-->
@PGA2.0
2 references which point out that he worshipped God. That's not much, but it is enough to establish a template for service. That's about it.
Atonement
Posts
Total:
126
-->
@Mopac
"you certainly have been wrong about things we believe before."
Have I? I don't recall making any statements about any particular branch of Christianity.
"From what I have been told, Temple Judaism does not exist anymore, and so the priesthood is not really a thing"
You have been told wrong. The role is different but it certainly exists and is a part of practice every single day.
-->
@rosends
2 references which point out that he worshipped God. That's not much, but it is enough to establish a template for service. That's about it.
The Septuigent, which Jesus and many 1st-century Jews accepted as Scripture, has a different interpretation of Genesis 14:18 onwards.
18And Melchisedec king of Salem brought forth loaves and wine, and he was the priest of the most high God.
19And he blessed Abram, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, who made heaven and earth,
20and blessed be the most high God who delivered thine enemies into thy power. And Abram gave him the tithe of all.
"you certainly have been wrong about things we believe before."Have I? I don't recall making any statements about any particular branch of Christianity."From what I have been told, Temple Judaism does not exist anymore, and so the priesthood is not really a thing"You have been told wrong. The role is different but it certainly exists and is a part of practice every single day.
Where is the temple?
Did God bring judgment to Israel in AD 70?
Do you still practice the animal sacrifice for the atonement of the sins of the nation? If yes, how long has this been going on for?
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm not sure what you think you are presenting as a different understanding. The text describes his service to God and is a model for such service and for the later giving of a tithe to temple priests. This is nothing new or different.
As to your second post, the original statement was about the existence of priests. I'm not arguing that the temple no longer exists, so questioning that half of the sentence and ignoring the rest is not especially useful. As to your next questions:
"Did God bring judgment to Israel in AD 70?"
Yes, as he does every day.
"Do you still practice the animal sacrifice for the atonement of the sins of the nation?"
No -- without a temple we do not offer sacrifices (though there has been a lot of text written about the issues and whether any sacrifices can be offered today, especially the Passover offering) but this has no effect on the existence of priests. There are other ways to effect atonement for the small group of sins that sacrifice atoned for during temple times.
-->
@rosends
We don't really believe in branches of Christianity. You are either Orthodox or you are outside of the church. The Orthodox Catholic Church is as we say, The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Since there is one church, we can't acknowledge other churches as legitimate. Technically they are heretics. They also confuse things an awful lot, because they only superficially believe as we do and there are a lot of them. We have a very different experience.
But to get back on topic, we Orthodox don't put nearly as much emphasis on the suffering of Christ so much as the resurrection.
Basically, what we are explaining through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ is how God, the persistent reality, has united all of creation to Himself, past, present, and future. That, temporal created reality, though perishing, is forever preserved by God as it truly is. So that, even in death God is present. All of creation is reconciled back to Him.
Something that needs to be understood about the historical Jesus is that he did not simply teach in parables, his entire life is a parable as well. That is, there is a mystagogical meaning behind the whole thing. One that points to the eternal Jesus Christ, The Word of God. If you know Jesus, seeing Him everywhere is no strange thing. Christ is with us even now. Because when we speak of Christ, we are not speaking of a man who lived for 30 odd years a long time ago, but God. When we speak of the incarnation, we are not simply speaking of that man who lived for 30 odd years, we are talking about God in all of creation.
Because God is present in creation through His Word and Spirit, filling all of creation with His divine energies. He is nearer than your breath.
-->
@Mopac
Hallucinations must be fun, are they?
-->
@rosends
I'm not sure what you think you are presenting as a different understanding. The text describes his service to God and is a model for such service and for the later giving of a tithe to temple priests. This is nothing new or different.As to your second post, the original statement was about the existence of priests. I'm not arguing that the temple no longer exists, so questioning that half of the sentence and ignoring the rest is not especially useful.
Well, I question both.
1. After the destruction of the temple, how did the priesthood trace its lineage?
2. You have already admitted the priesthood could not follow the covenant as stated in the Torah (i.e., below).
3. Did they still follow the feast day sacrifices as required in the Torah?
As to your next questions:"Did God bring judgment to Israel in AD 70?"Yes, as he does every day.
Not like in AD 70. He sent the nation into captivity. Their whole world revolved around temple worship that was destroyed.
For instance, can Israel still follow this command from Exodus 27:20:
20 And you shall command the children of Israel, and they shall take to you pure olive oil, crushed for lighting, to kindle the lamps continually.
21 In the Tent of Meeting, outside the dividing curtain that is in front of the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall set it up before the Lord from evening to morning; [it shall be] an everlasting statute for their generations, from the children of Israel.
21 In the Tent of Meeting, outside the dividing curtain that is in front of the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall set it up before the Lord from evening to morning; [it shall be] an everlasting statute for their generations, from the children of Israel.
How about the priestly garments? Are they still used?
Can the priests be consecrated in the same manner as required in Exodus 29 as a perpetual offering before the LORD?
43 They shall be worn by Aaron and by his sons when they enter the Tent of Meeting or when they approach the altar to serve in the Holy, so they will not bear iniquity and die. It shall be a perpetual statute for him and for his descendants after him.
Is Leviticus 4 still followed in the required manner? You say no.
"Do you still practice the animal sacrifice for the atonement of the sins of the nation?"No -- without a temple we do not offer sacrifices (though there has been a lot of text written about the issues and whether any sacrifices can be offered today, especially the Passover offering) but this has no effect on the existence of priests. There are other ways to effect atonement for the small group of sins that sacrifice atoned for during temple times.
Remember what the people said in Exodus 24:
3 So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances, and all the people answered in unison and said, "All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do."
7 And he took the Book of the Covenant and read it within the hearing of the people, and they said, "All that the Lord spoke we will do and we will hear."
8 And Moses took the blood and sprinkled [it] on the people, and he said, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has formed with you concerning these words."
Did not God promise curses if Israel was not obedient to that covenant? (i.e., Deuteronomy 28)
Did that not happen in Daniel 9? And did God not promise once again to revise the sins of the people?
27 Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon your people and upon the city of your Sanctuary to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.
Well, I contend that the everlasting covenant God promised for both Jews and Gentiles (Jerimiah 31:30-32) has arrived with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It was veiled to many during the 1st-century and it is veiled to many today because they deny Jeshua/Jesus.
2 Corinthians 3:14-16 (NASB)
14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
-->
@PGA2.0
the everlasting covenant God promised for both Jews and Gentiles (Jerimiah 31:30-32)
Nothing about gentiles in there that I can see!
30Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant.
31Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord.
32For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people.
but there is plenty in the bible to suggest Jesus was anti-Priest
There is and with reason. He was against the Roman appointed false priests as he was the Roman appointed puppet king As already mentioned in my post that you have reposted. Why do you just repeat what I have already said as if you had said it first.?
and of course the romans would not hesitate to eliminate a troublesome rabble rouser.
I have already said that too. I have also made my position very clear , many times on what>>>>>> I believe<<<<<<about Jesus THE CHRIST - anointed after over 40 odd years of study.
I'd be very interested in studying material that relates to Jesus being 'legitimate' (by bloodline?) - my assumption is that he was personally charismatic.
Well it is not as if this "material " is unavailable. It is at your fingertips these days, it is not as if one has to trawl libraries for source material anymore. Try starting here>>
There is here an author that may interest you on the matter of "legitimate bloodline". His titles include - Genesis of the Grail Kings. Bloodline of the Grail. Lost secrets of the Sacred Ark.
Or here>>
Or here>>>
What about here>
All the authors I have read on the matter of legitimate royal bloodline and duality of priest and king have all individually came to the same conclusion, that this Christos =anointed man Jesus was heir to the dual role as legitimate priest and king. Of course you can dismiss all of the years that all of these authors have put into this subject simply because YOU haven't fkn bothered to research fkall for yourself.
-->
@Stephen
40 years of odd study will inevitably lead to odd conclusions.
-->
@disgusted
Why are you so hateful?
Listen you vile repulsive specimen. I have pointed out to you many times,you ignorant bigoted buffoon,that you attack people for believing and having faith in something instead of attacking what it is they actually believe. You are a vile individual who doesn't want to discuss anything, you just want to be right even at the cost of being unable to support your own fkn claims but demand others do so. Repeatedly asking questions that you know cannot be answered doesn't make you clever or even right, you vile repulsive buffoon , it makes you a vile repulsive bully. Or have you forgotten the bullshit claims you have made without supporting evidence to back them up when repeatedly requested to do so.
Don't think these wild claims of YOURS! are going to fade away anytime soon.
--> @disgusted "we have evolved by exactly the same process as every other animal that has ever existed on this planet"?
Prove it.
--> @disgusted "We all exist in the same reality"
Prove it.
--> @disgusted " the word god did not even exist before the middle ages"?
Prove it.
-->
@zedvictor4
Thats your opinion and your are more than welcome to it.
-->
@keithprosser
Nothing about gentiles in there that I can see!30Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant.31Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord.32For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people.
Hebrews 8 (NASB)
A New Covenant7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,
“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will effect a new covenant
With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day when I took them by the hand
To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.
11 “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen,
And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For all will know Me,
From the least to the greatest of them.
12 “For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
And I will remember their sins no more.”
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.When I will effect a new covenant
With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day when I took them by the hand
To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.
11 “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen,
And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For all will know Me,
From the least to the greatest of them.
12 “For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
And I will remember their sins no more.”
That covenant that Jesus lived under was about to disappear. God was not pleased with it. The people were seldom obedient to it. Per Daniel 9:24 and Daniel 2:44, God was going to set up the New Covenant in the blood of Messiah. Jesus initiated this covenant by His offering. Remember God said that He would call those who are not "His people" His people (the New Israel).
Romans 9:25 (NASB)
As He says also in Hosea, “I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’ And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’”
“And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.”
Hosea 2
25 And I will sow her for Me in the land, and I will have compassion upon the unpitied one, and I will say to them that are not My people, "You are My people," and they shall say, "[You are] my God."
Jesus came to His own, but His own did not receive Him, thus the covenant is with the New Israel, spiritual Israel, not fleshly Israel. Remember Jesus said that those who worship God must do so in spirit and in truth and that time had now come. These Old Covenant people rejected the chief cornerstone. Jesus was a stumbling stone to them. They stumbled over Him with their lack of faith in God's word.
-->
@Stephen
Settle Gretel, why are you so afraid of me and why are you so vile. Let's examine our respective post and see who is vile, oh look you win. If the poor godists can't answer the questions I pose concerning their beliefs it's not my fault it's their absurd beliefs that are the problem and btw you are always attacking me try providing a post of mine where I attack the poster and not his beliefs.
Are you so afraid of me because my questions make a mockery of your beliefs, the answer btw is yes.
-->
@Stephen
I hope your not running away from this one
Hey golfer
Of course your Yahweh god never said anything attributed to him in the bible. The alleged quotes are just concoctions fabricated in the imaginations of the authors because your Yahweh god never dictated anything.
-->
@PGA2.0
Jesus came to His own, but His own did not receive Him, thus the covenant is with the New Israel, spiritual Israel, not fleshly Israel. Remember Jesus said that those who worship God must do so in spirit and in truth and that time had now come. These Old Covenant people rejected the chief cornerstone. Jesus was a stumbling stone to them. They stumbled over Him with their lack of faith in God's word.
Do you talk like that IRL?
It is obviously true that Christianity succeeded with gentiles more than it did with the Jews. Perhaps that is not surprising, as while Jesus' teachings were an attractive novelty to many non-Jews, the Jews were being required to accept the god they had worshipped for thousands of years had changed.
I do not believe the god of the Christians destroyed the jewish nation and scattered them across the world.to punish the jews' faithfulness to the ways yhwh had demanded of them for countless generations. I don't believe that because gods don't exist. I think the Jews rebelled against Rome and lost.
-->
@PGA2.0
The talmud (tractate Kiddushin, in the mid 70's I think) discusses the families of Israel and beyond. We have rules in place for this an dmuch has to do with knowing who your father is.1. After the destruction of the temple, how did the priesthood trace its lineage?
2. You have already admitted the priesthood could not follow the covenant as stated in the Torah (i.e., below).
Actually, no. You just think that the "Torah" is limited to the written text so you don't understand how one follows the covenant properly.
3. Did they still follow the feast day sacrifices as required in the Torah?
Not without a temple, no. Of course, what was required was to bring the sacrifices to the temple.
Not like in AD 70. He sent the nation into captivity. Their whole world revolved around temple worship that was destroyed.
OK, not like in 70, but it still happens.
For instance, can Israel still follow this command from Exodus 27:20:20 And you shall command the children of Israel, and they shall take to you pure olive oil, crushed for lighting, to kindle the lamps continually.
Without a temple? No. The laws require that this be done in the temple. So the law is followed -- when you don't have a temple, don't do this.
How about the priestly garments? Are they still used?
Can the priests be consecrated in the same manner as required in Exodus 29 as a perpetual offering before the LORD?
Not without the proper oil, so it is a good thing that they don't have to enter the Tent of Meeting or the altar.
Is Leviticus 4 still followed in the required manner? You say no.
I said that we don't have sacrifices. But since the laws of sacrifice require a proper altar and temple, which we don't have, by NOT doing them, we are actually following the demands of the law. We are doing what God demanded by NOT having sacrifices. And by following the requirements of the law, we are being obedient. Thank you for proving my point.
Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon your people and upon the city of your Sanctuary to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.
Yes, we established that this happened and that the temple was destroyed and rebuilt.
Well, I contend that the everlasting covenant God promised for both Jews and Gentiles (Jerimiah 31:30-32) has arrived with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It was veiled to many during the 1st-century and it is veiled to many today because they deny Jeshua/Jesus.
That's nice. So what?
-->
@disgusted
I hope your not running away from this one
Why would I run away from my own threads,. I am not your best new and only friend, prosser.
I am still waiting for anyone to explain those questions posed in the OP.
-->
@Stephen
Bit early for drinking isn't it?
-->
@keithprosser
Roman law prohibited Jews from accepting gentile converts.
The split between Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity about survival, because Christians would not refuse a gentile convert, and would even actively prosletyze to them. Before this, gentiles would sit in the back of synagogues and listen if they were interesred in Judaism, but they weren't allowed to become Jews. We certainly do not believe God changes. In fact, a lot of false beliefs that are spread about this subject by protestants can be refuted by reading the prophets.
Of course, the non-Christian Jews of the time ended up angering Rome anyway. It has been said that the martyrdom of Saint James the Just by certain Jewish authorities during a period of relative anarchy offended the Romans enough to set the wheels in motion leading to the destruction of the temple in 70 ad. The Romans and even the Greeks before always had a difficult times with the Jews because the Jews wouldn't adapt to their abominable customs and bow to their idols.
Today, modern Jews are kind of like our cousins. Our form of liturgy in Orthodox Christianity is based off of what was done in the synagogues in the early days, so we are still very similar. Of course, we see ourselves as being the true Israel, and don't really respect the modern Jewish claim to this. We still love them though, as we love even those who curse us, and hope that one day this schism will be healed and we will be one body.
It really comes down to Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, Jews are not really taught the Jesus we believe, who is truly the God of their scriptures. The Jesus they believe is not really the Jesus we believe. Kind of like you atheists, they only see at best a man. They don't see the God that took the form of a man.
-->
@keithprosser
Jesus came to His own, but His own did not receive Him, thus the covenant is with the New Israel, spiritual Israel, not fleshly Israel. Remember Jesus said that those who worship God must do so in spirit and in truth and that time had now come. These Old Covenant people rejected the chief cornerstone. Jesus was a stumbling stoneto them. They stumbled over Him with their lack of faith in God's word.Do you talk like that IRL?
And how is that?
It is obviously true that Christianity succeeded with gentiles more than it did with the Jews. Perhaps that is not surprising, as while Jesus' teachings were an attractive novelty to many non-Jews, the Jews were being required to accept the god they had worshipped for thousands of years had changed.
He does not change. He warned them repeatedly of the consequences of disobedience. I could give you hundreds of OT warnings about judgment if they did not repent.
Why did He send all the prophets to them?
I do not believe the god of the Christians destroyed the jewish nation and scattered them across the world.to punish the jews' faithfulness to the ways yhwh had demanded of them for countless generations. I don't believe that because gods don't exist. I think the Jews rebelled against Rome and lost.
Prophecy is convincing, reasonable evidence.
-->
@PGA2.0
Of course God had changed as far as the Jews were concerned! God had been 'one' for thousands of years, then the Christians made Him 2, or 3. In all sorts of ways Christianity diverged from traditional Judaism.
I agree that prophesy would be strong evidence for God. What we disagree on is whether what is claimed to be prophesy is genuine.
-->
@keithprosser
We Christians certainly believe God is 1.
-->
@Mopac
I'm not a 1st century jew so I don' know the precise reason Christianity was not popular within Israel - but clearly it wasn't.
-->
@keithprosser
Of course God had changed as far as the Jews were concerned! God had been 'one' for thousands of years, then the Christians made Him 2, or 3. In all sorts of ways Christianity diverged from traditional Judaism.
God has revealed more of Himself, His nature, who He is, over time.
I agree that prophesy would be strong evidence for God. What we disagree on is whether what is claimed to be prophesy is genuine.
Would you say there is strong evidence that the OT was written before the 1st-century?
Would you say that the OT gives strong evidence in its wording for another destruction of Jerusalem and the temple after the Babylonian conquest?
Would you say that the OT gives strong evidence of coming judgment on these Old Covenant people if they did not repent?
Would you say the OT gives strong evidence that if Israel was disobedient to God He would bring curses upon them?
Would you say there is strong evidence that the OT promised a Messiah to come?
Is there strong evidence these things happened?
Do these prophetic messages appear genuine?
-->
@keithprosser
It is obviously true that Christianity succeeded with gentiles more than it did with the Jews.
And only because it became the state religion of Rome. Otherwise it would have probably died a death without anyone's help. It is interesting how many religious historians like to phrase it as - christianity "spread" through all of Rome - as if by some miracle when the case was anything but. Romans were still killing Christians right up until the time that Rome adopted it as the state religion. And the reason constantine 'adopted it' was simply because he needed a bigger army, so, miraculously ' a cross of light ' appeared in the sky with the words ( in Greek mind) telling the Roman Constantine In hoc signo vinces. it is notable that Constantine didn't actually become a christian himself until he was on his deathbed in 337 some 30+ years after his 'vision'.
-->
@PGA2.0
Would you say there is strong evidence that the OT was written before the 1st-century?
I think there is no doubt the OT was written well before the 1st century.
Would you say that the OT gives strong evidence in its wording for another destruction of Jerusalem and the temple after the Babylonian conquest?
If you are refering to Daniel 9, then i'dsay it is far too obscure and ambiguous to count as strong evidence of anything!
Would you say that the OT gives strong evidence of coming judgment on these Old Covenant people if they did not repent?Would you say the OT gives strong evidence that if Israel was disobedient to God He would bring curses upon them?Would you say there is strong evidence that the OT promised a Messiah to come?
It is a reccurrent theme of the OT that the Hebrews would be doing fine then stray from yhwh. yhwh would then punsh them andthey would suffer until a national hero ('messiah') came along to restore things. The basis of OT religion is that yhwh would look after his tribe as long as they worshipped him properly and exclusuvely. If they did not, he punished them.
Is there strong evidence these things happened?Do these prophetic messages appear genuine?
In the real world, tribes naturally wax and wane and go through period good and bad periods. It is a safe bet that if things go badly one can blame people for for being lax in their religion.
But at root, the problem with prophesy is that it it depends on elements that are supernatural or magical. Bluntly, it's a question of beieving in magic or belieivng that people aren't always honest!
-->
@Stephen
True, but Constantine was 4th century. I think the vast majority of Jews rejected Christianity from the get-go. What is uncertain (I know you hate expressing uncertainty!) is how different Paul's 'gentile friendly' version of Christianity was from Jesus' actual teaching.
Jewish followers of Jesus such as the ebionites seem to have had a low opinion of Paul, but most of what we now about them is gleaned from the writings of their Pauline enemies. The most notable thng about judaism is how little interest there is in non-Jewish matters. Paul was shunted off to the world outside Israel where he had a free hand. Historic accident caused it to be Paul's version of Christianity that prospered and the (presumaly more Judaic) original form that withered.
Forgive the brevity of this post... it's a topic that one can only write of ultra-simplisticly in a forum post. It requires book length to do it justice.
-->
@keithprosser
Paul was a proper Orthodox Christian, and your assertion of a "Paul's Christianity" is a false narrative that even some protestants use to justify their ecclesiastical anarchy!