Replies

I don't see the relevence of the question.

The question is completely relevent. At the time, and even now, the Jews were looking for a literal fulfillment of the prophecies. You are as well, as the Ezekiel chapters are very detailed, but what if God's temple, wasn't a literal building? And what if the one He sent to redeem us, was really just one us, although divine, not a great monarch with all the trappings. What if God looks at His people in their lowliness and sees good. And sees what He desires His people to be? That may not be what the people want, but that's what God wants.

Let me try and take a stab at this and tell me what you think:

I am going to propose a theory based on the preface that God is eternal and as a result, for Him, linear time does not have the same meaning as it does for those of us who are temporal beings. Because we are temporal beings and He is not, we cannot fully understand how He perceives time.

I would also propose that the God of the Hebrews is the same God of Christianity. I believe that this is also theologically correct.

I am fairly certain you will all agree with these statements above. If not, don't read further.

First, since in the instances of Christians and Jews we are speaking of the same, God, the argument about other religions immediately becomes moot.

Now, several thousand years ago God made a covenant with the Jewish people. There is a sign for this covenant (it is less pleasant than the rainbow of Christianity, but nevertheless it is there). There are laws God gave his people to follow and there are promises he made to them.

Many, many years later, God made a new covenant with the rest of humanity. Sacrificing His son for all. This meant everyone, including Jews.

However, since God is not a being that exists in linear time as we understand it, we certainly cannot assume that a new, unversial convenant rendered the first covenant null and void. In fact, we should assume that a being for whom time is not necessarily linear, would have difficulty undertanding why temporal beings put so much emphasis on it.

To put it succinctly, God does not break his word

Jews, as the people with whom He made the origianl covenant, are still bound by it unless they choose to embrace the new covenant.

This only works for Jews, not for other religions.

That's how I see things. It does not contradict the teachings of the Bible because it cannot be understood as a linear progression. The original covenant is as valid as the new.

The question is completely relevent. At the time, and even now, the Jews were looking for a literal fulfillment of the prophecies.

Yes, because that is the most straightforward reading of the scripture. Shall we apply the same standard of spiritualizing to the Christian scriptures? Catholics don't particularly care for Protestant spiritualization of John 6 and Matthew 16:18. In fact, you think they are wrong because they don't interpret these passages literally. Likewise, liberal Christians have 'spiritualized' such Christian doctrines as the incarnation and the resurrection. Matthew Fox and John Shelby Spong do the same thing to the Christian scriptures as orthodox Christianity does to the Hebrew scriptures. Is is right in one case, and wrong in the other? And who makes that determination?