Martin Luther: The Idea That Changed The World

[jkwilliams]

39 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So you utterly reject the testimonies of Christ and his followers recorded in the New Testament, as you must, because those testimonies flatly contradict what you say.? And as you have before acknowledged, you also don't believe the historical Jesus made any of the statements attributed to Him in the Book of Mormon.

 Please explain to me how someone who believes the testimonies of the prophets recorded in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon is supposed to have a meaningful and productive dialogue with you when, by very nature, your comments are basically irrelevancies and non sequiturs inserted into the midst of the discussions that believers in the scriptures can't even relate to? It's as if there's an earnest discussion going on  among a group oh engineers focusing on the technical reasons why the World Trade Towers collapsed on 9/11, only to have someone without an engineering background chime in and say there were no planes that crashed into the towers that day and the videos that appear to show otherwise are trick photography.

Recognizing that we've back-filled a lot of later Christian doctrine into our reading of the New Testament in no way suggests that Gray "utterly reject the testimonies of Christ and his (sic) followers recorded in the New Testament."

Edited September 19, 2017 by jkwilliams

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So you utterly reject the testimonies of Christ and his followers recorded in the New Testament, as you must, because those testimonies flatly contradict what you say.? And as you have before acknowledged, you also don't believe the historical Jesus made any of the statements attributed to Him in the Book of Mormon.

I did say I was talking about the historical Jesus. The theological Jesus is another matter altogether. One does not have to reject one's theological views about Jesus to accept the historical conclusion that Jesus likely did not believe himself to be divine in his lifetime. 

 

Quote

 Please explain to me how someone who believes the testimonies of the prophets recorded in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon is supposed to have a meaningful and productive dialogue with you when, by very nature, your comments are basically irrelevancies and non sequiturs inserted into the midst of the discussions that believers in the scriptures can't even relate to? It's as if there's an earnest discussion going on  among a group oh engineers focusing on the technical reasons why the World Trade Towers collapsed on 9/11, only to have someone without an engineering background chime in and say there were no planes that crashed into the towers that day and the videos that appear to show otherwise are trick photography.

It must be understood that most of the words attributed to Jesus were not spoken by him. The gospels are not concerned with history - they're mostly stories whose purpose is to transmit theology, and the details of this theology evolve with each retelling. The theology of John is not at all the theology of Mark, for instance. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Gray

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So you utterly reject the testimonies of Christ and his followers recorded in the New Testament, as you must, because those testimonies flatly contradict what you say.? And as you have before acknowledged, you also don't believe the historical Jesus made any of the statements attributed to Him in the Book of Mormon.

 Please explain to me how someone who believes the testimonies of the prophets recorded in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon is supposed to have a meaningful and productive dialogue with you when, by very nature, your comments are basically irrelevancies and non sequiturs inserted into the midst of the discussions that believers in the scriptures can't even relate to? It's as if there's an earnest discussion going on  among a group oh engineers focusing on the technical reasons why the World Trade Towers collapsed on 9/11, only to have someone without an engineering background chime in and say there were no planes that crashed into the towers that day and the videos that appear to show otherwise are trick photography.

This is a poor analogy.  I believe Gray is talking about historical innovation that has happened generations after Jesus lived, vs. what the person Jesus might have considered about himself at the time he was alive based on fragmentary evidence.  You're trying to compare a historical Jesus approach with a theological Jesus, and the two don't match.     

A analogy that might work would be to have people that live in 2100 - 2200 C.E. develop a narrative about the 9/11 attacks that is substantially different from the way you currently view the event happening as a person living in the year 2017.   Those future narratives would then evolve further and eventually there would be thousands of different versions of the event with millions of followers ascribing to each version.  Then at some point in approximately the year 4000 C.E., lets assume that all video footage and 99.9% of the contemporary recordings of the event have been lost, and all we have are small fragments and the narratives that began to develop in the years 2100 - 2200 and up to 4000 C.E.  

What do we know about the event?  Not much, if anything at all.  What we do know is what people that lived multiple generations after 9/11 said about it, and we know what those thousands of years of innovation and evolution of thought by multiple different factions say about the event, but honestly we have very little contemporary evidence, and what contemporary evidence we have shows a much different picture than the exaggerated and mythological tellings that have evolved over those 2000 years.  

[Bobbieaware]

59 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is a poor analogy.  I believe Gray is talking about historical innovation that has happened generations after Jesus lived, vs. what the person Jesus might have considered about himself at the time he was alive based on fragmentary evidence.  You're trying to compare a historical Jesus approach with a theological Jesus, and the two don't match.     

A analogy that might work would be to have people that live in 2100 - 2200 C.E. develop a narrative about the 9/11 attacks that is substantially different from the way you currently view the event happening as a person living in the year 2017.   Those future narratives would then evolve further and eventually there would be thousands of different versions of the event with millions of followers ascribing to each version.  Then at some point in approximately the year 4000 C.E., lets assume that all video footage and 99.9% of the contemporary recordings of the event have been lost, and all we have are small fragments and the narratives that began to develop in the years 2100 - 2200 and up to 4000 C.E.  

What do we know about the event?  Not much, if anything at all.  What we do know is what people that lived multiple generations after 9/11 said about it, and we know what those thousands of years of innovation and evolution of thought by multiple different factions say about the event, but honestly we have very little contemporary evidence, and what contemporary evidence we have shows a much different picture than the exaggerated and mythological tellings that have evolved over those 2000 years.  

You're making my point. You are speaking for a point of view that asserts there almost certainly is no God, no atoning Christ, no historical Book of Mormon, no prophets, no reliable way to uncover the mysteries past and no way to get answers to important questions From an omniscient God. Those of us who have applied Moroni's promise and received the promised sure spiritual witness of the Spirit that the Restored Church is true have nothing in common and have no common ground upon which to engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue on gospel topics with the opposing side because each discussion will inevitably revert back to "one can't know anything for sure" (your side) vs "one can KNOW for sure" (my side). It's pointless.

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

You're making my point. You are speaking for a point of view that asserts there almost certainly is no God, no atoning Christ, no historical Book of Mormon, no prophets, no reliable way to uncover the mysteries past and no way to get answers to important questions From an omniscient God. Those of us who have applied Moroni's promise and received the promised sure spiritual witness of the Spirit that the Restored Church is true have nothing in common and no common ground upon which to have any kind of meaningful dialogue on gospel topics with the opposing side because each discussion will inevitably revert back  to "one can't know anything for sure" (your side) vs "one can KNOW for sure" (my side). It's pointless.

I believe his point of view is noting your presentism, nothing more. The idea that the gospels have a context that is different from what we as 21st century Mormons may imagine is hardly heretical or inimical to the testimony of the Holy Ghost. You said recently you used to be a "hard core atheist," and I couldn't quite imagine it. I think I get it now. Switching dogmas does not make one less dogmatic.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

You're making my point. You are speaking for a point of view that asserts there almost certainly is no God, no atoning Christ, no historical Book of Mormon, no prophets, no reliable way to uncover the mysteries past and no way to get answers to important questions From an omniscient God. Those of us who have applied Moroni's promise and received the promised sure spiritual witness of the Spirit that the Restored Church is true have nothing in common and have no common ground upon which to engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue on gospel topics with the opposing side because each discussion will inevitably revert back to "one can't know anything for sure" (your side) vs "one can KNOW for sure" (my side). It's pointless.

You're getting things confused, but what is true about what you said is that we don't have a reliable way to uncover the past.  Not very many records were kept back then.  That might make some people uncomfortable, particularly those who confuse issues of faith with issues of fact.  I'm not saying anything about whether or not God exists and I don't find that relevant to this specific discussion.   

If you want to believe that the modern theology tells you truths about past history in a very factually accurate way, that's completely fine, just realize that this is a belief based in faith in an authority figure or faith in a theological tradition, but its not a belief based in material evidence. 

Understanding these distinctions is important if you want to have dialogue with people on these issues, otherwise you're just going to be confusing things if you conflate all this together.  

[LittleNipper]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

Jesus lived and died as a Jewish man. His early followers were Jewish as well. Christianity evolved later. 

Sorry, but Jesus was already speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well. She would have been rejected by Jews. The Bible already predicted/revealed that God would make the nation of Israel jealous and that would happen by opening the doors to the gentiles. 
 

Deuteronomy 32:20-21
 

²⁰ And He said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.

²¹ They have moved Me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked Me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation
Romans
10:19: But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you

We have the Bible and it proves itself over and over that it is the most reliable book ever composed.

In Matthew 15, there is an incident that, at first, seems to confirm the idea that Jesus came only for the Jews. Jesus was traveling through Tyre and Sidon, a Gentile region, and “a Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, ‘Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly’” (Matthew 15:22). This Gentile woman recognized Jesus as the Messiah (“Son of David”), but “Jesus did not answer a word” (verse 23). As the woman kept up her appeals, Jesus finally responded, but His words seemed to hold little hope: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (verse 24). However, the woman did not give up, and Jesus eventually granted her request, based on her “great faith” (verse 28).

The fact that Jesus helped the Canaanite woman, even though His mission was to the Jews, is a significant detail in the Gospel narrative. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus gave other indications that His power and compassion reached to all people. He healed a Roman centurion’s servant (Luke 7:1–10). He traveled through the Gentile region of the Gerasenes (Mark 5:1). He ministered in a Samaritan city (John 4).

Edited September 20, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Gray]

12 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Sorry, but Jesus was already speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well. She would have been rejected by Jews. The Bible already predicted/revealed that God would make the nation of Israel jealous and that would happen by opening the doors to the gentiles. 

 

Yes, Jesus was radically inclusive - and Jewish. If he had been around today he would have been dismissed as an "SJW" and a "virtue signaler"

Maybe it helped that Jesus grew up in the "land of the gentiles" - he was comfortable around the ritually impure.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Gray

[Vance]

On 9/18/2017 at 8:32 PM, LittleNipper said:

Nephi lived before Peter.

So?  Nephi lived on another continent.  There is no expectation that Peter would have known about him.

On 9/18/2017 at 8:32 PM, LittleNipper said:

There was ever only one Chief/Head Priest to serve in the Temple at Jerusalem at any one time.

WOW!  It never ceases to amaze me how much you don't know.

Jesus wasn't the only "high priest" at the time.  There was another, perhaps you don't study the Bible enough.

Caiaphas was a high priest at the same time Jesus was. 

Your statement has been proven wrong.

On 9/18/2017 at 8:32 PM, LittleNipper said:

Christ is now the eternal Chief/High Priest.

True, but he isn't the only one.  Christ is a priest for ever AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC.  An order consists of more than one.

On 9/18/2017 at 8:32 PM, LittleNipper said:

None of the Apostles or disciples of Christ were Mormon.

WOW.  You got me.  I just don't know how to respond inanity.

[Vance]

On 9/18/2017 at 8:52 PM, LittleNipper said:

One can understand that GOD created the entire Universe, but I bet you don't know exactly how HE accomplished that feat. Yes, I believe GOD spoke and everything came into being, but I don't know what exactly that entails. The very same is true regarding the Bible.

Apples and oranges.  A better comparison to inerrancy would be to say "we know that God created the earth, and he started with ping pong balls".

On 9/18/2017 at 8:52 PM, LittleNipper said:

We know that the Holy Spirit moved selected men to write . . .

Yes, we do know this.

On 9/18/2017 at 8:52 PM, LittleNipper said:

exactly . . .

Nope, you don't "know" this. You admit that you don't know how he did it, therefore you can't know that "exactly" applies.  The Bible NEVER expresses or implies "exactly".

On 9/18/2017 at 8:52 PM, LittleNipper said:

what GOD wanted in the way He wanted it, . . .

Again, if you don't know how revelation works then you can't know this.  The only way to know this is for God to reveal it to you.  But you claim to receiving revelation and also not knowing how revelation works.

 

For the claim of Bible inerrancy to true, requires inerrancy on the part of the claimers.

But the claimers are errant men who don't claim any special dispensation from God.  So, they are just making it up.

On 9/18/2017 at 8:52 PM, LittleNipper said:

but we cannot know what that entailed because we were not there. 

AND, God has NOT revealed it to you. 

So basically, you don't know what you are talking about.

[LittleNipper]

12 hours ago, Vance said:

So?  Nephi lived on another continent.  There is no expectation that Peter would have known about him.

WOW!  It never ceases to amaze me how much you don't know.

Jesus wasn't the only "high priest" at the time.  There was another, perhaps you don't study the Bible enough.

Caiaphas was a high priest at the same time Jesus was. 

Your statement has been proven wrong.

True, but he isn't the only one.  Christ is a priest for ever AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC.  An order consists of more than one.

WOW.  You got me.  I just don't know how to respond inanity.

Jesus would have known of Nephi's existence (had Nephi existed). Jesus knew all about the woman at the well. Jesus was shown the entire world by Satan. I cannot fathom that Jesus would reveal far more deeper profound things to His disciples and yet make no indepth mention of Nephi or of Hebrews living across the ocean ----- especially when the risen Savior says to go to the whole world and preach the Good News! Sorry, those biblical and archaeological facts that there is NO PROOF that YOUR Nephi ever existed demonstrates that the entire book of mormon lacks Christian relevance. It didn't matter to Peter, Paul, James, John., etc...  And you yourself just revealed that!

Jesus was not the High/Chief Priest until He arose from the Dead. There is no other priest equal with JESUS CHRIST the LORD. He is the ultimate. Any other is at best only a representation of what Christ does alone.

Edited September 23, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Vance]

8 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Jesus would have known of Nephi's existence (had Nephi existed). Jesus knew all about the woman at the well. Jesus was shown the entire world by Satan.

So. 

Quote

I cannot fathom that Jesus would reveal far more deeper profound things to His disciples and yet make no indepth mention of Nephi or of Hebrews living across the ocean -----

There are a lot of things you can't fathom.  So?

Quote

especially when the risen Savior says to go to the whole world and preach the Good News!

Context, context, context.  Jesus was speaking to people who didn't know about the American continent nor the people that lived there.   There is no expectation that He should give them this information.  Especially since He knew what He was doing and He had other plans.

It is very OBVIOUS that you have not read The Book of Mormon and are totally ignorant of its contents.

Jesus did say, (John 10:)15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

  16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

It will be interesting to see the crap you make up to explain this away. 

 

But here is a clue.  Jesus was talking about the Nephites (among others).

Quote

Sorry, those biblical and archaeological facts that there is NO PROOF that YOUR Nephi ever existed demonstrates that the entire book of mormon lacks Christian relevance.

WOW, your logic is stunningly ridiculous.

The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ, regardless of your supposed "biblical and archaeological facts".

And there is no proof that Jesus was resurrected, nor turned the water to wine, nor healed anyone.

FAITH doesn't require proof.

Quote

It didn't matter to Peter, Paul, James, John., etc...  And you yourself just revealed that!

Yep, what they didn't know didn't matter to them.  You really are clueless.

Quote

Jesus was not the High/Chief Priest until He arose from the Dead.

I noticed that you CAN'T provide a single scripture to support this claim.

So, when it says "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" it doesn't really mean FOR EVER?

And when is says "19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

  20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Quote

There is no other priest equal with JESUS CHRIST the LORD.

True, but that is an implicit admission that there ARE other priests.

Quote

He is the ultimate. Any other is at best only a representation of what Christ does alone.

True, but that is an implicit admission that there ARE other priests.

I think you need to

1) Actually read the Book of Mormon so you don't make such silly statements about it.

2) Actually study what the Bible says, and not what some anti-Mormon minister says.

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by Vance

[LittleNipper]

Okay, I get it... This is what you wish to believe. Yes, I've read the Book of Mormon. I have a copy that was brought to me by a couple of nice young men on bicycle44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

[LittleNipper]

5 hours ago, Vance said:

So. 

There are a lot of things you can't fathom.  So?

Context, context, context.  Jesus was speaking to people who didn't know about the American continent nor the people that lived there.   There is no expectation that He should give them this information.  Especially since He knew what He was doing and He had other plans.

It is very OBVIOUS that you have not read The Book of Mormon and are totally ignorant of its contents.

Jesus did say, (John 10:)15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

  16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

It will be interesting to see the crap you make up to explain this away. 

 

But here is a clue.  Jesus was talking about the Nephites (among others).

WOW, your logic is stunningly ridiculous.

The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ, regardless of your supposed "biblical and archaeological facts".

And there is no proof that Jesus was resurrected, nor turned the water to wine, nor healed anyone.

FAITH doesn't require proof.

Yep, what they didn't know didn't matter to them.  You really are clueless.

I noticed that you CAN'T provide a single scripture to support this claim.

So, when it says "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" it doesn't really mean FOR EVER?

And when is says "19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

  20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

True, but that is an implicit admission that there ARE other priests.

True, but that is an implicit admission that there ARE other priests.

I think you need to

1) Actually read the Book of Mormon so you don't make such silly statements about it.

2) Actually study what the Bible says, and not what some anti-Mormon minister says.

 

Okay, okay ----- you have you're own belief --- I totally get it. I'm with Peter and Paul and you are with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  There are a lot of things I don't understand. I'm not GOD.  You know everything --- I get your dig. Those other sheep are the GENTILES. Hebrews are of one fold and gentiles are of another. I thought that Nephi was a Hebrew according to the Book of Mormon --- I guess I misunderstood --- maybe he wasn't. Anyway, priests are cohen and are not High/priests (only one was ever selected at a time HISTORICALLY). Just who do you suppose Melchisedec was --- just some common human? Can you not fathom that Melchisedec and the Messiah are one and the same? It's known as a Christophany (a pre incarnation manifestation of Christ). All born-again believers are priests; however only CHRIST is the High Priest NOW and forever! Your explanation is that JESUS wouldn't reveal the Nephi/Moroni saga because they (the disciples) had no idea with regards to the "New World". So why would Jesus not reveal it person to person with His friends/disciples and yet reveal it to complete strangers 2000 years later who in reality could care less about a group of Hebrews who supposedly fled to the New World.  Jewish ancestors wouldn't care but former gentiles in fact would? How so? They are all gone without a trace  ------- and I'm to be impressed how exactly? Did Jesus said "GO YE UNTO ALL THE WORLD AND PREACH THE GOSPEL ---BUT I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE BRETHREN ACROSS THE OCEAN? The whole world isn't everywhere . I suspect that you don't believe the Flood was GLOBAL? 

It is really hard for me to imagine that any real Christian would seem to totally be lacking in patience that they would silence and belittle at every turn. But who am I to judge...

Edited September 24, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Vance]

35 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Okay, okay ----- you have you're own belief --- I totally get it. I'm with Peter and Paul

So am I. 

Quote

and you are with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

Who are with Peter, Paul and Jesus.

Quote

 There are a lot of things I don't understand.

This is true

Quote

You know everything ---

I have never expressed or implied that.  But hey, when you can't support your position, misrepresent your opponents words and position.

Quote

Those other sheep are the GENTILES.

NOPE.  Hear his voice is literal.  The Gentiles NEVER heard Jesus' voice.

Quote

 I thought that Nephi was a Hebrew according to the Book of Mormon --- I guess I misunderstood

Well, if you had actually read The Book of Mormon you would know that no one mentioned in it ever claimed to be "Hebrew".

Quote

Anyway, Priests are Cohen and are not High/priests (only one was ever selected at a time HISTORICALLY).

All priests after the order of Melchisedec are high priests.

Here is a clue for you.

Heb 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

  2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.

  3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.

  4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

  5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

  6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

  7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

  8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

  9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

  10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

 

Quote

Just who do you suppose Melchisedec was --- just some common human?

No, he was a great king to whom Abraham paid tithes.

Quote

Can you not fathom that Melchisedec and the Messiah are one and the same?

No, they are not the same person.  It is ludicrous that the word "order" would be used for one person.

Quote

It's known as a Christophany (a pre incarnation manifestation of Christ).

And it is NOT found in the Bible.  So you can't believe it.  And I don't have to.

Quote

All born-again believers are priests;

Nope.  Heb 5:4 clearly shows that that is not in compliance with the God given process.  Sola scriptura takes another hit.

Quote

however only CHRIST is the High Priest NOW and forever!

You keep inserting that word "only" where it doesn't belong.  What you are claiming is NOT found in the Bible.

Quote

Your explanation is that JESUS wouldn't reveal the Nephi/Moroni saga because they (the disciples) had no idea with regards to the "New World".

There you go, misrepresenting what I said and my position.  IF you HAD read The Book of Mormon you would KNOW why Jesus didn't reveal it.

But you have to READ the book.

Quote

So why would Jesus not reveal it person to person with His friends/disciples and yet reveal it to complete strangers 2000 years later who in reality could care less about a group of Hebrews who supposedly fled to the New World.

Like I said, you haven't read The Book of Mormon like you claim OR YOU WOULD ALREADY KNOW THIS.

Quote

 Jewish ancestors wouldn't care but former gentiles in fact would? How so? They are all gone without a trace  ------- and I'm to be impressed how exactly? Did Jesus said "GO YE UNTO ALL THE WORLD AND PREACH THE GOSPEL ---BUT I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE BRETHREN ACROSS THE OCEAN? The whole world isn't everywhere .

The whole world is all of the world of which His audience were aware.  But, again, IF you HAD read the book you would know.

Quote

I suspect that you don't believe the Flood was GLOBAL? 

Irrelevant, but actually, I do believe the flood was global.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Vance

[LittleNipper]

Who was/is Melchisedeck ---PLEASE SEE:  https://www.gotquestions.org/Melchizedek.html

 

Who was/is Melchisedeck -- Please Consider: http://www.ad2004.com/Biblecodes/Hebrewmatrix/melchizedek.html

Edited September 24, 2017 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

Yehudim in Moshiach 7

 

Orthodox Jewish Bible 

7 For this MALKITZEDEK MELECH SHALEM KOHEN L’EL ELYON, the one "having met Avraham Avinu ACHAREI SHUVO ("after returning") from the slaughter of "the kings and having blessed him", BERESHIS 14:17-20)

² With whom also "AVRAHAM avinu apportioned MA’ASER MIKOL (a tithe of everything." As for his Name, it is rendered "King of Tzedek (Righteousness)" and then also "Melech of SHALOM."

³ Without Av, without Em, without Yichus, having neither a techillah (beginning) leyamim (to days) of him nor a Ketz HaChayyim, but resembling HaBen HaElohim, he remains a “kohen perpetually,” (Ps 110:4).

⁴ Now consider how great among the Gedolim this one was to whom also Avraham Avinu gave from his booty a ma’aser (tithe).

⁵ And the ones of the Bnei Levi have received the Kehunah (Priesthood) and they have a mitzvah to collect the ma’aser (tithe) from the Am Brit, and they have this mitzvah according to the Torah, that is, to collect from their achim, though these also are descended from the loins of Avraham Avinu.

⁶ But, this man, though not tracing his descent from them, has received ma’aser (tithe) from Avraham Avinu and has given a bracha to the one having the havtachot (promises).

⁷ Now it is beyond all argument that the greater gives a bracha to the lesser.

⁸ Notice, in one case, ma’aser are received by mortal men; in the other case, ma’aser are received by one of whom we have solemn eidus (testimony) that hu Chai ("he lives!").

⁹ One could even go so far as to say that even Levi, who receives ma’aser, has paid ma’aser through Avraham Avinu,

¹⁰ For Levi was still in the loins of his ancestor Avraham when Malki-Tzedek met Avraham Avinu.

¹¹ Now if shleimut (completeness) had been attainable through the Kehunah of Levi‖for under it came the Mattan Torah (giving of the Torah) to the Am Brit‖what further need would there have been to speak of another KOHEN arising "according to the order of Malki-Tzedek" TEHILLIM 110:4) rather than "al divrati Aharon"?

¹² For when there is a "changing of the guard" of the Kehunah (Priesthood), this behechrach (necessarily) also affects the Torah [Isa 42:4].

¹³ For the One about whom these things are said belonged to a different shevet (tribe), from which no one has officiated at the Mizbe’ach.

¹⁴ For it is ugeret (easily seen, evident) that Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach Adoneinu was descended from Yehudah, and in connection with that shevet (tribe), Moshe Rabbeinu said nothing about kohanim.

¹⁵ And it is even more evident if another Kohen arises resembling Malki-Tzedek,

¹⁶ One who became a kohen, not by means of a mitzvat haTorah concerning yichus (lineage), but according to the gevurah of a Chayyei Ein Sof (Endless Life).

¹⁷ For of Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach comes the solemn eidus, "ATAH KOHEN L’OLAM AL DIVRATI MALKI TZEDEK" ("You are a kohen forever according to the order of Malki Tzedek" TEHILLIM 110:4).

¹⁸ For, on the one hand, there is an abrogation of an earlier mitzvah because of its weakness and ineffectuality

¹⁹ —For the Torah brought nothing to shleimut (perfection); on the other hand, there is the mavo (introduction) of a tikvah tovah yoter (a better hope) through which we draw near to Hashem—

²⁰ This was attested with a shevu’ah (oath); for others who became kohanim were installed in the office of kehunah without a shevu’ah;

²¹ But the Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach became a kohen with a shevu’ah (oath) through the One saying to Him, "Hashem has made an oath and will not change his mind, You are a kohen forever" [TEHILLIM 110:4].

²² According to such a shevu’ah of Hashem, Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach Yehoshua has become the arev (surety, guarantee) of a tovah yoter HaBrit.

²³ Not only this, but it was the fact that the former kohanim were many in number, because mavet prevented them from continuing in the office of kehunah.

²⁴ But because Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach continues l’olam (forever), he has an unchangeable Kehunah.

²⁵ From which also he is able to completely deliver to the Geulah (Redemption) and Yeshu’at Eloheinu the ones approaching Hashem through him, als (since) he has Chayyei Ein Sof (Endless Life) and always lives to intercede in techinnah (supplication) for them.

²⁶ For such was for us, indeed, a bekavod (suitable) Kohen Gadol, chasid, tamim, tahor, nivdal from chote’im (separated from sinners) and exalted above HaShomayim;

²⁷ A Kohen Gadol who does not have daily need—as do the other Kohanim Gedolim—on the one hand, to offer up zevakhim for his own averos, and then to offer up zevakhim for the averos of the Am Brit. For this Kohen Gadol offered up himself [Isa 53:10], once and for all.

²⁸ For the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu appoints Bnei Adam as Kohanim Gedolim, Bnei Adam with frailties, but the dvar HaShevu’ah [Ps 110:4], which came later than the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu, appoints HaBen [Ben HaElohim Moshiach] who came to shleimut (completeness) l’Olam.

[LittleNipper]

How is a high priest selected --- Please note: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/994923/jewish/How-Is-a-High-Priest-Selected.htm

[Vance]

14 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Who was/is Melchisedeck ---PLEASE SEE:  https://www.gotquestions.org/Melchizedek.html

 

Who was/is Melchisedeck -- Please Consider: http://www.ad2004.com/Biblecodes/Hebrewmatrix/melchizedek.html

I have heard those theories before. Frankly I find them ridiculous. I am not going to waste everyone's time debunking a link.

Rather than provide some link, why don't you make the case yourself?

 

Let's see how well YOU can defend your claims.

[Vance]

14 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Yehudim in Moshiach 7

 

Orthodox Jewish Bible 

7 For this MALKITZEDEK MELECH SHALEM KOHEN L’EL ELYON, the one "having met Avraham Avinu ACHAREI SHUVO ("after returning") from the slaughter of "the kings and having blessed him", BERESHIS 14:17-20)

² With whom also "AVRAHAM avinu apportioned MA’ASER MIKOL (a tithe of everything." As for his Name, it is rendered "King of Tzedek (Righteousness)" and then also "Melech of SHALOM."

³ Without Av, without Em, without Yichus, having neither a techillah (beginning) leyamim (to days) of him nor a Ketz HaChayyim, but resembling HaBen HaElohim, he remains a “kohen perpetually,” (Ps 110:4).

⁴ Now consider how great among the Gedolim this one was to whom also Avraham Avinu gave from his booty a ma’aser (tithe).

⁵ And the ones of the Bnei Levi have received the Kehunah (Priesthood) and they have a mitzvah to collect the ma’aser (tithe) from the Am Brit, and they have this mitzvah according to the Torah, that is, to collect from their achim, though these also are descended from the loins of Avraham Avinu.

⁶ But, this man, though not tracing his descent from them, has received ma’aser (tithe) from Avraham Avinu and has given a bracha to the one having the havtachot (promises).

⁷ Now it is beyond all argument that the greater gives a bracha to the lesser.

⁸ Notice, in one case, ma’aser are received by mortal men; in the other case, ma’aser are received by one of whom we have solemn eidus (testimony) that hu Chai ("he lives!").

⁹ One could even go so far as to say that even Levi, who receives ma’aser, has paid ma’aser through Avraham Avinu,

¹⁰ For Levi was still in the loins of his ancestor Avraham when Malki-Tzedek met Avraham Avinu.

¹¹ Now if shleimut (completeness) had been attainable through the Kehunah of Levi‖for under it came the Mattan Torah (giving of the Torah) to the Am Brit‖what further need would there have been to speak of another KOHEN arising "according to the order of Malki-Tzedek" TEHILLIM 110:4) rather than "al divrati Aharon"?

¹² For when there is a "changing of the guard" of the Kehunah (Priesthood), this behechrach (necessarily) also affects the Torah [Isa 42:4].

¹³ For the One about whom these things are said belonged to a different shevet (tribe), from which no one has officiated at the Mizbe’ach.

¹⁴ For it is ugeret (easily seen, evident) that Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach Adoneinu was descended from Yehudah, and in connection with that shevet (tribe), Moshe Rabbeinu said nothing about kohanim.

¹⁵ And it is even more evident if another Kohen arises resembling Malki-Tzedek,

¹⁶ One who became a kohen, not by means of a mitzvat haTorah concerning yichus (lineage), but according to the gevurah of a Chayyei Ein Sof (Endless Life).

¹⁷ For of Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach comes the solemn eidus, "ATAH KOHEN L’OLAM AL DIVRATI MALKI TZEDEK" ("You are a kohen forever according to the order of Malki Tzedek" TEHILLIM 110:4).

¹⁸ For, on the one hand, there is an abrogation of an earlier mitzvah because of its weakness and ineffectuality

¹⁹ —For the Torah brought nothing to shleimut (perfection); on the other hand, there is the mavo (introduction) of a tikvah tovah yoter (a better hope) through which we draw near to Hashem—

²⁰ This was attested with a shevu’ah (oath); for others who became kohanim were installed in the office of kehunah without a shevu’ah;

²¹ But the Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach became a kohen with a shevu’ah (oath) through the One saying to Him, "Hashem has made an oath and will not change his mind, You are a kohen forever" [TEHILLIM 110:4].

²² According to such a shevu’ah of Hashem, Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach Yehoshua has become the arev (surety, guarantee) of a tovah yoter HaBrit.

²³ Not only this, but it was the fact that the former kohanim were many in number, because mavet prevented them from continuing in the office of kehunah.

²⁴ But because Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach continues l’olam (forever), he has an unchangeable Kehunah.

²⁵ From which also he is able to completely deliver to the Geulah (Redemption) and Yeshu’at Eloheinu the ones approaching Hashem through him, als (since) he has Chayyei Ein Sof (Endless Life) and always lives to intercede in techinnah (supplication) for them.

²⁶ For such was for us, indeed, a bekavod (suitable) Kohen Gadol, chasid, tamim, tahor, nivdal from chote’im (separated from sinners) and exalted above HaShomayim;

²⁷ A Kohen Gadol who does not have daily need—as do the other Kohanim Gedolim—on the one hand, to offer up zevakhim for his own averos, and then to offer up zevakhim for the averos of the Am Brit. For this Kohen Gadol offered up himself [Isa 53:10], once and for all.

²⁸ For the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu appoints Bnei Adam as Kohanim Gedolim, Bnei Adam with frailties, but the dvar HaShevu’ah [Ps 110:4], which came later than the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu, appoints HaBen [Ben HaElohim Moshiach] who came to shleimut (completeness) l’Olam.

Why are you wasting time and space?  What was your purpose for this post?  What is your point?

Posting the seventh chapter of Hebrews to show us you know how to cut and paste?

[Vance]

14 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

How is a high priest selected --- Please note: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/994923/jewish/How-Is-a-High-Priest-Selected.htm

What are you trying to prove?  That Jesus could NOT have been a high priest?

FTA "The first criterion any high priest must meet is that he must be of priestly descent—i.e., a direct descendant (following the male line) of Aaron, the brother of Moses."

This disqualifies Jesus.  Is that your point?

[LittleNipper]

2 hours ago, Vance said:

I have heard those theories before. Frankly I find them ridiculous. I am not going to waste everyone's time debunking a link.

Rather than provide some link, why don't you make the case yourself?

 

Let's see how well YOU can defend your claims.

The case is made!  I totally agree with it. You either accept  it or not. But remember that there are 2 sides to every coin. The reality is how you see things is more than likely how other perceive your beliefs and interpretations. 

[LittleNipper]

2 hours ago, Vance said:

What are you trying to prove?  That Jesus could NOT have been a high priest?

FTA "The first criterion any high priest must meet is that he must be of priestly descent—i.e., a direct descendant (following the male line) of Aaron, the brother of Moses."

This disqualifies Jesus.  Is that your point?

I'm to trying to demonstrate to YOU that there has only been ONE HIGH or CHIEF PRIEST at ONE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Believers can be priests through Christ but if CHRIST is the High Priest and He holds that spot eternally there is no need for others to do the very same. He not only performs the sacrificial rite ----He is the PERFECT sacrifice. This is why there is no longer a need for a Temple in Jerusalem. The curtain was torn from the top down. It is finished. Of course unredeemed jews are not going to accept Jesus as their Messiah --- that has their (the Jew's) issue since Jesus hung on the cross at Calvary.

[LittleNipper]

3 hours ago, Vance said:

Why are you wasting time and space?  What was your purpose for this post?  What is your point?

Posting the seventh chapter of Hebrews to show us you know how to cut and paste?

You claim to be a "Christian" but you show disdain for  the Bible. Doesn't that send up any red flags for you. It certainly does for me. You say that transcribing the Bible is a total waste of your cyberspace... I can easily imagine that Jesus and the disciples and the Apostles would disagree with you entirely. The point is still that Jesus (selected by God the Father to be the Chief Priest) still does and forever will hold that position. However, because Christ did it, we now have full access to the Holy of Holies through CHRIST JESUS unlike with Aaron of old. Only he had access but once a year.

Edited September 24, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Vance]

34 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

The case is made!  I totally agree with it. You either accept  it or not.

What case would that be?  The one already refuted?