Is Jesus the Messiah?

[francisdesales]

I think your use of the term cognitive dissonance is quite appropriate here since that term usually means anxiety generated by simultaneously held INCONGRUOUS or CONTRADICTORY beliefs.

That is why from a logical perspective the vast majority of Jews who were cognizant of the teachings of the Tanach rejected what Paul was promoting. His message found much more fertile ground among the Gentiles who had little or no knowledge of the Torah and the Prophets.

I will not disagree with that statement. There is a lot of truth to it and I believe that is how and why Christianity accelerated when it went beyond the Synagogue.

Traditions and interpretations held for centuries are not easily discarded. People often forget the meaning behind the traditions and rituals, focusing more on the actual visible ritual or tradition. I can say this with all honest because I am Catholic and know a number of "Traditional Catholics" who pine for a return to the Latin Mass because the "New Order" of the Mass has the priest face the people. They focus on the ritual themselves while forgeting the purpose of the ritual. I believe many Jews of Paul's time had the same problems. They focused so much on the rituals of the law, the things that made them "Jewish", that they hadn't considered that these rituals merely prepared them for the deeper meaings of mercy, justice, and love of neighbor. I, as a Catholic, see other Catholics like that - and I do not believe I have to exaggerate much to say that some Jews 2000 years ago did the same thing...

Let's say a verse can reasonably interpreted in two ways. One interpretation makes it fit smoothly into the entire pattern of what the scriptures have been saying all along, while the second interpretation makes it state something altogether unexpected and peculiar or frankly contradictory to the previous context of the bible as a whole. I am sure you would agree that it is a more reasonable course of action to choose the first interpretation.

As you know, there is no verse in Scripture that is in a vacuum. The cognitive dissonance that existed amongst the first Jewish Christians forced them to look at the WHOLE Old Testament. Paul, for example, says in his first letter to the Corinthians that...

"Now all these things happened unto them (Paul is refering to the Exodus and 40 years in the desert) as types, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come." 1 Cor 10:11

These men searched the Scriptures and read them with a new paradigm in mind - that the Messiah must suffer and die and that God Himself would serve as this Messiah. An incredible thing, and probably unheard of before Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth. I think the very fact that it is so far-fetched to the mind of the Jew who was familiar with the traditions taught in the OT prevented them from accepting the possibility. But those first Christians experienced something, that is beyond doubt. You don't just invent that kind of thing AND build a following for so long over such "nonsense" UNLESS the adherents experienced something of this Christ themselves. As such, they actively looked for any sign of this Messiah in the Old Testament.

It is interesting that the Christians saw within the Scriptures typology and analogy and foreshadowing on so many different Scripture passages in the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Catholic Church INSISTED that these Scriptures REMAIN part and parcel of God's Revelation to man, even when some Christians had a difficult time reconciling a "good God of the NT" with the seemingly "cruel God of the OT". This speaks loudly for the Church's recognition of this pattern in the OT that pointed to Christ that was previously unseen.

An example of such a writing is St. Ireneaus' "Proof of Apostolic Preaching". Written about 180 AD, it tries to point out the various places in Jewish Scriptures that, while hidden before, are now made manifest by the Messiah. Justin the Martyr also provides such apology with the Jews.

The Creator provided an outline of the pedigree, and characteristics of the Mashiach. Simply defined he is the future King of Israel who reigns during the Messianic Age. The Mashiach is a human being not a god or demi-god and his ascendance will make a visible difference in the real world not in some invisible spiritual world. He will accomplish this when he arrives, not in some second or third coming- something that is totally unbiblical.

Does the Bible say that the Messiah CANNOT come as God? Does it note that God COULD NOT become incarnate, to make the ultimate sacrifice of Himself for our sake, to show us the extent of His love? Does the Bible list this anywhere, or is this a philosophical belief that you/Jews hold?

The Old Testament clearly tells us that man CANNOT understand the ways of God. Yet, men are trying to tell us that "God cannot do that". I think it would be beneficial to lay aside what God can or cannot or will or will not do to uphold the Covenant that He has willing laid upon Himself.

For the sake of brevity I will not cover what the Hebrew Bible states will be accomplished in the Messianic Era by the Mashiach. These things which are recognized as elements of the Messianic Era (universal peace, rebuilding of the Third Temple,etc) by both Chrisitan and Jewish scholars , were not accomplished by Jesus,

Again, the Jews were looking to the temporal world, freedom from worldly rule. Yet, man is enslaved to something much worse - sin. Does it surprise you that God would go beyond our wildest dreams to show His love for us?

Now, we DO hold that the Messiah will come as the Jews believe, gloriously, at the end of time. But we also believe He came to prepare us for that coming, to call all men to Himself by establishing a universal people, a Church, that would "draw all things to Christ".

nor have they yet been accomplished. And as I have previously stated, a close examination of the Jesus' genealogies as per Luke and Matthew exclude him as a candidate if you apply the LAW in analyzing the pedigree. I am speaking of the LAW which prevailed at the time of Jesus, the very Law he himself venerated and accepted.

I am not well versed on what would remove Him as a candidate of "Messiah" because of the geneologies stated in Matthew and Luke.

Regards

 

[einstein]

using Joseph's line is of no avail since your faith states that Jesus' father is the holy ghost.

Adoption(in the jewish world), whether of a child or an adult, was common and affected which genealogical line one was ascribed to...... Caleb was biologically the son of a non-Jew named Jephunneh (Num. 32:12), but he was adopted into the tribe of Judah and put into the line of Hezron (1 Chron. 2:18).


So it is possible to not have the blood but to be a descendent

I respectfully, disagree with your statements. When Moses decided to send spies into Canaan he chose one man from each tribe. Num13:6 "From the tribe of Judah, Caleb son of Yefuneh."

This is repeated in the book of Joshua. Joshua 15:13 "And to Caleb the son of Yefuneh he gave a part among the children of Judah.".

Caleb's biological father was Yefuneh from the tribe of Judah. The complications arise because there are references to Yefuneh and Caleb as Kenizzite. This originates from the fact that when Caleb's parents marriage ended, Caleb's mother married Kenaz. This union produced Othniel, Caleb's half-brother. Yefunah is referred to as Kenizite as a familial reference to Othniel's biological father, but scripture denotes from the outset that Caleb was from Judah, in fact a leader in Judah who was chosen by Moses as their representative in the reconnaissance mission.

Having stated this, could you explain how this specifically applies to the genealogy problem?

 

[einstein]

I think your use of the term cognitive dissonance is quite appropriate here since that term usually means anxiety generated by simultaneously held INCONGRUOUS or CONTRADICTORY beliefs.

That is why from a logical perspective the vast majority of Jews who were cognizant of the teachings of the Tanach rejected what Paul was promoting. His message found much more fertile ground among the Gentiles who had little or no knowledge of the Torah and the Prophets.

I will not disagree with that statement. There is a lot of truth to it and I believe that is how and why Christianity accelerated when it went beyond the Synagogue.

Traditions and interpretations held for centuries are not easily discarded. People often forget the meaning behind the traditions and rituals, focusing more on the actual visible ritual or tradition. I can say this with all honest because I am Catholic and know a number of "Traditional Catholics" who pine for a return to the Latin Mass because the "New Order" of the Mass has the priest face the people. They focus on the ritual themselves while forgeting the purpose of the ritual. I believe many Jews of Paul's time had the same problems. They focused so much on the rituals of the law, the things that made them "Jewish", that they hadn't considered that these rituals merely prepared them for the deeper meaings of mercy, justice, and love of neighbor. I, as a Catholic, see other Catholics like that - and I do not believe I have to exaggerate much to say that some Jews 2000 years ago did the same thing...

Let's say a verse can reasonably interpreted in two ways. One interpretation makes it fit smoothly into the entire pattern of what the scriptures have been saying all along, while the second interpretation makes it state something altogether unexpected and peculiar or frankly contradictory to the previous context of the bible as a whole. I am sure you would agree that it is a more reasonable course of action to choose the first interpretation.

As you know, there is no verse in Scripture that is in a vacuum. The cognitive dissonance that existed amongst the first Jewish Christians forced them to look at the WHOLE Old Testament. Paul, for example, says in his first letter to the Corinthians that...

"Now all these things happened unto them (Paul is refering to the Exodus and 40 years in the desert) as types, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come." 1 Cor 10:11

These men searched the Scriptures and read them with a new paradigm in mind - that the Messiah must suffer and die and that God Himself would serve as this Messiah. An incredible thing, and probably unheard of before Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth. I think the very fact that it is so far-fetched to the mind of the Jew who was familiar with the traditions taught in the OT prevented them from accepting the possibility. But those first Christians experienced something, that is beyond doubt. You don't just invent that kind of thing AND build a following for so long over such "nonsense" UNLESS the adherents experienced something of this Christ themselves. As such, they actively looked for any sign of this Messiah in the Old Testament.

It is interesting that the Christians saw within the Scriptures typology and analogy and foreshadowing on so many different Scripture passages in the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Catholic Church INSISTED that these Scriptures REMAIN part and parcel of God's Revelation to man, even when some Christians had a difficult time reconciling a "good God of the NT" with the seemingly "cruel God of the OT". This speaks loudly for the Church's recognition of this pattern in the OT that pointed to Christ that was previously unseen.

An example of such a writing is St. Ireneaus' "Proof of Apostolic Preaching". Written about 180 AD, it tries to point out the various places in Jewish Scriptures that, while hidden before, are now made manifest by the Messiah. Justin the Martyr also provides such apology with the Jews.

The Creator provided an outline of the pedigree, and characteristics of the Mashiach. Simply defined he is the future King of Israel who reigns during the Messianic Age. The Mashiach is a human being not a god or demi-god and his ascendance will make a visible difference in the real world not in some invisible spiritual world. He will accomplish this when he arrives, not in some second or third coming- something that is totally unbiblical.

Does the Bible say that the Messiah CANNOT come as God?

How do you interpret the following IF as you say the Messiah has come as The Eternal?

1Chron.17:11-12-"When your days are complete (meaning King David), I (The Eternal), will raise up after you, your offspring who will be from among your SONS, and I (The Eternal) shall make his kingdom (The Mashiach), firm. He (The Mashiach) will build a Temple for Me (The Eternal) and I (The Eternal) shall make his (The Mashiach) throne firm forever." Try substituting G-d for The Mashiach and try to make sense of this statement from Creator of the Universe. :

 

[einstein]

GBWU- I prefer to finish the discussion of the genealogies before proceeding to Is 9 and Micah 5. Hard to remain focussed otherwise. Again, the ball is in your court. I have outlined the difficulties and have used scripture to reinforce those explanations. If you feel I am incorrect please indicate exactly where and why. Thanks. refer to my post 9:29 am

 

[wavy]

i find it funny that christians are using the new testament to prove that jesus was the messiah to a person who does not believe in the nt. using the nt just begs the question of the debate.

anyway, it's easy for an author of the nt to take 'prophecies' from the old testament and attribute them to jesus. what christianity considers heretical works did the same thing. from the 14th ch. of the gnostic gospel of pseudo-matthew:



And on the third day after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, the most blessed Mary went forth out of the cave, and entering a stable, placed the child in the stall, and the ox and the ass adored Him. Then was fulfilled that which was said by Isaiah the prophet, saying: The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib. [2] The very animals, therefore, the ox and the ass, having Him in their midst, incessantly adored Him. Then was fulfilled that which was said by Abacuc the prophet, saying: [3] Between two animals thou art made manifest. In the same place Joseph remained with Mary three days. (click)



it's not hard to do. many of the alleged 'prophecies' said to be fulfilled in 'jesus' don't profess to be 'prophetic' at all. e.g., jn xv.25. here the author has jesus quote either of two psalms: psa xxxv.19 or psa lxix.4. neither are compatible with jesus and none of the quotes are 'prophetic', although the author of john treats them as such. the first psalm is imprecatory prayer, where the author invokes god to take revenge on his enemies while he's in distress...quite unlike jesus who prayed for his enemies' forgiveness. the latter psalm is the prayer of a sinner (see vs.5). they serve to prove nothing and many of the 'prophecies' that allegedly prove jesus' messiahship, biblically or historically, follow in this order. they are just a common pesher interpretations...interpretations that rely on reading into the text you are using, and thus cannot be verified or falsified, and again, serve to prove nothing.

the authors of the nt impose several subjective readings onto ot passages which have their own original contexts and historical settings, and which have nothing to do with jesus. you have to read jesus into them...precisely what the nt authors did. there's nothing special or convincing about 'prophecy' said to be fulfilled by jesus. they all resemble texas sharpshooter fallacies and are easy to refute.


~eric

 

[francisdesales]

How do you interpret the following IF as you say the Messiah has come as The Eternal?

1Chron.17:11-12-"When your days are complete (meaning King David), I (The Eternal), will raise up after you, your offspring who will be from among your SONS, and I (The Eternal) shall make his kingdom (The Mashiach), firm. He (The Mashiach) will build a Temple for Me (The Eternal) and I (The Eternal) shall make his (The Mashiach) throne firm forever." Try substituting G-d for The Mashiach and try to make sense of this statement from Creator of the Universe. :

The Messiah, being God AND man, can say that He is, by the flesh, an heir of David AND can remain God. He did not "lay aside" His divinity when becoming incarnate.

Is there anything in Scripture that tells us that God cannot join Himself to man, if He so chooses? Again, this is a philosophical predispostion - "God wouldn't do that". But where do we see this teaching in the Scriptures, that God CANNOT or WOULD NOT become a man to save His creation?

Apparently, such a question was addressed to the Jews before...

And he said unto them, 'How say they that Christ is David's son?' And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son? Luke 20:41-44

Regards

 

[GraceBwithU]

einstein,

1Chron.17:11-12-"When your days are complete (meaning King David), I (The Eternal), will raise up after you, your offspring who will be from among your SONS, and I (The Eternal) shall make his kingdom (The Mashiach), firm. He (The Mashiach) will build a Temple for Me (The Eternal) and I (The Eternal) shall make his (The Mashiach) throne firm forever." Try substituting G-d for The Mashiach and try to make sense of this statement from Creator of the Universe.

All of this is talking about Jesus.
Jesus is from the seed of David.
His kingdom is firm.
Jesus rebuilt the temple of His body in 3 days. and will build the Holy City, new.
A man's throne would not be firm forever.

1Chron.17:11-12-"When your days are complete ( King David), I (The Father), will raise up after you, your offspring who will be from among your SONS,(Jesus) and I (The Father) shall make his kingdom (Jesus), firm. He (Jesus) will build a Temple for Me (The Father) and I (The Father) shall make his (Jesus) throne firm forever."

1 Chron 17:11-12
1 When your (David) days come to an end and you go to be with your ancestors, I (The Father) will establish one of your descendants (Jesus) to succeed you, one of your own sons; and I (The Father)will set up his (Jesus) rulership.
12 He will build me (The Father) a house, and I will establish his (Jesus) throne forever.
CJB

1 Chron 17:11-12
1 And it shall come to pass, when thy (David) days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I (the Father) will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be (Jesus)of thy sons; and I (the Father) will establish his (Jesus) kingdom.
12 He (Jesus) shall build me (The Father) an house, and I (The Father) will stablish his (Jesus) throne for ever. (Forever, because Jesus and God are one)
KJV

 

[GraceBwithU]

GBWU- I prefer to finish the discussion of the genealogies before proceeding to Is 9 and Micah 5. Hard to remain focussed otherwise. Again, the ball is in your court. I have outlined the difficulties and have used scripture to reinforce those explanations. If you feel I am incorrect please indicate exactly where and why. Thanks. refer to my post 9:29 am

You keep saying that I have not offered you genealogies, but I have. It is you that has never stated the genealogies that you keep saying or the real ones. You simply say what I have offered you is flawed. But you can't say why they are flawed.

 

[einstein]

I never said you haven't presented genealogies. I have pointed out the PROBLEMS associated with the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Although I have touched upon many of these issues before below is a summary.

1) Notwithstanding that the genealogies presented differ significantly with the genealogies of the Davidic line as noted in the Hebrew Bible, they each claim to legitimize Jesus' connection to King David. As genealogies written when the Mosaic Laws governed such issues, it must first be recognized that tribal lineage or affiliation was passed exclusively by the biological father (Num 1:18) while one's identity as a Jew was passed through the biological mother (Deut 7:3-4) or was acquired by proper ritual conversion.

2) The genealogy in Matthew is viewed as that of Joseph. You have stated previously (and it is the standard Christian belief) that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost. That being the case, Jesus cannot obtain his tribal lineage from Joseph since Joseph is not his biological father. Christianity occasionally uses the idea that Joseph by adopting Jesus conferred his tribal lineage. My response to that is

a) there is no explicit statement in the NT of such an adoption
b) even if Joseph had adopted Jesus there is no biblical basis in the Hebrew Bible of adoption conferring blood right or tribal lineage. You attempted to raise this issue of heritage with Luke's genealogy however it was pointed out to you that the Torah is discussing 'nachala" ie inheritance of estate, land to be divided up according to a lot. This has nothing to do with tribal affiliation.

3) You stated that in any case Jesus is connected to King David through Mary as per the genealogy in Luke. Notwithstanding that this genealogy never mentions Mary at all, even if one accepts this as her pedigree, it is of no significance since tribal lineage is passed through the biological father. Notwithstanding that, Luke has Mary connected to David through Nathan, whereas the Tanakh states unequivocably that the Davidic dynasty would pass through the son who builds the Temple in Jerusalem, ie Solomon. (2 Sam 7:12-16 and 1Chron 17:11-12).By specifying that the Davidic dynasty is propagated through the "zera" ie David's "seed that shall issue from your body" G-d makes it crystal clear we are talking about a natural biological heir and again the lineage is determined by the biological father. Further in this parsha G-d talks about admonishing the son "when he goes astray". How can this possibly apply to Jesus whom you hold to be not only perfect, but G-d as well?

There are other problems I have not mentioned to keep this as brief as possible. Thus I have used scripture to demonstrate the significant difficulties generated by each genealogy. If you wish to refute what has been stated with appropriate proofs, be my guest.

 

[GraceBwithU]

eienstein,
You have merely twisted scripture to fit what you will not accept

1. Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."
2. Num 36:6-7, "This is what the Lord commands with regard to the daughters of Salphahad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe, so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage."

These two scriptures are not just talking about worldly heritages as you suggest

You say the messiah will not be God in the flesh...but a man that lives forever. There is nothing that is established by man that will last forever.

There is nothing in any of the scriptures that you have quote that plainly states that the Messiah will be a mere man.

Jesus is not just conected to David through Mary (seed). but through Joseph (throne).
Regardless of what you believe this scripture to be speaking of or not...I have given you many others that confirm Jesus. Not just his pedigree as you so vainly discribe it.

Isa 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

I can fill this thread with scripture after scripture that speak of Jesus and you will deny all. because you are not His sheep.

Jesus came into this world not to proclaim His Kingdom to the Jews...He was asked many times this question. But He knew why the Father had sent Him.

 

[einstein]

If anyone wishes to post regarding the genealogies, please do. I am not going over the same territory over and over. GBWU, your response indicates that either you don't understand what has already been posted or in the alternative, you do understand, but won't admit that- hence the repetition of your post.

Are you fluent in Hebrew? I am. Have you studied the Hebrew Bible in its original language? I have. My clarification regarding the issue with the daughters of Zelophehad was based on a direct translation of the Hebrew. I don't know what you are using but in reality you are depending on a modern English translation of an Elizabethan translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the HEBREW. :crazyeyes:

If you really want to know the truth either learn Hebrew or get an authorized proper translation like the Judaica Press Tanach or Artscroll-or in the alternative buy a proper Hebrew-English dictionary.

There is no way your ridiculous insistence that tribal affiliation can pass through one's mother will ever make sense. It turns G-d into a liar since it contradicts what He states in His
Torah. Even so, the fact that Luke, a Gentile used Nathan instead of Solomon is sufficient to disqualify the pedigree in his book. I will pleased to discuss this issue with anyone else but it is pointless to try to continue with you. :

 

[einstein]

How do you interpret the following IF as you say the Messiah has come as The Eternal?

1Chron.17:11-12-"When your days are complete (meaning King David), I (The Eternal), will raise up after you, your offspring who will be from among your SONS, and I (The Eternal) shall make his kingdom (The Mashiach), firm. He (The Mashiach) will build a Temple for Me (The Eternal) and I (The Eternal) shall make his (The Mashiach) throne firm forever." Try substituting G-d for The Mashiach and try to make sense of this statement from Creator of the Universe. :

The Messiah, being God AND man, can say that He is, by the flesh, an heir of David AND can remain God. He did not "lay aside" His divinity when becoming incarnate.

Is there anything in Scripture that tells us that God cannot join Himself to man, if He so chooses? Again, this is a philosophical predispostion - "God wouldn't do that". But where do we see this teaching in the Scriptures, that God CANNOT or WOULD NOT become a man to save His creation?

Apparently, such a question was addressed to the Jews before...

And he said unto them, 'How say they that Christ is David's son?' And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son? Luke 20:41-44

Regards

Do you want to discuss Psalm 110?

 

[GraceBwithU]

Do you want to discuss Psalm 110?

Would you like to discuss ps 22? ps 110 is coming ps 22 has past.

 

[wavy]

Do you want to discuss Psalm 110?

Would you like to discuss ps 22? ps 110 is coming ps 22 has past.

why not both? :-D i'm interested to see where this leads...although the debate is currently in the favor of einstein.


~eric

 

[einstein]

Perhaps francisdesales could begin regarding the significance of the quote in Luke of ps110. What does this mean from the Christian perspective?

 

[wavy]

Perhaps francisdesales could begin regarding the significance of the quote in Luke of ps110. What does this mean from the Christian perspective?

if i know anything about christian theology, it allegedly proves christ's deity, i.e. that jesus is not *really* david's son because he is god and therefore 'lord' to david. all this, of course, assuming the psalm was originally written by david and was originally messianic.


~eric

 

[GraceBwithU]

Perhaps francisdesales could begin regarding the significance of the quote in Luke of ps110. What does this mean from the Christian perspective?

if i know anything about christian theology, it allegedly proves christ's deity, i.e. that jesus is not *really* david's son because he is god and therefore 'lord' to david. all this, of course, assuming the psalm was originally written by david and was originally messianic.


~eric

Wrong...wrong....wrong...

 

[francisdesales]

Perhaps francisdesales could begin regarding the significance of the quote in Luke of ps110. What does this mean from the Christian perspective?

Certainly.

First, it is commonly believed that David wrote Psalm 110 of the Messiah. The Jews of Jesus' time were convinced that this Psalm refered to the Messiah (Mat xxii. 42). Some Jews have candidly admitted that it does refer to the Messiah, as in the Talmud, and Christians have universally accepted that this was whom David was speaking of.

Ver 1, of course, one can only wonder "who else could be David's superior?" as Christ argues. The title "Adonoi", the second "Lord", is given to God (as in verse. 5, also) as "my" is never united with the ineffable name. "At my right Hand" - In equal power as God, and in the highest dignity as man, after the ascension.

Ver. 3. Principality. Christ says, All power is given to me in Matthew 28, and this he will display in the day of judgment. Thy offspring shall be very numerous (Isaias xlviii. 1., and xiv. 8.) and people shall willingly join thy banners, or rather come to offer victims in the sanctuary. The eternal birth of Christ, (Micheas v. 2.) from his father's substance, establishes his principality, so that he rises triumphant. According to Du Hamel, the present Hebrew text (from 1500's) seems to be purposely rendered obscure, or unintelligible by the Jews, both in this verse, and in the following. Robertson mentions fourteen different translations of this text, and many more might be given.

Ver 4. Melchisedech. Christ is declared king and priest for ever, like Melchisedech, who united in his person both dignities, and presided not over a particular people, nor stood in need of any stated place. His succession is not recorded, and his sacrifice consisted of bread and wine; in all which respects he differed from the Levitical priest, and prefigured Christ, who is immolated under the same species throughout the world, Malachias i. 11.

We read in Scripture of three orders of priesthood: 1st, of kings, 2d, of the first-born, and 3d, of Aaron. Melchisedech, in quality of king, exercised the priestly office, as both functions were formerly united: and hence the word Cohen signifies both a temporal and spiritual prince. This light of nations ensured to his order a perpetual duration, whilst that of Aaron was to have an end. Thus Christ offered to his Father from all eternity the sacrifice of his obedience, and future sufferings; and in time, he presented that of his own life, which he continues to offer in the Catholic Church by priests who are only his ministers, 1 Corinthians vi.

As Melchisedech offered bread and wine, Christ must also have done the same, to be of his order. St. Cyprian, and the other Fathers, with great unanimity observe, that the sacrifice of Melchisedech was a figure of that of Jesus Christ, in bread and wine; and of course (Berthier) our sacred mysteries must contain the substance. By their application, Christ still pacifies his Father in behalf of sinners: so that the effects of his priesthood do not cease, as those of all the priests in the Old Testament did by their death. (one of the many arguments for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic bread, vs. Protestant protestations)

Ver. 5. The Lord. He speaks to God the Father concerning the Messias, (Menochius) or God assisted the sacred humanity. (St. Chrysostom) --- The discourse is addressed to the first person, Jehova.

The preceding was taken from bits and pieces of the Haydock Bible, which gives a detailed commentary on how the Church read these passages.

Regards

 

[Archetype]

He may be the the messiah of Christianity, but he is not the Mashiach as foretold in the Tanach. Huge difference.

What is the tanach and/or the torah? those aren't klingon words are they?

 

[Free]

The Tanakh is the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish Scriptures, and the Torah is the Law, the first five books.