About the Son of God
Member
That's fine; The quote mechanisms on the forum are a little flaky. I make allowances....
Yes, I agree to your premise; for we *are* a priesthood; so I have to admit the one point,
But I am going to ask for a small correction, assuming work=sacrifice, eg: sacrifice and not sacrificeS.
I am not referring to the plurality of people, or times we sacrifice/offer/praise God, but a distinction made rather consistently in the early Greek manuscripts from Paul (Esp: Tishendorf) which copyists, especially from the Alexandrian school , and some from the Latin (Catholic) schools, did not meticulously duplicate; for they thought one sacrifice (work) or many were equivalent statements. But the *earlier* codexes are very consistent that when a work is a good one, or for Christ, it is spoken of in the singular. When it is a faithless one, or worthless one, it is either in the plural -- or in the collective/neuter.
Notice in John 6:28 the Jews (Hebrews?) ask about what they must *do* to do the workS of God, and Jesus doesn't answer them in the plural; rather he says "this is the work of God" ; The difference I am pointing out is meticulously maintained in Paul's epistles in the Greek from around 400A.D. or earlier ; but is lost in later copies.
As a side note: T.R. Stephanus, for example, (which I understand is the ORIGINAL KJV's underlying Greek) -- is a Catholic priest from the middle ages who ""Corrected"" a Greek manuscript to agree with the Latin Vulgate in places, for he thought there were "mistakes".
As an example of scripture variances .... take a look at this page:
www.biblos.com/romans/11-6.htm
As you scan down the Greek words, you'll notice that the word "if" is preceeded by a "{" ; the reason is that most biblical scholars agree the part in {} is not the original biblical text, but is an insertion a copyist added to the text to explain the previous sentence.
(He was being clever.... a bit too clever....)
In the first place, God was not pleased with the sacrifices of Caiphas -- and if God wanted to divorce anyone -- it would be the *man* Caiphas. The word you call "annulled" I equate with "divorce" or "porn".
In the second place, the temple was prophesied by Jesus to be destroyed; and it was in 70A.D.
The law commands the sacrifice only be offered in the Jerusalem temple, does it not?
I don't argue that the law passed in it's entirety; Just that the portion given at Sainai is not necessary for Christians. ( Hebrews 8:4-5 )
Hence, it *IS* necessary for those who entered the Mosaic covenant; and even (the person who's post follows this one) agreed to the possibility of the "Jews" still having the law (separate from us Christians.)
(I know, it's hard to remember microscopic admissions like that in an otherwise stubborn wall of denial.
)IMO at very least priests (and perhaps under-priests) could still offer sacrifices under the name of "gifts", eg: wave offerings, heave offerings, welcome offerings, or how about "TITHE" (which Christian churches generally still ask for!) etc. and those who are priests are entitled to a portion of the sacrifices as part of their income;
Levites generally operated as the butchers and dressers of meat, as well as the priestly capacity. So, I don't see that they would have ceased to operate in any event.
Yes... just keep them in brackets, if it's not actually in the original text.
I find them very helpful to follow other people's thoughts.
A (very small) gotcha, , When two Greek nouns appear side by side with the same ending, one of them is a modifier/adjective of the other.
The word covenant is not stand alone in the previous sentence; so the bracket could be made more precise as [convenant mediator].
But covenant works....www.biblos,com/hebrews/8-6.htm
OK. So I'm following the argument...
Sure, but you've missed my question; Where in the Old Testament are we allowed to change the Law so that the *statutes* about the high priest coming from Aaron ( not just Levi, but Aaron within Levi ) could now become Judah?
A "Cohen" is a Levite, but not an "Aaron"ite. A "Juda"ite, is neither a Levite, nor a Aaronite.
(Although.... Mary was *cousin* to Elizabeth; but that's for another post...)
For you to be correct, the Romans would have had to have failed in exterminating them in bar kokaba revolt; and they would have to have a pedigree to assume power.... and many other obstacles....
But, as a short detour -- Ezekiel 44:15, mentions Zadokites. Zadokites are from Aaron.
When King David was in trouble with Saul, Zadok and Ahitub aided him ( 2Samuel 15:28-29, and many more ); so that when David came to power he divided up the line of Aaron in to twenty four groups of high priests for ministry in the temple according to their father's name; For example, Mary's cousin Elizabeth, was married to Zecharias who is of the tribe "abia"; So we know (lawfully) that Zechariah would have offered incense as an Aaronite underpriest able to enter the holies, but not the holy of holies; Eg: he would burn incense on the gold altar, but not do yom kippur.
In the visions of Heaven, we do see the high priestly or Aaronite divisions reflected in images: eg Revelation 19:4, Revelation 5:8, And we see the duty carried out: Revelation 8:3-4,
Even Zadokites did underpriest duties; but only one acted as high priest.
Compare Revelation against Luke 1:9-10, and note the whole multitude were praying....
Often, people attempt to use scripture to interpret passages like Revelation 19:4 so that half of the thrones ( twelve ) are for the apostles (Cf. Matthew 19:28 ), and the remaining twelve are assigned according to various theories. eg: Mormons claim they are the 12 apostles, plus twelve Mormons from the "new world" (America of course...). Various Christian denominations, along with even Catholics, Claim the remaining twelve are for old testament figures, such as the twelve patriarchs from Abraham ; but each of these theories presents some challenges.
I look at a vision for the symbolic value; and in the passage from revelation, what I am seeing is the twenty four rows of incense priests; Not a literal reference to twenty four specific men. The vision may or may not be about the individuals any more than Kings on earths are shaggy beasts crawling out of the water with horns growing out of their heads.
The last of the Zadokite known was around circa 50BC, in Jerusalem. During a revolt at that time, a separate line of high priests who were not permitted to do yom kippur, took power by force; and the last Zadokite priest attempted to obtain the high priesthood again; BUT the other Aaronites at the time refused him, eventually exiling him to Egypt. He apparently built a temple in Egypt to replicate the one in Jerusalem, but that temple died out with him. (Questions about Jesus' flight into Egypt are interesting...)
In any event, even when pedigrees were carefully kept -- he was the last zadokite; To be sure, Caiphas was not a zadokite -- he was an Aaronite, and under Moses Caiphas was legitimate -- but under David he was not.
None of this presents problems for God's kingdom in heaven; for Many of Aaron's line died here in God's good graces.
As it was said of Zecharaih, he was a Just man -- blameless before the law. Luke 1:6.
Sigh.... When God blessed Abraham and Sarah (his flesh), the moment he said the son of promise would be from your flesh; the promise included Sarah. Yet Sarah did not understand that, she sinned ( I assume sin in the sense of "amartia", not "anomia" or "parabasis", <-> eg: "a missed target" not "lawlessness" or "transgression" ) by bringing in Hagar.
Hagar was not around when the promise was first made to Abraham -- Sarah was. Again, God's law is that the two become one flesh in *marriage* -- not the three or more.
Yet, even so, because Ishmael is Abraham's son, even if not perfectly of his flesh -- as required by the promise -- he was none the less Abraham's flesh in *part*. So, Abraham became the father "of many nations" because God's promise *could* extend to him.
Therefore: The perfection of the law has little to do with God keeping his promise, since God's "gifts" and "callings" are "irrevocable." ( and so, for the same reason, is Hell. )
The problem is, Moses' law had concessions in it: Matthew 19:7-8
It is not just God -- but a "mediator" who is involved.
I don't even know how to approach that; For, the law is a mixture -- and therefore, meditating on the perfections of the law, assuredly does not mean meditating on the portions which are concessions? Or if it is a "perfection", than it's a perfect law for a "sinner" and not a just person? For, in any marriage that fails -- is it not going to be wondered, "who's fault was it", that they could not stay together? (I don't believe in no fault divorce.)
There's more in your post to respond to.... but I need to take a break. You make some good points....
Last edited by a moderator:
