robbyyoung wrote: JacobMartinMertens wrote:
robbyyoung wrote:Yes, but Ezekiel's vision is more specfic, only the lineage of Zadok is authorized! (Eze 43:19). Again, an impossibility to prove; There's no more record.
Would you say there is, was, or is not a fulfillment of this verse?
Yes, like I said before, I believe the entire vision was fulfilled in Christ (Messiah) in the 1st Century.
Can you show fulfillment of this verse either in scripture or otherwise?
JacobMartinMertens wrote:I don't see where I can agree with you that there is no more record or that it is an impossibility to prove... or even where this verse is saying a thing needs to be proved. Perhaps it just is, rather than not having fulfillment. Or would you say something else is being taught here? Obviously there is meaning in scripture. It is not to be discarded based on an assumption of an impossibility to prove.
No Priest EVER served without proof of their lineage. This was God's command to determine who is qualified to serve in this office, it wasn't a guessing game, but an emphatic knowledge-based responsibility (read the laws concerning the priesthood)
. You just read two passages in support of how a priest must prove they are authorized to serve before the people and God Himself (Ezra 2:62 & Nehemiah 7:64)
. You said, you believe the prophets? Well Ezra and Nehemiah set before us a precedence concerning this issue in order to be in compliance with the law and now you say, a record IS NOT necessary because of omission in a text to what's COMMON SENSE to a Jewish observer? I respectfully find this reasoning disagreeable towards scripture. We have the two prophets setting a precedence to how it is done, therefore if anyone in the future claims they are from the line of Zadok, they better be able to prove it. No proof, no earthly priesthood. If you disagree, then you need to show or prove otherwise how God is not interested in getting the lineage correct in order to serve. Yeshua Himself couldn't even get away with not proving His lineage to serve as Messiah! He had a written genealogy for the Jews to scrutinize and confirm.
I know you have your view, but I don't know if you have been pigeon-holed into it or if it is the correct view. Do you believe there is a difference between a record and the possibility of proving something either with or without a record?
I don't understand why you are talking about Zadok.
And was the situation where there were priests for the second temple, in the exclusion of others due to record, didn't that NOT mean that there would be no priests to serve and therefore no temple? As to a record this may have been based upon the situation they were in at that time. Should we believe that it was based on any requirement in Torah? Certainly those who are of Levi and Aaron either know they are or can find out they are if that is God's purpose for them and if there is after Christ and the destruction of the (second) temple some reason that they do not exist, as it seems you are saying and to which view you are seemingly a part. It appears to me these you speak of who were priests were shown they were (or "are" at that time) not, not that they once were but forgot to keep a record or records.
JacobMartinMertens wrote:It is my understanding that at the time this (Ezekiel) was written, there was not yet the second temple.
You are correct, there was no temple at the time of his writing. Like I said, The Jews didn't even attempt to build Ezekiel's Temple as described in his vision, this was a spiritual temple and the N.T. prophets seemingly made the distinction in their writings, such as; Acts 7:48 & Acts 17:24
How can I say there was no temple? I have said the second temple did not exist yet.
Here are the verses you referred to.
Acts 7:48 NASB - 48 "However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands; as the prophet says:
Acts 17:24 NASB - 24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
There are two audiences, so I understand what is here on that level at least. However, if you read scripture (that which came before the New Testament of which Acts is one of the writings), for example in regard to the first temple, can you say that God does not dwell in a temple but that His Spirit was there? Where do we go from here? Obviously God instituted the temple system.
John 1:41, 49 NASB - 41 He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which translated means Christ). 49 - Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel."