And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Romans 11
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
1 Peter 2 v 9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Ephesians:
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Revelation:
And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
And this solves the contradiction how? Oh I know…MIRACLE OF REINTERPRETATION!
As I pointed out in the video, Ezekiel gives extremely minute detail about the temple dimensions, its measurements, directions about the courtyard, the priests’ rooms, the sacrificial room, the altar, etc. What kind of an idiot would think that this was all metaphorical?
Who is supposed to be reinterpreting? James?
If he is I have to take his words as from the Lord.
He is obviously not speaking of a physical temple.
And in this temple Gentiles are worshipping so it can’t be the physical temple in which James, as a Jew, was worshipping, can it?
So I don’t believe that the temple of Ezekiel’s vision is physical either.
Ezekiel speaks of a future temple which is part of the eternal “covenant of peace” between God and the Israelites. Not only did this prophecy fail to come true, it clearly contradicts Christianity. That is why the early Christians, included your so-called “James”, had to REINTERPRET the text because the intended meaning was too inconvenient.
I ask again. Why on earth would Ezekiel give so much detail about the temple, its measurements and dimensions, the rooms of the priests, the sacrificial rites, the regulations about the festivals, etc. if a physical temple was not intended?
Also, the temple envisioned in Ezekiel clearly states that the Gentiles will not be allowed to enter, so it can’t be referring to the 2nd temple. Either, it’s a false prophecy again or it’s referring to a future 3rd temple, which again, destroys Christianity. Ezekiel 44:9 states:
“This is what the Sovereign Lord says: No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary, not even the foreigners who live among the Israelites.”
I think this is just referring to what may happen in the context of the judgement upon Israel, i.e. the exile, itself.
If the people are obedient they will not suffer any further harm beyond the exile itself. They will survive and prosper in the exile and not suffer any further punishment. They will also have hope of returning. If they are disobedient they will die in exile as a punishment for their own individual sins.
Miracle of reinterpretation! Thank you for proving the point of the video!
The text says nothing of your particular eisegesis. It is very clear that the “new covenant” is nothing like what Christians claim.
Moreover, verse 37 very clearly states that no matter how many sins the Israelites commit, they will remain God’s chosen people. This explicitly contradictions Matthew 21:43.
Lol, thank you for proving that you have nothing substantive to refute how your NT contradicts the Tanakh. You should leave this job to someone who is a little more competent than yourself. You’re embarrassing yourself and your religion.
I’m still waiting for an answer. Why would the author of Ezekiel give us minute details about the temple and yet actually meant it to be a metaphor the whole time? That would be like if Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings, and then at the end of the book, stated that Frodo dreamed the whole thing. 😂
Miracle of reinterpretation! Thank you for proving the point of the video Faiz!
The text is speaking about the fate of the exiles and does not address what the Messiah can or cannot do for his people. Koranic driven eisegesis at work once again!
The kingdom was taken away from the ethnic political theocracy and given to its successors, Christians both of Jewish and Gentile Stock. It also took on a different form.
The promises to Israel will be fulfilled in the faithful remnant which also includes Gentiles as their natural and spiritual successors.
Both Christians and the faithful remnant of Israel are the spiritual children of Abraham.
😂😂 Miracle of REINTERPRETATION! The text says nothing of your idiotic eisegesis. Jeremiah and Ezekiel state that the covenant with Israel is eternal and no matter how many sins the Jews commit, they will remain God’s chosen people. Go ahead and show where any of your garbage is stated in either Jeremiah and Ezekiel. I’ll wait.
Let’s see where you can show anything about “spiritual children”, the promise being “fulfilled” among Gentiles, etc., without appealing to your NT. Show it from the Tanakh. Go on Iggy. It’s time to show evidence of your silly claims. You already failed to bring us Brutus the Brontosaurus despite repeated requests. 😉
Still no answer from Iggy as to why on Earth Ezekiel decided to waste several pages giving minute details about the temple when all along it was just a metaphor. Again, if Tolkien had tried this, I don’t think his book would have been as popular.
I would say you are wrong when you claim that most Christians do not believe in a rebuilding of the temple.
Most evangelical Christians are premillenial dispensationalists who believe in a twin track salvation so that the OT promises to Israel will be fulfilled in the millenium.
It astonishes me that you people do not realize how this belief completely destroys your religion! Think about it. Jesus’ alleged sacrifice is supposed to end the sacrificial system, and yet, here you are admitting that Ezekiel had other thoughts. Not only is the temple supposed to be rebuilt, but the temple sacrifices are supposed to be restarted. If this is the case, then what need is there for a be-all/end-all human sacrifice?
I can see why other Christians have to reinterpret the text of Ezekiel, because they realize that the literal reading creates an irreconcilable contradiction between the Tanakh and the New Testament. Of course, they are being dishonest, but we can understand why.
I don’t understand how a Christian can admit that the literal reading of Ezekiel refers to a future temple complete with the temple rites, and yet still remain a Christian. Denial is an ugly thing.
I want to just note something. @ 8:25 you pulled up a reference of the Jews speaking good about Umar(ra). Curiously, after reading about Copts speaking well about Amr bin Al-As(ra) (and disproving his bogus claims again about “oppressing them” again see here https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/642Egypt-conq2.asp)
I wanted to know what the Jews said especially considering the source calls him a “friend of israel”. Here’s the link:
Quoting from In Ishmael’s House By Martin Gilbert its:
“…a revelation given to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (who died during the mid-second Century CE) during his time hiding in a cave while being sought by Romans. The revelation is regarded by some as an “insight” into future Muslim history, although many scholars point out that it predates Islam by four centuries, and is almost certainly not from so ancient an era.”
Now while this doesn’t affect that Jews in the 8th century were still writing good about Muslim rule (thus Kennywise is still refuted), my thing is look at that entire link of this “prophecy” they attributed to one of their Rabbis. These are the same people who were originally in charge of keeping the Christian “holy” text and as we can clearly see they’re willing to:
1. Attribute something to someone
2. Claim a “prophecy” is being fulfilled
3. Claim its revelation from God
Why would we not logically think they also did this with the Hebrew Bible as well, especially when we see all the anachronisms in their canon? 🤔🤔🤔 QB maybe you want to give us a little insight at this conundrum?
Excellent point! I mean it’s just simple denial at this point. Christians like Kennywise need to persuade themselves that they are on solid ground, so they deny every single obvious piece of evidence. This way, they can continue to live in their comfortable fantasy world.
I mean it be one thing if this was like onetime or in the ancient past but they STILL kept doing it over and over again then they get mad when we’re skeptical.
Also to show the awkward position they’re in the “revelation” actually calls Muhammad(saw) a prophet! (Freudian slip perhaps???)
“When he perceived that the kingdom of Ishmael would come (and exercise dominion over Israel), he exclaimed: ‘Is it not sufficient what the wicked kingdom of Edom has done to us that we should also (suffer the dominion of) the kingdom of Ishmael!?”…”
(That’s Kennywise’s fellow Christians btw)
“Immediately Metatron the prince of the Presence answered him and said: ‘Do not be afraid, mortal, for the Holy One, blessed be He, is bringing about the kingdom of Ishmael only for the purpose of delivering you from that wicked one (i.e., Edom). He shall raise up over them a prophet in accordance with His will, and He will subdue the land for them; and they shall come and restore it with grandeur. Great enmity will exist between them and the children of Esau.’”
Oh and for giggles:
“R. Šim‘on answered and said: ‘From whence are they (understood as) our deliverance?’ He said to him: ‘Did not Isaiah the prophet speak thusly? “And should he see chariotry of a pair of riders, one riding an ass, (and) one riding a camel” (Isa 21:7).’ Why did he put the ‘rider of an ass’ before the ‘rider of a camel’? Should he not instead have said ‘rider of a camel, rider of an ass’? (No, the textual sequence means that) when the one who rides the camel (Ishmael or Muhammad) emerges, the kingdom ruled by the ‘one mounted upon an ass’ (Zech 9:9) has manifested (lit. ‘sprouted’) by his (i.e., Ishmael’s or Muhammad’s) agency. Another opinion: ‘rider of an ass’ (connotes) at the (same) time when he ‘rides upon an ass’ (Zech 9:9). Consequently they (Ishmael) are a deliverance for Israel like the deliverance (associated with) the ‘one mounted upon an ass’ (Zech 9:9).”
Man, they were just buckling under Muslim oppression, eh?
Oh yeah, for example, the “riders on the camels” was admitted by Rambam (who they consider one of their greatest scholars and a 2nd Moses) to be Muhammad(saw) and Muslims:
Acts 15 v 14 -17:
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Romans 11
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
1 Peter 2 v 9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Ephesians:
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Revelation:
And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
And this solves the contradiction how? Oh I know…MIRACLE OF REINTERPRETATION!
As I pointed out in the video, Ezekiel gives extremely minute detail about the temple dimensions, its measurements, directions about the courtyard, the priests’ rooms, the sacrificial room, the altar, etc. What kind of an idiot would think that this was all metaphorical?
Who is supposed to be reinterpreting? James?
If he is I have to take his words as from the Lord.
He is obviously not speaking of a physical temple.
And in this temple Gentiles are worshipping so it can’t be the physical temple in which James, as a Jew, was worshipping, can it?
So I don’t believe that the temple of Ezekiel’s vision is physical either.
Yep, it’s the MIRACLE OF REINTERPRETATION!
Ezekiel speaks of a future temple which is part of the eternal “covenant of peace” between God and the Israelites. Not only did this prophecy fail to come true, it clearly contradicts Christianity. That is why the early Christians, included your so-called “James”, had to REINTERPRET the text because the intended meaning was too inconvenient.
I ask again. Why on earth would Ezekiel give so much detail about the temple, its measurements and dimensions, the rooms of the priests, the sacrificial rites, the regulations about the festivals, etc. if a physical temple was not intended?
Also, the temple envisioned in Ezekiel clearly states that the Gentiles will not be allowed to enter, so it can’t be referring to the 2nd temple. Either, it’s a false prophecy again or it’s referring to a future 3rd temple, which again, destroys Christianity. Ezekiel 44:9 states:
“This is what the Sovereign Lord says: No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary, not even the foreigners who live among the Israelites.”
“Everyone will die for his own sin”
I think this is just referring to what may happen in the context of the judgement upon Israel, i.e. the exile, itself.
If the people are obedient they will not suffer any further harm beyond the exile itself. They will survive and prosper in the exile and not suffer any further punishment. They will also have hope of returning. If they are disobedient they will die in exile as a punishment for their own individual sins.
Miracle of reinterpretation! Thank you for proving the point of the video!
The text says nothing of your particular eisegesis. It is very clear that the “new covenant” is nothing like what Christians claim.
Moreover, verse 37 very clearly states that no matter how many sins the Israelites commit, they will remain God’s chosen people. This explicitly contradictions Matthew 21:43.
Yes, every time a Christian interprets a scripture in a different way from yours this is your silly and juvenile response.
Only to be expected from a Koran zombie.
Lol, thank you for proving that you have nothing substantive to refute how your NT contradicts the Tanakh. You should leave this job to someone who is a little more competent than yourself. You’re embarrassing yourself and your religion.
I’m still waiting for an answer. Why would the author of Ezekiel give us minute details about the temple and yet actually meant it to be a metaphor the whole time? That would be like if Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings, and then at the end of the book, stated that Frodo dreamed the whole thing. 😂
Miracle of reinterpretation! Thank you for proving the point of the video Faiz!
The text is speaking about the fate of the exiles and does not address what the Messiah can or cannot do for his people. Koranic driven eisegesis at work once again!
The kingdom was taken away from the ethnic political theocracy and given to its successors, Christians both of Jewish and Gentile Stock. It also took on a different form.
The promises to Israel will be fulfilled in the faithful remnant which also includes Gentiles as their natural and spiritual successors.
Both Christians and the faithful remnant of Israel are the spiritual children of Abraham.
😂😂 Miracle of REINTERPRETATION! The text says nothing of your idiotic eisegesis. Jeremiah and Ezekiel state that the covenant with Israel is eternal and no matter how many sins the Jews commit, they will remain God’s chosen people. Go ahead and show where any of your garbage is stated in either Jeremiah and Ezekiel. I’ll wait.
Let’s see where you can show anything about “spiritual children”, the promise being “fulfilled” among Gentiles, etc., without appealing to your NT. Show it from the Tanakh. Go on Iggy. It’s time to show evidence of your silly claims. You already failed to bring us Brutus the Brontosaurus despite repeated requests. 😉
Still no answer from Iggy as to why on Earth Ezekiel decided to waste several pages giving minute details about the temple when all along it was just a metaphor. Again, if Tolkien had tried this, I don’t think his book would have been as popular.
I would say you are wrong when you claim that most Christians do not believe in a rebuilding of the temple.
Most evangelical Christians are premillenial dispensationalists who believe in a twin track salvation so that the OT promises to Israel will be fulfilled in the millenium.
I personally am an amillenialist.
It astonishes me that you people do not realize how this belief completely destroys your religion! Think about it. Jesus’ alleged sacrifice is supposed to end the sacrificial system, and yet, here you are admitting that Ezekiel had other thoughts. Not only is the temple supposed to be rebuilt, but the temple sacrifices are supposed to be restarted. If this is the case, then what need is there for a be-all/end-all human sacrifice?
I can see why other Christians have to reinterpret the text of Ezekiel, because they realize that the literal reading creates an irreconcilable contradiction between the Tanakh and the New Testament. Of course, they are being dishonest, but we can understand why.
I don’t understand how a Christian can admit that the literal reading of Ezekiel refers to a future temple complete with the temple rites, and yet still remain a Christian. Denial is an ugly thing.
@ QB
While you did basically the verbal equivalence of this their beliefs (Judaism was the kid fyi):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CavkSl2gyc
I want to just note something. @ 8:25 you pulled up a reference of the Jews speaking good about Umar(ra). Curiously, after reading about Copts speaking well about Amr bin Al-As(ra) (and disproving his bogus claims again about “oppressing them” again see here https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/642Egypt-conq2.asp)
I wanted to know what the Jews said especially considering the source calls him a “friend of israel”. Here’s the link:
https://pages.uncc.edu/john-reeves/research-projects/trajectories-in-near-eastern-apocalyptic/nistarot-secrets-of-r-shimon-b-yohai-2/
Quoting from In Ishmael’s House By Martin Gilbert its:
“…a revelation given to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (who died during the mid-second Century CE) during his time hiding in a cave while being sought by Romans. The revelation is regarded by some as an “insight” into future Muslim history, although many scholars point out that it predates Islam by four centuries, and is almost certainly not from so ancient an era.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=jCL7A2_bsqUC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=nistarot+de+rav&source=bl&ots=I4eL-NG9nk&sig=ACfU3U3VjjFFTA5CeOiULWbhGBFyU0LYDQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHyJHGg4fpAhUUbc0KHdtAB9wQ6AEwBHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=nistarot%20de%20rav&f=false
Now while this doesn’t affect that Jews in the 8th century were still writing good about Muslim rule (thus Kennywise is still refuted), my thing is look at that entire link of this “prophecy” they attributed to one of their Rabbis. These are the same people who were originally in charge of keeping the Christian “holy” text and as we can clearly see they’re willing to:
1. Attribute something to someone
2. Claim a “prophecy” is being fulfilled
3. Claim its revelation from God
Why would we not logically think they also did this with the Hebrew Bible as well, especially when we see all the anachronisms in their canon? 🤔🤔🤔 QB maybe you want to give us a little insight at this conundrum?
Excellent point! I mean it’s just simple denial at this point. Christians like Kennywise need to persuade themselves that they are on solid ground, so they deny every single obvious piece of evidence. This way, they can continue to live in their comfortable fantasy world.
@ QB
I mean it be one thing if this was like onetime or in the ancient past but they STILL kept doing it over and over again then they get mad when we’re skeptical.
@ QB
Also to show the awkward position they’re in the “revelation” actually calls Muhammad(saw) a prophet! (Freudian slip perhaps???)
“When he perceived that the kingdom of Ishmael would come (and exercise dominion over Israel), he exclaimed: ‘Is it not sufficient what the wicked kingdom of Edom has done to us that we should also (suffer the dominion of) the kingdom of Ishmael!?”…”
(That’s Kennywise’s fellow Christians btw)
“Immediately Metatron the prince of the Presence answered him and said: ‘Do not be afraid, mortal, for the Holy One, blessed be He, is bringing about the kingdom of Ishmael only for the purpose of delivering you from that wicked one (i.e., Edom). He shall raise up over them a prophet in accordance with His will, and He will subdue the land for them; and they shall come and restore it with grandeur. Great enmity will exist between them and the children of Esau.’”
Oh and for giggles:
“R. Šim‘on answered and said: ‘From whence are they (understood as) our deliverance?’ He said to him: ‘Did not Isaiah the prophet speak thusly? “And should he see chariotry of a pair of riders, one riding an ass, (and) one riding a camel” (Isa 21:7).’ Why did he put the ‘rider of an ass’ before the ‘rider of a camel’? Should he not instead have said ‘rider of a camel, rider of an ass’? (No, the textual sequence means that) when the one who rides the camel (Ishmael or Muhammad) emerges, the kingdom ruled by the ‘one mounted upon an ass’ (Zech 9:9) has manifested (lit. ‘sprouted’) by his (i.e., Ishmael’s or Muhammad’s) agency. Another opinion: ‘rider of an ass’ (connotes) at the (same) time when he ‘rides upon an ass’ (Zech 9:9). Consequently they (Ishmael) are a deliverance for Israel like the deliverance (associated with) the ‘one mounted upon an ass’ (Zech 9:9).”
Man, they were just buckling under Muslim oppression, eh?
This is awesome! Notice how they interpret their own text to foretell the coming of Muhammad (pbuh)! 🤯
@ QB
Oh yeah, for example, the “riders on the camels” was admitted by Rambam (who they consider one of their greatest scholars and a 2nd Moses) to be Muhammad(saw) and Muslims:
https://books.google.com/books?id=2ce4AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=maimonides+riders+on+camels&source=bl&ots=Eb2rVuNj4z&sig=ACfU3U2cs662svvRLqUYTJQBCRLGdJ3FNQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi68_CrlofpAhVBVs0KHT93DFQQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=maimonides%20riders%20on%20camels&f=false
Seriously though, I hope they caught the creep on that video. That piece of crap belongs in prison.
@ QB
Yes, your bully beatdown got life in prison:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-convicted-in-nanny-cam-new-jersey-home-invasion-beating-gets-life-term
He should get a whipping too.