the old testament they were pretty accurate with
there warnings and predictions.

Isaiah and others foretold the coming of Christ 500 years before he arrived.
The old testament is a really interesting series of books full of solid events of history from that area of the region.

ludin said:

Ezekiel is one of the major prophets of the bible following Isaiah and Jeremiah. If I remember correctly there are 5 major prophets in the old testament.
Their job was to put Israel back on the straight and narrow with God. As it was there constant falling into pagan ways that got them in trouble and conquered.

Their disobedience and corruption lead to them being conquered by babylon and exiled from Israel.
It also references the coming of Christ and that he would be of the line of David.

It is a book of hope and warning like most books of prophecy, however one interesting thing about the prophets of the old testament they were pretty accurate with
there warnings and predictions.

Isaiah and others foretold the coming of Christ 500 years before he arrived.
The old testament is a really interesting series of books full of solid events of history from that area of the region.

Click to expand...

On the contrary. None of the prophets talked about Jesus at all. The writers of the New Testament took phrases out of context, vague references, and wrote to them to promote Jesus as the messiah, but if you actually look at what they said, the writers of the new Testament misused those phrases.

RAMOSS said:

On the contrary. None of the prophets talked about Jesus at all. The writers of the New Testament took phrases out of context, vague references, and wrote to them to promote Jesus as the messiah, but if you actually look at what they said, the writers of the new Testament misused those phrases.

Click to expand...

spoil sport :mrgreen:

RAMOSS said:

On the contrary. None of the prophets talked about Jesus at all. The writers of the New Testament took phrases out of context, vague references, and wrote to them to promote Jesus as the messiah, but if you actually look at what they said, the writers of the new Testament misused those phrases.

Click to expand...

here is why you are wrong.......because you do not quote the person correctly

ludin did not say jesus, he said Christ.

it is foretold that Christ shall enter into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, about 500 years before it happened.

Zechariah 9:9 specifically speaks of the Messiah riding into Jerusalem on a young donkey and being hailed as a king. This took place on what we call Palm Sunday, when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey the Sunday before His crucifixion (John 12:14-15).

RAMOSS said:

On the contrary. None of the prophets talked about Jesus at all. The writers of the New Testament took phrases out of context, vague references, and wrote to them to promote Jesus as the messiah, but if you actually look at what they said, the writers of the new Testament misused those phrases.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that Jesus lied about himself? I find that an odd thing for the Son of God to do. More so because it would have made him Sin against God.
Please prove that Christ was a liar.

as proven before the prophet Ezekiel proves that the Messiah will be born of line of David. Christ was born in the line of David as documented not once but two times in the new testament.

so prove he is lying I will be waiting.

ernst barkmann said:

here is why you are wrong.......because you do not quote the person correctly

ludin did not say jesus, he said Christ.

it is foretold that Christ shall enter into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, about 500 years before it happened.

Zechariah 9:9 specifically speaks of the Messiah riding into Jerusalem on a young donkey and being hailed as a king. This took place on what we call Palm Sunday, when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey the Sunday before His crucifixion (John 12:14-15).

Click to expand...

Christ and Jesus go hand in hand. They are the same person there is no distinction between the two of them.

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Luke 24
25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

ludin said:

Christ and Jesus go hand in hand. They are the same person there is no distinction between the two of them.

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Click to expand...

yes i understand that...but the other poster is saying the old testament does not mention jesus, and that word "jesus" is not in the old testament.

so he is mis-quoting you on what you have said, to try to make his point.

ernst barkmann said:

yes i understand that...but the other poster is saying the old testament does not mention jesus, and that word "jesus" is not in the old testament.

so he is mis-quoting you on what you have said, to try to make his point.

Click to expand...

I do believe that he is an orthodox jew. so he will never admit that Jesus was the messiah.

ludin said:

I do believe that he is an orthodox jew. so he will never admit that Jesus was the messiah.

Click to expand...

ok..i was just pointing out how people misquote other people to make a point which is not correct.

you were correct, and i wanted that point ..made clear!

ernst barkmann said:

here is why you are wrong.......because you do not quote the person correctly

ludin did not say jesus, he said Christ.

it is foretold that Christ shall enter into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, about 500 years before it happened.

Zechariah 9:9 specifically speaks of the Messiah riding into Jerusalem on a young donkey and being hailed as a king. This took place on what we call Palm Sunday, when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey the Sunday before His crucifixion (John 12:14-15).

Click to expand...

The entire concept of 'CHrist' is different in the Jewish religion verses the CHristian religion. and, it doesn't matter if you say 'Jesus' , or 'Christ', the criticism stands.
That whole 'John 12:14-15' is what is called 'writing to'. and it is taking something that probably happened 10's of thousands of times too. I wonder how many thousands upon thousands of people rode donkey's into Jerusalem , and didn't get to be called the messiah?

ludin said:

I do believe that he is an orthodox jew. so he will never admit that Jesus was the messiah.

Click to expand...

For a very good reason. The conditions and feats needed for someone to be the messiah never happened.

RAMOSS said:

The entire concept of 'CHrist' is different in the Jewish religion verses the CHristian religion. and, it doesn't matter if you say 'Jesus' , or 'Christ', the criticism stands.
That whole 'John 12:14-15' is what is called 'writing to'. and it is taking something that probably happened 10's of thousands of times too. I wonder how many thousands upon thousands of people rode donkey's into Jerusalem , and didn't get to be called the messiah?

Click to expand...

this is the simple truth

you stated jesus and tied it to ludin's post...he did not state that "word" he said Christ.

ludin said:

Are you saying that Jesus lied about himself? I find that an odd thing for the Son of God to do. More so because it would have made him Sin against God.
Please prove that Christ was a liar.

as proven before the prophet Ezekiel proves that the Messiah will be born of line of David. Christ was born in the line of David as documented not once but two times in the new testament.

so prove he is lying I will be waiting.

Click to expand...

Well, you are making some assumptions you can not show to be true. One, that what the Gospels claimed Jesus said about himself he actually said about himself, and two , that if that was the case, he was using the concept of 'Son of God' that Christians used, rather than what was commonly used by the Jews in the 1st century jerusalum, where the phrase 'Son of God' denoted a rightous and reliigious man, rather than the literal 'Son of God'

Can you show that the writers of the Gospels actually used the words that Jesus said, rather than put words into his mouth to push a specific theological agenda?
Can you show that 'Son of God' was meant literally the Son of God by jesus, rather than claiming he was a righteous man who thought he was elevated by God?

Those have to be shown to be true , and not just claims from the bible first. Can you do that?

ernst barkmann said:

this is the simple truth

you stated jesus and tied it to ludin's post...he did not state that "word" he said Christ.

Click to expand...

That is not relevant. IN this case, Jesus and Christ are interchangeable.. and my point about the New Testament writers remains. The way the New Testament writers distorted the Jewish scriptures IMO makes the NT unreliable.

RAMOSS said:

That is not relevant. IN this case, Jesus and Christ are interchangeable.. and my point about the New Testament writers remains. The way the New Testament writers distorted the Jewish scriptures IMO makes the NT unreliable.

Click to expand...

guy, ludin said Christ......he did not say jesus...you made the point.... he said jesus, and say the old testament does not mention jesus...well thats correct it does not...but he didn't say jesus...... so your not correct by quoting him.

RAMOSS said:

For a very good reason. The conditions and feats needed for someone to be the messiah never happened.

Click to expand...

Prove Christ is lying. you have yet to do so.

RAMOSS said:

That is not relevant. IN this case, Jesus and Christ are interchangeable.. and my point about the New Testament writers remains. The way the New Testament writers distorted the Jewish scriptures IMO makes the NT unreliable.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that Jews that knew the old testament by heart distorted their own scriptures? wow
please prove this.

ludin said:

Prove Christ is lying. you have yet to do so.

Click to expand...

Prove that "Christ" said anything that it si claiimed he said. You have yet to do that first.

Plus, you have not shown that saying 'Son of God' means a literal son of God either.. Until you do that, then, the 'lying or not' is not relevant.

Can you show that the writers of the new testament were telling the truth about what Jesus said?

RAMOSS said:

Prove that "Christ" said anything that it si claiimed he said. You have yet to do that first.

Plus, you have not shown that saying 'Son of God' means a literal son of God either.. Until you do that, then, the 'lying or not' is not relevant.

Can you show that the writers of the new testament were telling the truth about what Jesus said?

Click to expand...

I don't have to prove your argument. You have to prove your argument.
You are the one making the claim that they lied and distorted scripture. it is your job to prove your argument not mine.

this is simply a deflection because you can do neither.
it is also your claim that Christ lied about who he said he was so again I will be waiting for you to prove this.

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Luke 24
25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Please prove the distortion of scriptures both of these said by Christ. Which once again disprove your claims.

ludin said:

So you are saying that Jews that knew the old testament by heart distorted their own scriptures? wow
please prove this.

Click to expand...

No, quite the opposite. I am claiming that Christians are. The writers of the New Testament were not Jewish.

ludin said:

I don't have to prove your argument. You have to prove your argument.
You are the one making the claim that they lied and distorted scripture. it is your job to prove your argument not mine.

this is simply a deflection because you can do neither.
it is also your claim that Christ lied about who he said he was so again I will be waiting for you to prove this.

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Luke 24
25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Please prove the distortion of scriptures both of these said by Christ. Which once again disprove your claims.

Click to expand...

And, that is what Luke claimed Jesus said.

You have to show that 1) Luke, who was writing between 90 and 110 ce , what telling the truth. 2) you have to show how he knew that.. he admits he heard story from elsewhere, so all he did was take stories he heard.

So, you have to show that what he heard was true, that he didn't make it up himself, and it was relayed to him unaltered

and, that the phrase 'Son of Man' is literal, rather than how the Jews used it.

Until you dot hat, you are doing what is known as 'Shifting the Burden of Proof'

As for 'son of man'.. that is an idiom that was used in the Jewish culture to mean 'Human'. That shows that the author of the gospel of matthew was misusing the terms to sell to people who didn't understand the Jewish culture.

Plus, since the author of the Gospel of Matthew (whodoes not appear to be Matthew) was not an eye witness, you can't show that incident actually happened as written

RAMOSS said:

No, quite the opposite. I am claiming that Christians are. The writers of the New Testament were not Jewish.

Click to expand...

yes they were. Paul was a jew part of the sanhedran, Matthew was a converted Jewish tax collector
John was a disciple of Jesus, Peter was a disciple of Jesus.

there is now more evidence the luke was a jew as well. luke being his greek name.

you claim but have no evidence to support yourself.