Zechariah 4:1-5 "And the angel who was speaking with me proceeded to come back and wake me up, like a man that is awakened from his sleep. 2 Then he said to me: “What are you seeing?”
... 5 So the angel who was speaking with me answered and said to me: “Do you not really know what these things mean?” In turn I said: “No, my lord.”
A moment of disorientation does NOT translate to the prophet not knowing what he said.
The angel explained things, and all was understood.
You have an interesting way of interpreting that which you read.
[quote]Daniel 7:15-16 “As for me, Daniel, my spirit was distressed within on account of it, and the very visions of my head began to frighten me. 16 I went up close to one of those who were standing, that I might request from him reliable information on all this. And he said to me, as he went on to make known to me the very interpretation of the matters[/quote]
Again... Prophets are only human. And for the record, Daniel isn't listed by Jews as a prophet (though he very well may have been). He wasn't sure how to interpret his dream.
You know, to pick ONE verse of confusion and disorientation and generalize that "the prophet didn't know what he was talking about," is intellectually dishonest.
Daniel 8:27 'And as for me, Daniel, I felt exhausted and was made sick for [some] days. Then I got up and did the work of the king; but I kept showing myself numbed on account of the thing seen, and there was nobody understanding [it]
A proper translation actually helps.
27. And I, Daniel, became broken and ill for days, but I rose and did the king's work, and I was terrified about the vision, but no one realized it.
He was afraid of the vision. He didn't LIKE the vision, and it made him ill. There is nothing to say that no one (including him) didn't understand it.
No, your idea about the prophets not knowing what they were on about doesn't work. It was intellectually dishonest for you to say so.
What if what you are reading actually doesnt apply the way you think it applies.
Interesting hypothetical, but it DOES apply the way I think it does.
I mean, wasnt the mosiac covenant 'conditional'?
No, it wasn't. The Jews living in the land of Israel was conditional, but there was nothing 'conditional' about the eternal covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Jews at Mount Sinai.
If the Isrealites broke the conditions of the covenant then God had the right to end it did he not?
Nope. That is a distinct misunderstanding on your part.
The covenant was not conditional. The idea that if the Jews didn't live up to what we are supposed to do that God would PUNISH us. Not that He would abrogate the covenant.
Exodus 19:5 And now if YOU will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then YOU will certainly become my special property out of all [other] peoples, because the whole earth belongs to me. 6 And YOU yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you are to say to the sons of Israel.”
Precisely.
It is a definition of how God would treat the Jewish people, not for the concept of the covenant being conditional.
I know... you like the words you like, but
context is important. Truly.
And if you read the account in Jeremiah where he speaks of Gods plan to introduce a new covenant, it was because of the nations unfaithfulness...."‘which covenant of mine they themselves broke" Surely God has the right to change the covenant due to the nations unfaithfulness?
Nope. Because God's eternal promises are eternal.
I know... You so badly want the Jews to be undone and the Christians to take the Jews' place that you will ignore what God said was eternal, over and over again.
You are reaching, and it is growing tiresome.
Yes i can go with that. Starting with a clean slate would require the removal of the old one.
No. Starting with a clean slate means that the covenant is there without the sins that were collected over time.
Under moses, the forgiveness of sins was inaugurated by a blood sacrifice...'the blood of the covenant'
So, if its the same covenant as that installed under Moses, how is your slate cleaned without blood?
You know, we just read that in the weekly portion last Saturday. It wasn't "a blood sacrifice". It was a token commandment. It was priming the Jews to make themselves worthy to see that they were worth this special relationship with God, as God was about to take them out of Egypt and declare them HIS nation, Chosen for a special relationship with God.
Starting with a clean slate means that all of the sins, the complaining in the Desert, the Golden Calf, and things of that nature, would be as if they never happened; God would consider the Jews as if Jewish history were free of sin.
Ok, the events up to 475 BCE certainly did bring the jews to repentance, true. Jerusalem was rebuilt and the people returned to their homeland after the captivity to babylon. The temple was rebuilt, the utensils that had been stolen by babylonians were returned to Jerusalem... i can see how this restoration was Gods blessing on Isreal absolutely.
Good.
However, why did God also not re establish the Davidic kingdom at that time?
Probably because the majority of the Jews chose to stay in Babylon, rather than return to Israel. I'm sure if the Jews left to be in Israel
en mass it might have been a different story. However, it didn't happen that way, and all we have is conjecture about what might have been otherwise.
Why did God allow his city to be ruled by pagan kings?
Because Jews of the then and now had allowed themselves to assimilate with the Greko-Roman non-Jewish culture. It was a function of what the Jews at the time didn't remember to focus on.
Why did he allow the temple and priesthood to be completely destroyed again in 70ce by the romans?
First of all, the priesthood never went away. They are still alive and well, and as with us as ever. They don't minister in the Temple, because there is no Temple for them to serve in. But that doesn't make them any less Cohanim.
But why was the Temple permitted to be destroyed? Because the Jews, who were indeed primarily living Torah life-styles, were treating each other with blatant disrespect. The sin of "evil speech" was rampant, as was "baseless hatred".
I would suggest that it is still a problem to this day amongst Jews, which is why the Temple isn't rebuilt today.
I don't know if you are aware, but Jerusalem is actually on a major fault line. Since it was built, the Dome of the Rock has fallen no fewer than 400 times. (I did a paper on it in college.) I acknowledge that, with all the pictures I've seen, the Dome is beautiful, and the original purpose for it (oddly enough) was to preserve the location that Jews considered holy and to prevent Christian relic seekers from ravaging the Temple Mount, chipping away stone from the floor of the destroyed Temple.
My greatest wish is that, when God determines that it is time to rebuild the Temple, that the Dome of the Rock and Masjid al-Aqsa are moved somewhere else. The buildings are beautiful, and there is no reason to destroy them, but to move them elsewhere would allow the functioning of the Temple once it is rebuilt.
