Why have I never seen this before?!

Discussion in 'Controversial' started by teddyv, Nov 12, 2017.

  1. DaniH

    DaniH You're probably fine.

    It certainly does open things up to accusations of "retrofitting", so to speak. I think people who try to apply all.the.things to Jesus as far as the OT is concerned, are maybe trying a bit too hard, and I have to ask at that point "who are you trying to convince?". It takes nothing away from Christ to let Isaiah's prophecies apply to whomever, but also understand that the entire messianic foreshadowing was definitely a big OT thing to do, and so it's entirely reasonable to apply a dual interpretation to a certain extent without needing to do any sort of mental gymnastics to make it all fit. Christianity will still be okay if we allow Jews to have their own sacred texts and history without "hijacking" all of it. :)

    We also have the example of Ezekiel's prophecy (ch 28) against the prince of Tyre, that people have extrapolated to also have to do with satan, supposedly. When in plain text, the prophecy definitely applies to an actual human being who lived at that time (Ithobaal III), who was being called to task for being proud and sinful, and who was going to be judged. In fact, all of Ezekiel is plainly focused on Israel/Judah and the surrounding nations. However, somehow that got pulled out of its original context and applied elsewhere, and has now become accepted "tradition" and "truth" and "doctrine" ... even though it's admittedly a bit of a stretch ... especially since that prince/king of Tyre is plainly referred to as a man ... and you can see that it's a stretch when you pretend you know nothing about Ezekiel and just read everything at face value and put it in its actual historic context.
     
  2. ProDeo

    ProDeo What a day for a day dream

    Note thar Eze 28:1-10 are indeed about a human called the prince of Tyrus but then from v11 and on it's about the king of Tyrus, a cherub, meaning a heavenly creature.
     
  3. DaniH

    DaniH You're probably fine.

    Certainly, but it's not at all a stretch to maintain that this is simply referring to a human being, especially in light of the ancient mentality surrounding powerful rulers. In ancient cultures rulers were often considered "divine" (such as in Egypt, Babylon, etc.), and even to be direct descendants of the gods of these civilizations. Whoever this refers to, doesn't need to be a literal "angelic being", but can simply be an earthly ruler that is being described with this ancient cultural mentality in mind. It also doesn't need to mean that YHWH approves of this practice, but is merely referring to it in a descriptive way that was commonly understood, when pronouncing His judgment.

    Especially in light of the fact that much of the OT has to do with "YHWH is greater than the gods of all the surrounding nations." This passage, like so many, drives home this point and once again declares YHWH to be above all other gods, kings, princes and rulers, and all of them subject to His rule and judgment, whether they acknowledge it or not.
     
  4. ProDeo

    ProDeo What a day for a day dream

    That's all very well reasoned but can you mention (just) one other example in the OT where a cherub (a heavenly creature) allegedly is a human? Other than that, of which human ever is said the following?

    13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone [was] thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

     
  5. DaniH

    DaniH You're probably fine.

    1. I don't read it literally and as an actual event, but rather as a descriptive passage.
    2. The entire book of Ezekiel is clearly about Judah and the surrounding nations in their historic and geographic context.
    3. Given this fact, why would YHWH randomly toss in a passage about a prehistoric metaphysical being that's not being mentioned anyplace else in the book? That seems a bit of a stretch, quite honestly. Especially since the declaration is made without any sort of warning about "hey, I'm switching gears here, gonna need you to track with me because I'm going waaaaaaayyyy out into left field and go into something that literally has nothing to do with anything we've been talking about until now, or will talk about after this". I just honestly don't think so, sorry.

    I do 100% understand what you are saying, and in fact used to believe the same thing, but no longer do because of too many inconsistencies that tend to fall apart if you apply a bit of textual criticism and keep everything in its historic context.

    That's why I don't like pulling out passages. Read the whole thing. Understand there are no chapters and verses. It's a cohesive whole. What's the tone of the whole? What is it about? Who is the audience? What happened before and after? Etc. etc. etc. See the logic of the whole, and the structure in it, and discern its systematic approach (we are assuming that God isn't just randomly spewing forth unrelated and disjointed information to the prophets). Then maybe pull out some passages and look at them if they don't seem entirely clear. Doing it any other way is a bit "cart before the horse", I think. And smells of "let me give you my doctrine and then jump all over the Bible and pull out disjointed passages, and then rearrange those as it suits me, to prove that my doctrine is true".
     

Share This Page