Will Ezekiel's Temple be built in Israel?

[Stephen]

Hi Richard!

Let's go to your first refutation, concerning the role of the Levites and the family of Zadok in Ezekiel's temple.

You stated that God Almighty ended the Levitical priesthood, quoting Hebrews 7:11 as evidence. There are two points to consider here in your refutation, these being:

1. the discourse of Hebrews 7:11
2. the role of the Levites in the future temple

Hebrews 7:11 is comparing the Melchizedek priesthood to the Levitical priesthood. In fact, it is completely silent as to your conclusion that God Almighty ended the Levitical priesthood. Nevertheless, there are good reasons for you holding that opinion, for when we turn to the last nine chapters of Ezekiel, the Levites have, indeed, been disqualified from performing the role of priests in the future temple. Instead, they have been relegated to a more menial position (Ezekiel 44:10-14).

However, the priestly role in the future temple is delegated to the family of Zadok, who is from the tribe of Levi. Thus, while the Levitical priesthood has been removed, the priesthood yet remains with descendants of Levi (Ezekiel 44:15,16). So while it is mostly true to say that God Almighty ended the Levitical priesthood, it will nonetheless persist in an amended format in the future temple.

It's also worth noting some of the rules that will apply to the family of Zadok. There are strict rules concerning marriage, and it is apparent that priests will die during this coming era, as their widows will be eligible for remarriage (Ezekiel 44:22). Death will still be around, so this places the future temple in a timeframe prior to Revelation 21. The only timeframe it fits is Revelation 20, where the plain text speaks of a thousand year reign of Christ with his saints (verse 4).

That there will be a Millennial Era in which Christ reigns fits seamlessly with the OT, and is stated outright in the plain text of Revelation 20. The resurrection is undeniably yet future, and Paul warned us in no uncertain terms against anyone who preached otherwise (2 Timothy 2:18).

Stephen

[Stephen]

Hello Richard!

Let's have a look at your refutation of the second point.

2) the precision measurements given in a painfully exact description of a temple complex

There is no problem here at all becasue the existence of "details" implies nothing about whether or not it is meant symbolically. But as for the "details" they were given so that the Jews would be ashamed of their iniquities. And how does that work? Well, I know that the primary details show the Temple to be the Word of God - the Christian Bible of 66 books. And that's exactly what we would expect to convince the Jews of their sins. Indeed, the Jews model the Torah on the Temple, so they are ready to recieve the revelation of the isomorphism of the Bible Wheel and Ezekiel's Temple.

I'm sorry to say that this doesn't pass as refutation at all. All you've given is a dismissal of the evidence, but you haven't engaged with it in any way. Are you saying the details were given simply to make the Jews ashamed of their iniquities? Is that the best you can do?

Look, from where I stand, it appears you don't want to engage with the detail because it contradicts other things you have learnt. Well, it's time to challenge those things to see if they are right. To relegate the detailed measurements to being basically trivial information is a cop-out of the worst kind. And I say that because we are not just talking about detail, we are talking about intricate and minute detail. If God intended the exact instructions He gave for the construction of the tabernacle to be carried out to the letter, we can reasonably expect He intended the same for Ezekiel's temple when He gave such precision measurements. Now, unless you can show from Scripture that these measurements were not intended to be literal, then I'd say your refutation of this point is baseless.

It is difficult to comment on your attempt to link the Bible Wheel to Ezekiel's temple without descending into ridicule. You'd be one of a handful of people at best in this world who would even think such a thing. And by handful, I mean one hand. The Bible Wheel has its place as a witness to the Bible. No problems with that. But you have got to be joking if you think the Jews are gonna give it even a second thought. How many Jews do you know of who have been convicted of Christ through the Bible Wheel thus far? Is there even one? I expect not. The Bible Wheel has barely even made an impression amongst Christians, let alone this idea that it has anything to do with being a witness to the Jews, or, even worse, that it has anything whatsoever to do with the details of Ezekiel's temple!

Sorry if that's offensive, but I have to speak the plain truth here. I think you've grossly overstepped the role that the Bible Wheel has, and I'm just letting you know that as a concerned brother. If anyone outside of the few engaging in this forum read your refutation on the lines that the Bible Wheel tells us that Ezekiel's temple measurements are symbolic of the Bible, well ... you'd be dodging rotten tomatoes for the rest of your days!

In summary, Ezekiel's temple is not the Bible in symbolic form, Richard. The Bible won't be necessary when we have Christ in all his fulness, for everything will by then be fulfilled (1 Corinthians 13:10). It should be understood literally, as God intended it, unless a plausible case can be presented to refute it. That's the plain text. You have not even come close to a plausible refutation thus far.

Stephen

[Stephen]

Hello Richard!

You wrote:

When a person comes to faith in Christ, he "is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24). The transformation from "death" unto "life" seems to me to be accurately described as a "resurrection." It seems like this is the "first resurrection" of Rev 20. These souls reign with Christ in heaven during the "thousand years" which is the symbol of the Church age.

Now as for the idea of "lived again" - why can that not refer to the general resurrection, when the "small and the great" stand before the White Throne? Note also that there is a textual variation here. The TR has "anazeson" = "lived again," whereas most Greek mss simply have "ezeson" = "lived." I don't see the "lived not again" as necessarily implying that the first resurrection could not be spiritual and restricted to the elect, while the second resurrection is physical and universal.

This interpretation seems compelling to me. If there is a real problem with it, I will be indebted to you if you are able to point it out.

The problem with your interpretation is that Paul warned us against it. This he specifically addressed at 2 Timothy 2:11-18. I'd say that last verse in particular qualifies as a real problem for your interpretation, wouldn't you agree? Clearly, the resurrection is not coterminous with our Christian experience of death through baptism and being born again of the Spirit. If it were, then Hymenaeus and Philetus would have been correct in saying that the resurrection had already passed. Resurrection therefore refers only to being raised from the dead. The implications that this has for Revelation 20 should be obvious.

Stephen

[Rose]

It is difficult to comment on your attempt to link the Bible Wheel to Ezekiel's temple without descending into ridicule. You'd be one of a handful of people at best in this world who would even think such a thing. And by handful, I mean one hand. The Bible Wheel has its place as a witness to the Bible. No problems with that. But you have got to be joking if you think the Jews are gonna give it even a second thought. How many Jews do you know of who have been convicted of Christ through the Bible Wheel thus far? Is there even one? I expect not. The Bible Wheel has barely even made an impression amongst Christians, let alone this idea that it has anything to do with being a witness to the Jews, or, even worse, that it has anything whatsoever to do with the details of Ezekiel's temple!

Sorry if that's offensive, but I have to speak the plain truth here. I think you've grossly overstepped the role that the Bible Wheel has, and I'm just letting you know that as a concerned brother. If anyone outside of the few engaging in this forum read your refutation on the lines that the Bible Wheel tells us that Ezekiel's temple measurements are symbolic of the Bible, well ... you'd be dodging rotten tomatoes for the rest of your days!

In summary, Ezekiel's temple is not the Bible in symbolic form, Richard. The Bible won't be necessary when we have Christ in all his fulness, for everything will by then be fulfilled (1 Corinthians 13:10). It should be understood literally, as God intended it, unless a plausible case can be presented to refute it. That's the plain text. You have not even come close to a plausible refutation thus far.

Stephen

Hi Stephen

As a brother who "knows" what the Bible Wheel represents I am very surprised with the statements you have just made.. I understand you are trying to validate and prove what you believe to be correct concerning the future rebuilding of Ezekiel's temple, but to stoop to such words as "you've grossly overstepped the role that the Bible Wheel has" and "The Bible Wheel has barely made an impression even among Christians let alone the idea that it has anything to do with being a witness to the Jews" leaves me "stunned" and "saddened"...

The Bible Wheel is the Bible its not some chart or map that Richard made up , and just because the eyes of many people, including the Jews are still in a state of blindness, is no reason to say that it has nothing to do with being a witness to the Jews. God gave the revelation of the Bible Wheel, its not the invention of a man named Richard!

Your last statement also leaves me confused First you say Ezekiel's temple is not the Bible in symbolic form (which seems like a pretty definite statement) and then you say the bible won't be necessary when we have Christ in all His fullness.

Well, we have Christ in all His fullness now (even though everything has not been fulfilled) and we still need the Bible; also if I carry through with your logic, nobody will need the Bible when "Ezekiel's temple is rebuilt" right? so why did God put the vision in the Bible anyway?

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'm sorry to say that this doesn't pass as refutation at all. All you've given is a dismissal of the evidence, but you haven't engaged with it in any way.

Evidence? What evidence? All you did was make a baseless assertion that detail = literal. There was nothing to refute!

Are you saying the details were given simply to make the Jews ashamed of their iniquities? Is that the best you can do?

Oh ... I'm sorry. You seem to have confused me with the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY. It is He, and not I, that declared the purpose of the detailed plan of the Temple. Here, let me quote Him:

Ezekiel 43:10-11 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern. 11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

Now lest you think this is a "private interpretation", here's a quote from one of the leading scholars (I could supply countless others if you want):

Proclamation of Yahweh’s new work of salvation [represented in the pattern of the Temple] was to stimulate a realization of how far the people stood from God and from his will (cf. 16:54, 61; 36:31–32). This end was to be served first by study of the temple plan, to be drawn by the prophet, with its massive gatehouses that warned of the awesomeness of the one who resided there, and with its gradations in holiness from periphery to center.
Allen, L. C. (2002). Vol. 29: Word Biblical Commentary : Ezekiel 20-48. Word Biblical Commentary (257). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

You note that the purpose of the Temple coincides exactly with the purpose of God's Word, which also was designed to cause us to be ashamed of our iniquities so we will repent and turn to Christ. How could you miss this?

Look, from where I stand, it appears you don't want to engage with the detail because it contradicts other things you have learnt.

WHAT?!?! I engaged you on this specific point. I asked you to prove that "detail" implied "literal." You never answered. Don't tell me that I am the one who does not "want to engage."

Well, it's time to challenge those things to see if they are right. To relegate the detailed measurements to being basically trivial information is a cop-out of the worst kind.

I never said a word about relegating "detailed measurements to being basically trivial information." Once again, you are tilting at windmills, my friend. You are attempting to refute statements I never stated. Please make an effort to engage me on statements that I actually make, OK?

And I say that because we are not just talking about detail, we are talking about intricate and minute detail.

EXACTLY CORRECT. We are talking about tri-raidant symmetry that is isomorphic to the structure of God's Word and the Menorah, which also was desinged by God and which also represents the Light of His Word as well as being a memorial to the Seven Days of Creation brought forth by His Word! The convergence of DIVINE DESIGN is overwhelming. And then this is topped off with the Jewish tradition that the Tabernacle and Temple represent God's Word, which was "incarnate" in the Ark in the Holy of Holies, and this was all prophetic of the incarnation of Christ, when the Word became flesh and tabernacled amongst us. God designed His Word, both inside and out (in the text and in its structure) on reiterative patterns that all come straight from the Mind of God. Endless glory!

Here are a couple images that display some of the glorious work that God has accomplished in His Holy Word:






Yet that's just the BEGINNING! It seems you have forgotten that Ezekiel opens with the vision of the Bible Wheel in the form of the wheels within wheels, and that that vision has been interpreted as the WORD OF GOD - the NT in the OT and the OT in the NT since at least the sixth century AD, and Fra Angelico showed it as such in the 15th century:



You can read all about it in The Fulfillment of Ezekiel's Prophecy of the Wheels. Thus, the two great visions of Ezekiel 1 and Ezekiel 40-48 BOTH relate DIRECTLY to the structure of God's Word! And you chose to ridicule me for this? SHAME!

If God intended the exact instructions He gave for the construction of the tabernacle to be carried out to the letter, we can reasonably expect He intended the same for Ezekiel's temple when He gave such precision measurements. Now, unless you can show from Scripture that these measurements were not intended to be literal, then I'd say your refutation of this point is baseless.

You got it exactly backwards. God never issued a command at any point in history that someone was supposed to build Ezekiel's Temple. Therefore, the burden of proof is entirely on you to show that the VISION was intended as something other than a SYMBOL.

It is difficult to comment on your attempt to link the Bible Wheel to Ezekiel's temple without descending into ridicule.

You are only ridiculing yourself and God's Word. The patterns I showed above are derived directly from the text of Scripture. The Menorah was designed by God Almighty! And you ridicule His Mighty Work! Shame!

You'd be one of a handful of people at best in this world who would even think such a thing.

Truth is not determined by polls. You should know better than to make such an argument.

And by handful, I mean one hand. The Bible Wheel has its place as a witness to the Bible. No problems with that. But you have got to be joking if you think the Jews are gonna give it even a second thought.

What are you saying? God designed the sevenfold symmetric perfection of His Holy Word and it means nothing to you? Don't you see that there are only two possibilities? It is either an utterly meaningless "coincidence" or it is the most significant revelation in the history of the world. You are letting your frustration with your inability to support your doctrine cloud your reason. This has happened a thousand times. People always think they can hurt me by attacking the Bible Wheel when they can't defeat me in debate about Biblical doctrines.

How many Jews do you know of who have been convicted of Christ through the Bible Wheel thus far?

Untold thousands! But convicted doesn't mean converted. They still had a will and chose to refuse the Light God gave them. That's why they had to ban me on Jews for Judaism. They have real knowledge of the meanings of the Hebrew letters, and so could see that the Bible Wheel had to be designed by some intelligent agent. So they invented the idea that God designed it as a TEST to see if they would keep Torah DESPITE the evidence!!! I am not making this up. Other, more intelligent Jews with some real intellectual integrity recognized the absurdity of that argument and tried to argue that Jerome did it in the 5th century, which was extremely easy to refute. The light then began to shine so brightly they had to ban me and delete all the posts because the witness for Christ was too overwhelming. Of course, I saved the whole interaction (hundreds of posts) and may post them on my site when I find time.

Richard

[Stephen]

Good morning, Richard!

You write:

This has happened a thousand times. People always think they can hurt me by attacking the Bible Wheel when they can't defeat me in debate about Biblical doctrines.

Nobody can defeat you in debate about Biblical doctrines, Richard. That's not their problem. It's yours.

Untold thousands! But convicted doesn't mean converted. They still had a will and chose to refuse the Light God gave them. That's why they had to ban me on Jews for Judaism. They have real knowledge of the meanings of the Hebrew letters, and so could see that the Bible Wheel had to be designed by some intelligent agent. So they invented the idea that God designed it as a TEST to see if they would keep Torah DESPITE the evidence!!! I am not making this up. Other, more intelligent Jews with some real intellectual integrity recognized the absurdity of that argument and tried to argue that Jerome did it in the 5th century, which was extremely easy to refute. The light then began to shine so brightly they had to ban me and delete all the posts because the witness for Christ was too overwhelming. Of course, I saved the whole interaction (hundreds of posts) and may post them on my site when I find time.

This confirms what I thought, no Jews accepted the Bible Wheel as a witness of God. I must say I'm entirely unsurprised. While the Bible Wheel is clearly a revelation from God, I don't believe it is for some of the purposes you imagine. This is sometimes why folks in other forums shot it down. Another reason would have been your bombastic attitude, and your dismissal of their opinions. I followed a few of those threads way back, and cringed at your comments sometimes, so I just stopped following it because it descended into name-calling, and rationality went out the window.

I have seen your articles that you cited on many occasions, in which you say the Bible Wheel proves Ezekiel's temple is God's word, and that Zechariah prophesied about the Bible. I was unimpressed then, and remain so to this day. To me, as a neutral observer, this is overstepping the mark on what the purpose of the Bible Wheel is. To build a doctrine from something as puerile as there being the hint of tri-radiance in the layout of the future temple borders on the comical. I mean, the Bible Wheel is a circle, but the temple complex layout is square!

What we engage in with gematria and structures like the Bible Wheel, Vernon's work, the NJ cube, and so on, is only for a select few, I believe. The masses are highly unlikely to shout 'Eureka', and convert and be healed because of our discoveries and revelations. I wish it were so, but the evidence so far points to a reaction more akin to the big 'so what?!' Our work edifies believers who already have worked a few things out for themselves. But that's approaching the limits of its reach. This is not to deny its potential, but is the reality from on the ground.

Concerning proving that Ezekiel's temple is to be taken as literal, the plain text tells us it's literal! Not only does the prophet show the blueprint for the temple, he tells us in great detail what its function will be, who will carry that function out, details of the size of the land and its boundaries, and of various rules and ordinances. How obvious does it have to be that there is simply way too much detail for it to be other than literal? And it fits seamlessly into the picture given by many other OT prophets for the future restoration of all the twelve tribes of Israel, and their role as God's servant nation. The apostles were promised by our Lord that they would be ruling over the twelve tribes. That hasn't happened yet!

I can see that you are having great difficulty dealing with the detail in the last nine chapters of Ezekiel. You have now engaged in a strategy of trying to get me to prove my position, which I have just restated. You are doing this because you can't explain the details. You dismiss them as having anything significant to say. Basically, the instructions that Ezekiel was given are superfluous, because you are saying that they are simply a generalised description of God's word. What fiction! Am I expected to take that diagram from your last post as evidence? Please, you're gonna have to do way better than that!

Anyway, that's enough space for this issue. Did you read the post on why the resurrection cannot be as you interpreted it? Paul denounced that error in 2 Timothy 2:11-18, the last verse in particular creating insurmountable problems for your interpretation of the resurrection. It then follows that you have misinterpreted Revelation 20, as I am certain you have. Which then means that your entire perspective on the world to come is deeply skewed, and needs a serious overhaul. Which then leads to the inevitable conclusion that you have not correctly understood the greater message of the prophets of the OT. Which then leads to your understanding of what restoration is to be incomplete.

I will deal with your other attempts at refutation when time becomes available. Enjoy your day.

Stephen

[Rose]

This confirms what I thought, no Jews accepted the Bible Wheel as a witness of God. I must say I'm entirely unsurprised. While the Bible Wheel is clearly a revelation from God, I don't believe it is for some of the purposes you imagine. This is sometimes why folks in other forums shot it down. Another reason would have been your bombastic attitude, and your dismissal of their opinions. I followed a few of those threads way back, and cringed at your comments sometimes, so I just stopped following it because it descended into name-calling, and rationality went out the window.

I have seen your articles that you cited on many occasions, in which you say the Bible Wheel proves Ezekiel's temple is God's word, and that Zechariah prophesied about the Bible. I was unimpressed then, and remain so to this day. To me, as a neutral observer, this is overstepping the mark on what the purpose of the Bible Wheel is. To build a doctrine from something as puerile as there being the hint of tri-radiance in the layout of the future temple borders on the comical. I mean, the Bible Wheel is a circle, but the temple complex layout is square!

What we engage in with gematria and structures like the Bible Wheel, Vernon's work, the NJ cube, and so on, is only for a select few, I believe. The masses are highly unlikely to shout 'Eureka', and convert and be healed because of our discoveries and revelations. I wish it were so, but the evidence so far points to a reaction more akin to the big 'so what?!' Our work edifies believers who already have worked a few things out for themselves. But that's approaching the limits of its reach. This is not to deny its potential, but is the reality from on the ground.

Hello Stephen

The very words you are using against Richard, are what you are displaying in this post, as in prior ones. As I have been mostly an observer in this thread with an occasional response, I have watched Richard and your interactions, and in this case you are the one who struck the first "low blow" concerning the Bible Wheel.

"Dissing" the Bible Wheel is not the way to prove your point. If the Bible Wheel is a revelation from God, as you yourself say it is, it will stand on its own, and to be blunt...."the gates of hell will not prevail against it".

Rose

[Searl Miller]

Again, I have not read all the posts here in order to have the entire picture but I have noted some remarks that prompt me to mention a thing or two.

I see the problem with the Ezekiel Temple being literal as being similar to the problem of presuming to fit a 1400 mile cube on a round earth whose horizon disappears only 32 miles distant.

Ezekiel's Temple AND ENVIRONS involves a huge amount of prime real estate devoted solely to Levitical use - the dimensions of which would nesessitate a huge plain which simply does not exist in Israel.

Unless perhaps the Temple is not to be built on Mount Moriah but rather in the center of the only major region of prime agricultural land that Israel has, that being the plain overlooked by Har Megiddo.

It does not seem prudent to give to the priesthood all the prime land and force the rest of Israel to eke out their existence on scrubby mountain patches. That's the kind of thinking one would expect from a modern developer but not God.

But I must agree with Stephen insofar that Revelation definitely specifies a "thousand years" between the Battle of Armageddon and the Great White Thtone Judgment or Judgment Day.

It does so by revealing that Satan will be bound for a thousand years after Armageddon and then he is to be released for a time, at the end of which he is defeated again and at that time cast into the Lake of Fire, after which is (or coinciding with) Judgment Day.

The Jewish use of "a thousand years" is exactly like that of God owning the livestock on "a thousand hills". It means "many" - a multitude of years; the very least of which will be 1000.

In that same Chapter 20 we are told also that this is when the Judgment Seat of Christ takes place - logically very soon after Armageddon so that we can rule and reign with Jesus for that specified period.

This in turn calls forth our definitions of Resurrection which I insist is not a physical Resurrection to new physical bodies but is purely spiritual. It is a Resurrection to life in the spirit rather than simply dissipation of our souls like so much smoke.

This 1st Resurrection is I believe an ongoing process concerning which it is said that to be apart from our bodies is to be with the Lord. The 1st Resurrection is terminated at the sounding of the 7th Trumpet when the "Rapture" takes place - as this is simply the inclusion of the Lord's people in the 1st Resurrection who remain alive t that time.

That Event is (by extrapolation from clues within the Text) 360 days before the Battle of Armageddon which is what explains how it is we can all accompany Jesus to the Battle of Armageddon.

Further, drawing on Daniel 12.12, I think the Judgment Seat of Christ is what marks those extra 45 days after Armageddon. All present are approved and found worthy to stand before Him but this Event is for the purpose of awarding us all according to our works when we were alive on earth.

In turn again, I see only one group "walking through" the Judgment Period at the close of this Age, and they are those described in Rev. 12.13 thru 16 as being protected from these things - the rest of us are covered by Verse 17.

That means - being that they are shown to be the children of Israel - they are Israelites, and it is THEY who will repopulate the earth and it is during those "thousand years" that all the unfulfilled Promises to physical Israel will be fulfilled.

WE will rule & reign in the same sense as the Angels who were sent to Abraham, Jacob, Daniel, etc.

Shalom.

[David]

(Ezekiel 43:10) As for you, son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the plan.

Here's my opinion on the topic: Christ is the Temple described beginning with Ezekiel 40. The whole reason the temple is described in such great detail is so that people can create models.

Look at a model of the Temple and read the descriptions of the river flowing out of it, and it's pretty easy to see that it describes Christ crucified. This is why measuring such a model would cause Israel to be ashamed. Christ is our Temple! Why would we be ashamed by a mere building?

As for why the floor plans would be so detailed, perhaps it's so we get a sense of proportion. As Searl Miller just described, it seems odd to make the measurements against the Earth. But simply making the measurements against eachother, a model is possible which can be analyzed for causing shame - once you see it, there's nowhere to run or hide!

If Scripture can also be described using the Temple design, that's a separate issue and is harmonious with the idea that "The Word became Flesh". But that's not the most important thing to see. The important thing is that Christ is the great Temple!

Now, as for the rather personal, destructive, and discouraging arguments above (which I interpret as plainly coming from both sides), please represent better, brothers! I used to tell friends to come to this site all the time, but can't continue to do so if the fruits of the Spirit aren't being amply demonstrated in the forum. These debates should be a great way to generate a wealth of interesting ideas among friends so that readers can decide for themselves and everyone can learn. That's my view. Sorry to butt my nose in your fight.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So, I ask you for the fourth time. What have you got to say on Paul's warning at 2 Timothy 2:11-18 not to believe anyone who says the resurrection is already passed? This creates what looks like an insurmountable problem for your theory that we are already resurrected. Scripture tells us that this clearly is not so, in plain language! If your theory about the resurrection is seen to be error, then so is your interpretation of Revelation 20.

Stephen

Hey there Stephen!

Glad you are feeling better. I am delighted you would like to return to the discussion of Scripture. I offer you the right teacup of fellowship.



Now before I answer your question, I need to clarify for other folks that I never said anything like "the resurrection is already passed" or that "we are already resurrected" in the physical sense you clearly implied in Post 23 when you said "we are still alive and haven't died yet." Anyone who wants to see my rather detailed explaination of the two resurrections are invited to read Post 24 in this thread. I now will be responding to your Post 33 (note that I quote you exactly to avoid misunderstandings. It might help if you followed this example):

The problem with your interpretation is that Paul warned us against it. This he specifically addressed at 2 Timothy 2:11-18. I'd say that last verse in particular qualifies as a real problem for your interpretation, wouldn't you agree? Clearly, the resurrection is not coterminous with our Christian experience of death through baptism and being born again of the Spirit. If it were, then Hymenaeus and Philetus would have been correct in saying that the resurrection had already passed. Resurrection therefore refers only to being raised from the dead.

We are discussing the meaning of the two resurrections of Rev 20. The problem with your argument is that you implicitly assume that the "first resurrection" is subsumed in "the resurrection" mentioned in 2 Tim 2:18. But I assert that "the resurrection" of 2 Tim 2:18 refers only to the general resurrection, aka the "second resurrection." You have not established your point, and indeed, if it is true that the "first resurrection" refers to the soul passing from death to life at salvation, then we know that it was not part of the the heresy that Paul taught against in 2 Tim 2:18. The only way to salvage your argument is to 1) prove that the "first resurrection" of Rev 20 does not refer to the salvation event, or 2) prove that "the resurrection" of 2 Tim 2:18 certainly includes the "first resurrection."

Another problem with your argument is your overly restrictive use of the word "resurrection." I think it is invalid beacause the term "raised from the dead" means the same thing. Every person "raised from the dead" is also "resurrected" and every person "resurrected" is also "raised from the dead." The Bible says that we have been "raised with Christ." The term "raised" is used in parallel with "resurrection" in that context. So how do you understand this in light of 2 Tim 2:18?

This then opens up a space in which the events written by Ezekiel, and many of the OT prophets, may take place. Crucially, these do not contradict NT teachings, when properly understood. You should have read the links I gave you earlier. They shed light on this subject. Did you read them?

I read those links. Indeed, I used the image of the Temple found on the first link in the Bible Wheel book (with permission from the author). Note the massive [60 cubits = 102 feet] tripled pairs of gates:



Its unfortunate they offer such a faint "hint" of tri-radiance. As an aside, here is what one of the scholars has to say concerning the gates and their number:

The gates are a foreshadowing of the accessibility God gave to all people through Jesus, who presents himself as the door by which one can enter to God and be saved (see John 10:9–21). The choice of three gates for this temple rather than four or more may suggest a deeper significance of the means of access God provides for humans to approach him, since God manifests himself in three ways to the human family as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Sorry for quoting a commentary with such a "puerile" idea - to suggest that the detailed structure of the Temple might have some non-literal theological meaning! Horrors!

Now getting back to your point: I read those links and found them wanting. If you think I missed the important stuff, please post one succinct point at a time and explain why you think it is a good argument, and we can discuss it!

Now that I've answered your questions, I'd like to ask for an answer to a question that I asked even earlier. In Post 23 you asserted "there is just way too much detail in those last nine chapters of Ezekiel for us to judge it as all being symbolic." You then immediately repeated that assertion and wrote "Let me shout that for emphasis so none of us miss it: THERE IS JUST WAY TOO MUCH DETAIL IN THOSE LAST NINE CHAPTERS OF EZEKIEL FOR US TO JUDGE IT AS ALL BEING SYMBOLIC." You then repeated it a third time as the second item in your list of nine items that needed to be "refuted" before a "symbolic" intepretation could be reasonably accepted.

Given the fact that you thrice repeated this point, once in BOLD CAPS no less, I was convinced that you considered it to be a very important point. Indeed, I am not aware of any other point that you emphasized to this degree. But when I began to evaluate your argument, I realized that you had failed to give any support for your assertion that "detailed" implied "non-symbolic." I considered this a fundamental flaw because almost all students of Revelation agree that it is filled with highly detailed symbols, such as the seven headed dragon with ten crowns, etc. Indeed, I believe that most of Revelation 4-22 is symbolic and that the fact that it is "highly detailed" has absolutely no impact on that conclusion. Therefore, logic led me to ask you to explain why a high degree of detail in a vision should compel all rational people to believe the vision was "literal." Here is how I posed the question in Post 27:

THERE IS JUST WAY TOO MUCH DETAIL IN THOSE LAST NINE CHAPTERS OF EZEKIEL FOR US TO JUDGE IT AS ALL BEING SYMBOLIC.

Hey there Stephen,

Why can't something be both detailed and symblolic? I don't understand your assertion at all.

Richard

I am very interested in your detailed answer to that question.

Thanks!

Richard