Bible Study Luke 1:1-4

[Eugene]

Part two of reply due to length of characters.

Eugene – I’m not understanding your comment “Damnation in heaven.” Besides that is something I throw in every so often concerning those of the Old Testament, and that is that Aaron and Moses both committed a sin unto death for unbelief and yet will not suffer damnation.

About the Son of God - Scripture testifies that Zechariah never broke the law; eg: he was "blameless".
There is nothing which says he committed a sin unto death.
Moses, on the other hand, is ambiguous; for he bore the sin of the people, but he himself was called faithful in all God's household. If you try to identify Moses' personal sin -- I doubt you will be able to do it; for scripture indicates that God was angry with Moses on account of the people; not for a breaking of the law, himself.

Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Eugene – Like all in Christ, we are blamless, but we read in Numbers 20:12, And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Deuteronomy 32:48-51
48 And the LORD spake unto Moses that selfsame day, saying,
49 Get thee up into this mountain Abarim, unto mount Nebo, . .
50 And die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people:
51 Because ye trespassed against me among the children of Israel at the waters of Meribah-Kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin; because ye sanctified me not in the midst of the children of Israel.

About the Son of God - The point is that there are priests of the line of Aaron, who even before the final resurrection, can claim not to have broken the law itself. There is no reason to believe that all priests of the line of Aaron are excluded from heaven until the end of the world. eg: This doesn't apply to those 24 elders in heaven:

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

As to the Aaronic priesthood being a part of the Church we already have the High priest Jesus, and those having this special place with Christ are not restricted to Israel.

About the Son of God - What you have said is true; but it's not the point. The point is, certain places of honor are in fact reserved for individuals to whom God gave a special throne. That includes both Aaronites and Others.

Eugene – Would you be open to the suggestion that the priests as well as Israel were given a bill of divorce which we know they were in Jer 3:8, and was then God honoring their sacrifices any longer? My question would then be why would those of the Aronnic priesthood of Jesus’ time be a part of the church unless some of them became Christians? This following part was edited to add this thought, and I'll bring it up later if you don't see this. We read in Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on (Or over) the earth. With those of the church, Jesus as our high priest, and priests and kings out of the church there is little need of Aaronic priests?

About the Son of God - Whence comes the specific numbers 12 and 24? Certainly they do not originate with the gentiles.

We're talking about temple service of offering incense; and revelation makes it clear that the symbols it draws upon are that of Israel. eg: as if all nations ultimately convert into a new Jerusalem through becoming Israel.

Revel 21:12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
Revel 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Eugene – Are you saying that those of Revelation 5:9 are not them of Revelation 5:8?

Rev 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on (or over – they are in heaven) the earth.

About the Son of God - I'm saying that 24 people are not symbolic of 153 nations. They are not even a quorum or a majority.
The words "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" can not literally be true of 24 people or even 48, given a conservative maximum from the numbers associated with the four "beasts" (Chrubim/Seraphim.)

So, I see it as "They [the vials of incense and prayers of the saints] sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof." Whether we say that the 12 apostles, and/or 24 presbyters who happen to be on duty listened to the saints, and then repeated their prayers -- would only serve to highlight the heirarchical, or republican nature of the representation John chose to symbolically represent.

Eugene – Again, with our high priest Jesus having made the one all-sufficient sacrifice what possible sacrifice other than praise would suffice there? And then this reign with Christ is separated by a thousand years from the actuality of mount Sion coming down out of heaven. This has got me rambling now in all directions.

About the Son of God - I'll not digress; but the opening of the book is not solely about praise -- it's a prayer for all kinds of blessings and curses to be poured out on the earth; True, those prayers include praise -- but the martyrs under the altar are definitely a sacrifice of another kind, and their prayer is "how long oh lord?"

Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Revelation 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
Revelation 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Eugene – Jesus presently sitting in His Father’s throne, in Rev 4:2 we see Jesus receiving His own throne and them with Him according to Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Brother, this is Jesus being worshiped by this portion of the church.

I will suggest that Rev 4:1 separates the division of time to a new viewpoint from our present time and that is “I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.” And it becomes deeper brother.

Now I’ll get back to the previous reply of yours I was working on, and may find I’ve covered some of the things there with this reply.

About the Son of God - Hmmm.... I'll have to think about that some.
"Hereafter", though, would be the same as "from

 

[About the Son of God]

Umm... I'm going to respond to individual points as well...

The Magi were foreigners; they would have no knowledge of local gossip. They did the appropriate thing, inquiring at the legal king's palace as to where to find the new prince (presumably the kings son). Not to mention, that by being overt -- they avoided being accused of being spies. Their action has little to do with them loosing track of the star, unless God hid it from them temporarily.

Eugene – Yes, first of all the Magi went to the wrong city so either the star they followed disappeared or they did not know the prophesy. Even then they did not find Jesus until they entered Joseph and Mary’s house close to two years later.

Mat_2:7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
Mat 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
Mat 2:10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. (They had evidently lost track of it.)
Mat 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother . .
Mat_2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

OK; but I don't see what this has to do with either superseeding all available evidence both traditional and archaeological pointing to Zechariah being a martyr as I understand him to have been; or at very least, not guilty of breaking the law of Moses so that he is still qualified to act as an Aaronitic under-priest who offers incense.

eg: I don't understand why you asked the question that led to this mini-discussion?

But I hope this post clarifies my understanding and biblical scholarship / bible study.

The martyrs tomb Zechariah is said to be buried in, is indeed, a first century tomb eg: contemporary with Simeon the Prophet, and Zechariah the priest, and even John the Evangelist and the writer of Revelation; Herod's intelligence or lack, or the timing of when he decided to kill children does not affect the fact that the hill country of Judea is part of "all the coasts thereof" of Bethlehem; and that John the Baptist was a mere 6 months older than Jesus by the date of his conception.

All I am saying is that clearly by scriptural witness the local people knew of the miraculous nature of John's conception, and even later when he was a grown man the Pharisees still pestered him as to whether or not he, himself, was the messiah.

Secondly; I think it just as clear by logical inference that troops who were massacring all children of that age group on Herod's orders would be expected to interrogate people as standard practice for diligently carrying out their orders.

Given that Bethlehem Juda is a mere 20 miles from the temple, and part of the route the troops took on their mission; it's hardly surprising that Zechariah's 1st century tomb has been identified as being in the Kidron valley just below the temple which is consistent with all other evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zechariah_(priest)

I know of nothing credible in biblical scholarship which can show that Zechriah, the father of John, died in any other place, or in any other way.

 

[Eugene]

About the Son of God - Given that Bethlehem Juda is a mere 20 miles from the temple, and part of the route the troops took on their mission; it's hardly surprising that Zechariah's 1st century tomb has been identified as being in the Kidron valley just below the temple which is consistent with all other evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zechariah_(priest)

I know of nothing credible in biblical scholarship which can show that Zechriah, the father of John, died in any other place, or in any other way.

Eugene - I'm not sure either as to why I brought out certain thoughts without wading back through all that has been said. Was it to do with the Aaronic priesthood? It will be easier taking on one idea at a time.

 

[About the Son of God]

Part two of reply due to length of characters.
Eugene – Like all in Christ, we are blamless, but we read in Numbers 20:12, And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Deuteronomy 32:48-51
48 And the LORD spake unto Moses that selfsame day, saying,
49 Get thee up into this mountain Abarim, unto mount Nebo, . .
50 And die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people:
51 Because ye trespassed against me among the children of Israel at the waters of Meribah-Kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin; because ye sanctified me not in the midst of the children of Israel.

The blamelessness of Christians in Christ is a separate issue: it is of more value than Moses.

Let's look at what you brought up, though: I don't want to trace the ideas I am going to bring up, here, further in this thread; It will cause it to drift farther and farther away from what the beast is with the face of a man on it and how that's "Luke" the man? -- but I do want to talk briefly about Moses; because I think he's a good scriptural example of why we shouldn't accuse people of breaking the law of Moses without clear evidence:

It's not clear in that passage you cited that God is holding Moses responsible for Moses' own sin; it is clear that Moses was merciful and didn't do something to purify the people from a sin;
(Eg: At the golden calf, Moses and Aaron purged the camp by bloodshed -- at Merribah, he killed no one. )

I double checked my thought against the more ancient Greek LXX copies; and sure enough where it says "ye" in the KJV the word is actually ηπειθη-σα-τε ~= "You all-didn't-listen" 2nd person *plural*. God is talking about a group of people to which Moses belongs; which doesn't prove Moses did the sin, himself -- but it does show he bears responsibility for the outcome.

Unfortunately: English doesn't have a plural "you" -- so the KJV translation is useless in the discussion.

That's why I asked you to find the actual sin itself as he did it... eg: the narrative of the actual sin. It's the only way to really make the point decisively....

Again: Go back to the passages on Merribah and try to find anyplace where *Moses* clearly breaks one of the laws he wrote; or at very least clearly does not do what God says he must -- and Note -- although God told Moses to take a rod (?Aaron's?) and strike the rock. God did NOT say, Strike it once. Nor is it part of the law of Moses, anywhere, that when breaking salt packs off of artisan wells in the desert to only strike once. So striking the rock twice is not a definitive act of unfaithfulness.

There are also two accounts of the story in two different books -- if you have personal study time (it's off topic, I know). They bring different details to light which are important.

Second: If Moses had broken the law (Torah), and been unfaithful -- then the devil had rights to corrupt his body and turn it back into dust. (Genesis 3:14) for those who soil their own holiness are subject to corruption -- but notice carefully, those who bear other's sins are not subject to corruption.

Psalm 16:10, Hebrews 3:2 , Jude 1:9.

So, can you see why I think it important that the devil was refused access to Moses' body?

When accusing someone of actively sinning ("sin"/"tresspass"), I think it very important not to use hearsay or circumstantial evidence or even Christian theological "gossip"; but to find the record of what they actually did. That's why I don't presently accept that Moses broke the law, himself, by a sin "unto death";

I will also note that Moses did say that if God were to wipe the israelites out, that he should also wipe Moses out; That is, Moses *chose* to take responsibility for the people's sin, even if he did not commit it himself. By doing that, I think Moses obtained mercy for Israel -- and offered his own life as ransom against THEIR future sins.

Moses stood in the breach, Just like Jesus the Christ would do later upon the cross.

Moses, though, isn't in John's "Revelation", (although he was seen in a vision on the mount of transfiguration, and in Glory) -- and so, although we can discuss him as someone who had a promise from God that he would serve him forever in his temple -- we can't really prove in what way or when or with what restrictions or special privileges he became a Christian in heaven.

Symbolically; He died with Christ; for Jesus dies just outside the camp, outside the entrance to the Jerusalem; What then, if Moses was sent outside the camp to climb a mountain and die there? Is that not one way of being "conformed" to Christ?

 

[Deborah13]

The blamelessness of Christians in Christ is a separate issue: it is of more value than Moses.

Let's look at what you brought up, though: I don't want to trace the ideas I am going to bring up, here, further in this thread; It will cause it to drift farther and farther away from what the beast is with the face of a man on it and how that's "Luke" the man? -- but I do want to talk briefly about Moses; because I think he's a good scriptural example of why we shouldn't accuse people of breaking the law of Moses without clear evidence:

It's not clear in that passage you cited that God is holding Moses responsible for Moses' own sin; it is clear that Moses was merciful and didn't do something to purify the people from a sin;
(Eg: At the golden calf, Moses and Aaron purged the camp by bloodshed -- at Merribah, he killed no one. )

I double checked my thought against the more ancient Greek LXX copies; and sure enough where it says "ye" in the KJV the word is actually ηπειθη-σα-τε ~= "You all-didn't-listen" 2nd person *plural*. God is talking about a group of people to which Moses belongs; which doesn't prove Moses did the sin, himself -- but it does show he bears responsibility for the outcome.

Unfortunately: English doesn't have a plural "you" -- so the KJV translation is useless in the discussion.

That's why I asked you to find the actual sin itself as he did it... eg: the narrative of the actual sin. It's the only way to really make the point decisively....

Again: Go back to the passages on Merribah and try to find anyplace where *Moses* clearly breaks one of the laws he wrote; or at very least clearly does not do what God says he must -- and Note -- although God told Moses to take a rod (?Aaron's?) and strike the rock. God did NOT say, Strike it once. Nor is it part of the law of Moses, anywhere, that when breaking salt packs off of artisan wells in the desert to only strike once. So striking the rock twice is not a definitive act of unfaithfulness.

There are also two accounts of the story in two different books -- if you have personal study time (it's off topic, I know). They bring different details to light which are important.

Second: If Moses had broken the law (Torah), and been unfaithful -- then the devil had rights to corrupt his body and turn it back into dust. (Genesis 3:14) for those who soil their own holiness are subject to corruption -- but notice carefully, those who bear other's sins are not subject to corruption.

Psalm 16:10, Hebrews 3:2 , Jude 1:9.

So, can you see why I think it important that the devil was refused access to Moses' body?

When accusing someone of actively sinning ("sin"/"tresspass"), I think it very important not to use hearsay or circumstantial evidence or even Christian theological "gossip"; but to find the record of what they actually did. That's why I don't presently accept that Moses broke the law, himself, by a sin "unto death";

I will also note that Moses did say that if God were to wipe the israelites out, that he should also wipe Moses out; That is, Moses *chose* to take responsibility for the people's sin, even if he did not commit it himself. By doing that, I think Moses obtained mercy for Israel -- and offered his own life as ransom against THEIR future sins.

Moses stood in the breach, Just like Jesus the Christ would do later upon the cross.

Moses, though, isn't in John's "Revelation", (although he was seen in a vision on the mount of transfiguration, and in Glory) -- and so, although we can discuss him as someone who had a promise from God that he would serve him forever in his temple -- we can't really prove in what way or when or with what restrictions or special privileges he became a Christian in heaven.

Symbolically; He died with Christ; for Jesus dies just outside the camp, outside the entrance to the Jerusalem; What then, if Moses was sent outside the camp to climb a mountain and die there? Is that not one way of being "conformed" to Christ?

Interesting conversation going on here, I've been just reading along.
However, I would like to add my 2 cents about Moses' and the Rock. The first time they received living water from the rock, Moses was told to strike it. Moses represents the Law.
The second time Moses was told only to speak to the Rock to receive living water. The Rock of coarse represent the Messiah and the new covenant of grace.
The Messiah was struck by the followers of the old covenant in their unbelief. (Moses' unbelief). For them to receive living waters now they must speak to Him and ask, just as everyone else does. This is sin unto death not to believe, in the Savior.
Moses, being a man, in striking was doing something to receive life for the people, rather just speaking in God's name, God being glorified.

 

[Eugene]

Interesting conversation going on here, I've been just reading along.
However, I would like to add my 2 cents about Moses' and the Rock. The first time they received living water from the rock, Moses was told to strike it. Moses represents the Law.
The second time Moses was told only to speak to the Rock to receive living water. The Rock of coarse represent the Messiah and the new covenant of grace.
The Messiah was struck by the followers of the old covenant in their unbelief. (Moses' unbelief). For them to receive living waters now they must speak to Him and ask, just as everyone else does. This is sin unto death not to believe, in the Savior.
Moses, being a man, in striking was doing something to receive life for the people, rather just speaking in God's name, God being glorified.

Good stuff Sister Deborah, but however said it is equated as unbelief; exactly that which Israel professed by not speaking unto the Rock of our salvation.

 

[Eugene]

About the Son of God - Again: Go back to the passages on Merribah and try to find anyplace where *Moses* clearly breaks one of the laws he wrote; or at very least clearly does not do what God says he must -- and Note -- although God told Moses to take a rod (?Aaron's?) and strike the rock. God did NOT say, Strike it once. Nor is it part of the law of Moses, anywhere, that when breaking salt packs off of artisan wells in the desert to only strike once. So striking the rock twice is not a definitive act of unfaithfulness.

Eugene – While not pointing out individual sin in man there is none righteous; no, not one. None but Jesus ever fulfilled the law, else there would be no need of sacrifice. Regardless the Hebrew writing we cannot discount that Moses was told to die because of his failure.

About the Son of God - When accusing someone of actively sinning ("sin"/"tresspass"), I think it very important not to use hearsay or circumstantial evidence or even Christian theological "gossip"; but to find the record of what they actually did. That's why I don't presently accept that Moses broke the law, himself, by a sin "unto death";

Eugene – That sort of amazes me that Moses very words would be considered heresay. There are so many things I do not understand, and I certainly cannot debate your expertise considering the use of Hebrew words, but Moses said that God talked to him when we read Deut 32:51 Because ye trespassed against me . .

Num 27:14 - For ye rebelled against my commandment

ASV - ye trespassed against me
NAS - you broke faith with Me
NIV - acted unfaithfully against me
ISV - you acted unfaithfully against me

About the Son of God - Symbolically; He died with Christ; for Jesus dies just outside the camp, outside the entrance to the Jerusalem; What then, if Moses was sent outside the camp to climb a mountain and die there? Is that not one way of being "conformed" to Christ?

Eugene – I do not know.

 

[About the Son of God]

About the Son of God - Again: Go back to the passages on Merribah and try to find anyplace where *Moses* clearly breaks one of the laws he wrote; or at very least clearly does not do what God says he must -- and Note -- although God told Moses to take a rod (?Aaron's?) and strike the rock. God did NOT say, Strike it once. Nor is it part of the law of Moses, anywhere, that when breaking salt packs off of artisan wells in the desert to only strike once. So striking the rock twice is not a definitive act of unfaithfulness.

Eugene – While not pointing out individual sin in man there is none righteous; no, not one. None but Jesus ever fulfilled the law, else there would be no need of sacrifice. Regardless the Hebrew writing we cannot discount that Moses was told to die because of his failure.

Eugene, that quote still isn't the actual account of the sin ? ....and I wonder why you're wandering from the topic even more by bringing up the misquote "no not one" -- which we already discussed in a debate setting once before. Have you perhaps forgotten?

Freewill religion ! - Part 2

I don't wish to debate that here in no-debate zone; so let anyone interested follow the old thread;

Rather I am merely going to affirm that there are scriptural witnesses to people doing the law of Moses blamelessly. eg: Elizabeth / Luke 1:5,6

So: at very least, I think we have a very different outlooks on what Sacrifice means; for I think that even if all mankind had not sinned in Adam, and Adam had not fallen -- I still believe with all my heart that God would have deserved praise from Adam; And since praise is a form of sacrifice, therefore -- sacrifice was always necessary even before Adam sinned.

Eugene – That sort of amazes me that Moses very words would be considered heresay.

Oh? perhaps you missed my clarifying phrase?? -- "or circumstantial evidence" ??

Again:
The word "you" can mean a single person or Group in English; so these sentences can also mean:

Num 27:14 - For ye [all] rebelled against my commandment
ASV - ye [all] trespassed against me
NAS - you [all] broke faith with Me
NIV - [all] acted unfaithfully against me
ISV - you [all] acted unfaithfully against me

On top of that, when I double check the NAS/NIV/ISV against the LXX for the word "Faith" ("pistis") which generally implies "saved"; I find the word is not in the older and more reliable Greek manuscripts. So these passages don't really show that "faithlessness" is explicitly meant, either ; It's not that Moses is guilty of a sin unto the second death (deadly sin).

Perhaps this will help:
The people were very thirsty, and yet the rock was annointed (sanctified) -- So I speculate the sin is that the people climbed up on the rock (mountain) to get at the water, although only Moses was supposed to have been up there speaking to the people from the top of it.

They did this in other places....

Deuteronomy 1:43 So I spake unto you; and ye would not hear, but rebelled against the commandment of the LORD, and went presumptuously up into the hill.

and the "rock" of water was one that supposedly followed them from place to place.

I bring that passage up, because "you-all-broke", in the passage you quoted me is a very rare form of the word in Greek, spelled exactly "παρεβητε"; Think about it: Although sin and transgression are found *all* over the bible, this spelling is only found three times in the whole bible:
Deuteronomy 1:43, Deuteronomy 9:16, Numbers 27:14.

Check the contexts.

So, to be sure -- it's not that Moses' words are heresy / hear-say / heresay; but rather, I think that the context is not clear about who actually sinned, due to plural people (or not dismissable as plural if not proved) being involved.

 

[Deborah13]

Num 20:10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?

Who provided the water from the rock? Moses and Aaron? Nope.

 

[About the Son of God]

Num 20:10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?

Who provided the water from the rock? Moses and Aaron? Nope.

Deborah, you're a gem! i LOVE IT.

 

[Eugene]

About the Son of God – I don't wish to debate that here in no-debate zone; so let anyone interested follow the old thread;
On top of that, when I double check the NAS/NIV/ISV against the LXX for the word "Faith" ("pistis") which generally implies "saved"; I find the word is not in the older and more reliable Greek manuscripts. So these passages don't really show that "faithlessness" is explicitly meant, either ; It's not that Moses is guilty of a sin unto the second death (deadly sin).

Eugene – I have no idea where I said Moses sinned a sin unto the second death which to me is not possible for one belonging to God, but you’re correct is saying this is turning into a debate and I withdraw. I am guilty for having entered discussion on a forum I normally never enter due to its restrictive regulations. Thanks brother for your time in Jesus’ name.

Blessings in Christ Jesus.

 

[About the Son of God]

About the Son of God
Blessings in Christ Jesus.

And blessings and peace go with you as well.
--Your brother in Christ, Jesus, Andrew.