Getting to the bottom of Ez 40-48? Is it possible?

[Fenris]

No one has yet shown that the second temple was not built to Ezekiel's specifications.

You haven't proved that it was, either.

[Beckrl]

Personally I would see the visions in Ez 40-48 being the vivid details of this literal new Jerusalem. IOW I would see it as a literal city, with boundries, zoning, etc. But what I can't wrap my mind around is, what would animal sacrificing be doing in it? Even tho I'm presently premil, I disagree with a lot of other premils because I would see the new heavens and a new earth occuring when Christ returns. Granted, it seems to contradict the fact that everyone should already be in the LOF at this point. But if the new heavens and a new earth doesn't occur when Christ returns, that then contradicts 2 Peter 3, not to mention, what does one then do with Isaiah 65. Isaiah 65:17-25..the entire context is about the new heavins and a new earth. Afterall, there is the highly disputed verse 20 in that context.

Isaiah 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

For what reason(s) do you interpert that city to be literal? Yes, it has boundries, priests and kings, streets of gold, twelve gates, etc....But didn't Jesus relate to his kingdom as much and likewise did Peter speaking to the saints that they were livings stone of that city? (1 Peter 2:5) Should reveal all that you need to understand the city that Ezekiel saw even the acceptabe spiritual sacrifices.

⁴To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
⁵Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
⁶Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
⁷Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
⁸And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
⁹But 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; ¹⁰Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

[rejoice44]

You haven't proved that it was, either.

You are the one saying it wasn't. The burden of proof is on you.

I am the one saying show us by giving us the dimensions of the second temple and showing why it couldn't be Ezekiel's.

[Fenris]

For what reason(s) do you interpert that city to be literal?

What reason do we have to assume it's not literal? "It fits better with my personal theology" is not an acceptable answer.

Ezekiel goes on for 8 chapters, in great specificity, for something that hardly seems to be a spiritual construct.

[Fenris]

You are the one saying it wasn't. The burden of proof is on you.

You're the one who's saying it is. The burden of proof is on you.

[rejoice44]

You're the one who's saying it is. The burden of proof is on you.

I didn't start out saying it was, but upon investigation I observed that the altar and porch were built to Ezekiel's proportions, and that Ezra was a son of Zadok. At the same time I could find no dimensions that any one had that showed that the second temple was out of proportion. Since the sons of Zadok did minister in the second temple as foretold by Ezekiel, and since the altar and porch were built to Ezekiel's dimensions, shouldn't someone offer some proof that the second temple wasn't Ezekiel's temple before everyone just assumes it wasn't.

[divaD]

It seems with 2 Peter, speaks of preparation for the Millennial reign, sorta as the flood cleansed the unrighteous/unrighteousness from the earth, this fire will be the same and a cleansing...preparing the earth for the Millennial reign of Christ.

The context is talking about what will happen to the unrighteous/unrighteousness, and the works of them...those things will be gone. And that could apply to either a cleansing in preparation for the Millennial kingdom, or, the final judgment upon the final rebellion spoken of in Revelation 20:8-9.

It seems to me that we have some of the same thing in the NT as in the OT...the prophesies of these events are not giving a complete list of events all the time and the writers can go from one to the other without giving notice to the readers. That is the only way to reconcile with the passages you reference in Isaiah....either Peter speaks of a Millennial preparation cleansing, or, he speaks of after Rev 20:8-9 and the bringing in of the new heaven and earth...my guess, or rather I leans towards the latter of those two options....

Would you then conclude there is more than one new heavens and a new earth?

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

The key phrase here would be...wherein dwelleth righteousness.

When Christ returns, wouldn't that then be the case? If it it, then that means the new heavens and a new earth have to take place first, because that is where there will be righteousness dwelling within. It doesn't say wherein dwelleth righteousness upon the old earth.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

This first earth that passes away, that couldn't be wherein dwelleth righteousness. If it was, then no reason to pass away I wouldn't think. I would then think Revelation 21:1 is contradicting 2 Peter 3:13 if righteousness dwells upon the earth that will later pass away. And like I pointed out. How could righteousness not dwell therein when Christ returns? And if it does, how could it not be in the new heavens and a new earth?

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

What I have in bold is a contradiction if the first earth does not pass away when Christ returns. Why? Because it is only in the new heaven and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Add to that, once Christ returns, how can righteousness not be dwelling therein?

[Fenris]

I didn't start out saying it was, but upon investigation I observed that the altar and porch were built to Ezekiel's proportions

Ah. So if two objects were built to certain specifications, they all were? That does not logically follow.

, and that Ezra was a son of Zadok.

Great, that means his descendants who might serve in a third temple also are.

At the same time I could find no dimensions that any one had that showed that the second temple was out of proportion.

The second temple, both of them actually, were rectangles. Ezekiel describes a square. A very, very large square.

Since the sons of Zadok did minister in the second temple as foretold by Ezekiel, and since the altar and porch were built to Ezekiel's dimensions, shouldn't someone offer some proof that the second temple wasn't Ezekiel's temple before every just assumes it isn't.

Um, I believe I mentioned the shape and size. Once or twice...

I'm also amused to note that the source of your information didn't believe that the second temple was Ezekiel's temple. But I guess it's only a "good source" when it corroborates what you already believe.

[quiet dove]

No one has yet shown that the second temple was not built to Ezekiel's specifications.

Here is some comparisons
First and second temple
Here is some comparison of all three Yashenet
Temples

There is plenty of passages and dimensions .... for figuring it out, and proving that Ezekiels temple was or wasn't built according to the specifications. However, remember, Herod enlarged on that temple, so technically, the "second" temple as originally built was smaller than what Herod later added on...so how does that figure into it all?

I didn't spend a lot of time on these sites but if you don't find them satisfactory, google will provide ample supply...lol, I got tired of googling it...

[Beckrl]

What reason do we have to assume it's not literal? "It fits better with my personal theology" is not an acceptable answer.

Ezekiel goes on for 8 chapters, in great specificity, for something that hardly seems to be a spiritual construct.

I understand your peference to view it as being literal, but in context it would have to been to those exiles as the temple build under Herod. If that's NOT the case then it would be in their future generations. As to the great details of that city it would be the same for the city seen by John as described as the city that comes down from heaven it also was descibed with great details. i perfer not to read them as being literal in a book full of symbolism. Which I can see John draws from many in the OT ones like Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel.

The children of exiles is to have been like unto a second exodus (Isaiah 11) and we can clearly see that fullfillment in Acts 2----Ezekiel also proclaimed the gathering of these from the nations (Ezekiel 37) so we have Isaiah and Ezekiel proclaiming the gathering together of the out cast of Israel (Judah and Ephraim) the picture of the valley of dry bones coming together as one stick.

[rejoice44]

Ah. So if two objects were built to certain specifications, they all were? That does not logically follow.

It is an indication that they were following Ezekiel's blue print. No it is not proof that they followed it completely, but it points in that direction.

Great, that means his descendants who might serve in a third temple also are.

So you know where we could find some sons of Zadok at the present time?

The second temple, both of them actually, were rectangles. Ezekiel describes a square. A very, very large square.

Dimensions please? Josephus described a square for Herod's temple.

Um, I believe I mentioned the shape and size. Once or twice...

You never gave a dimension and place from which you obtained it. I could say the second temple was a square, and what would that prove.

I'm also amused to note that the source of your information didn't believe that the second temple was Ezekiel's temple. But I guess it's only a "good source" when it corroborates what you already believe.

There is a difference between what someone believes, and what they describe as being a fact.

[the rookie]

Perhaps you could, beyond the dimensions of the second temple, help us connect to your point by comparing other aspects of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48 with the Second Temple? The river and the glory, the prince, the sons of Zadok, the lack of sweat on the garments, etc. would be a great place to start.

[Fenris]

I understand your peference to view it as being literal, but in context it would have to been to those exiles as the temple build under Herod.

Im not sure what you mean here...

The children of exiles is to have been like unto a second exodus (Isaiah 11) and we can clearly see that fullfillment in Acts 2----Ezekiel also proclaimed the gathering of these from the nations (Ezekiel 37) so we have Isaiah and Ezekiel proclaiming the gathering together of the out cast of Israel (Judah and Ephraim) the picture of the valley of dry bones coming together as one stick.

AT the risk of starting yet another fight on the topic, I don't think that Ezekiel 37 has been "fulfilled".

[divaD]

⁴To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
⁵Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
⁶Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
⁷Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
⁸And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
⁹But 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; ¹⁰Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

I would see all this pertaining to the now. The new heavens and a new earth are future. The above would be understood spiritually. The new Jerusalem in Rev 21-22 would be understood literally and be seen physically. IOW, actual dimensions, having an actual location on the earth. After all, it's seen as having gates, which then infers there's an inside, and there's an outside. You can get a closer look of it in the OT, like here for instance...Isaiah 60:11 and the surrounding context.

[Fenris]

It is an indication that they were following Ezekiel's blue print. No it is not proof that they followed it completely, but it points in that direction.

They followed it where possible. Since they could not expand the temple mount to the size described by Ezekiel, they didn't.

So you know where we could find some sons of Zadok at the present time?

Sure. many of them have the same last name, "Cohen".

Dimensions please? Josephus described a square for Herod's temple.

Not a square

You never gave a dimension and place from which you obtained it. I could say the second temple was a square, and what would that prove.

We have archeological digs at the site.

There is a difference between what someone believes, and what they describe as being a fact.

We don't know "for a fact" what the size of the objects in the temple were. You just cite the Talmud- in this instance- because it agrees with you.