Jesus like or was Melchizedek

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Hebrews 7 is very facinating. We learn about this priest named Melchizedek. I would encourage everyone to read these sections about him. I actually saw this question pop up on another thread, so I'm curious what y'all think.

Was Melchizedek Christ?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004

Answers

*burump*

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004.

Melchizedek was an Old Testament precursor of Christ, a foreshadowing so to speak, of one who would come later. There are many such symbolic precursors in the old Testament. Melchizedek was a priest and a king, who offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people, in the form of bread and wine. Christ was the High Priest and King of Kings, who offered the Sacrifice of Himself on behalf of the people, and perpetuated that one Sacrifice for all time under the appearances of bread and wine. Christ is sometimes called "the new Melchizedek", but I prefer to think of Melchizedek as a precursor of Christ, a symbol of a later reality.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 22, 2004.

What of this verse though:

"Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever."

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004.


It means we do not know Melchizedek's ancestors, Luke. Some people interpret it to mean that Jesus also had no human parents in the flesh.

That is also a misinterpretation of scripture. At no place does the apostle Paul ever say Jesus came out of a virgin. Also, he always states he comes from David according to the flesh (Romans 1:1- 8).Peter even calls Jesus a man in Acts ch. 2.

That being the case, then Jesus was truly the son in the flesh of Joseph and Mary.

Since Jesus originated from David in the flesh, and David's tribe did not have accesss to the priesthood, then the write of Hebrews had to find another person who was a priest without a geneological priestly lineage that was known like Melchizedeq.

It doesn't imply or mean Jesus had the priesthood.

Jesus was never a priest. Jesus sacrifice makes him an offering, not a priest!!! Another misinterpretation of scripture.

A person cannot be a priest and an offering at the same time. But Jesus became a mediator by his sacrifice.

Just because it is in the Bible does it make it true.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004.


I wondered about that too, about it just being a way of saying "we don't know where this guy came from." But the end "shall remain a priest forever" certainly implies immortal life, doesn't it?

Also, about the priests and tribes. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, a tribe not of priests. But Hebrews teaches that in order for the covenant to change, the priestly tribe had to change with it. What makes this facinating is that the passages about Melchizedek might indicate that he himself was from Judah. I know this seems strange though since Judah wasn't even alive yet.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004.



Luke, if you believe that Jesus is a priest forever like Melchizedeq, then you sound Catholic.

The priest in Catholicism takes Jesus place to offer him at the altar.

But Jesus was offered once and for all at God's altar. That is why Jesus is not a priest, but rather a mediator. More like your public defender before Yahweh.

The reason we partake of the bread and wine is not to have Jesus real presence in the eucharist as Catholics do believe, and do whatever they can to make sure they pick up every little crumb and drop, but to remember Jesus sacrifice.

That is why the wine doesn't become Jesus true blood and the bread Jesus true flesh. Only once that happened, at that happened at the cross: that's when Yahweh accepted Jesus blood and flesh.

That is why I encourage people to take the bread and wine, not because I believe they get Jesus blood and flesh, since those are prohibited tio us according to Leviticus, but because by claiming Jesus, Yahweh is not judging us by Moses law as Jews still are.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004.


>That being the case, then Jesus was truly the son in the flesh of Joseph and Mary.<

Of course, Jesus was only of the flesh of Mary and not of Joseph's physical seed, but Jesus did receive Joseph's family name and Jewish heritage, being Joseph's child, the son of his wife.

>A person cannot be a priest and an offering at the same time.<

Jesus (Priest) offered Himself (Sacrifice).

>Jesus sacrifice makes him an offering, not a priest!!!<

Jesus was the Offerer and the Offering.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004.


>That is why the wine doesn't become Jesus true blood and the bread Jesus true flesh.<

If we are the Body of Christ, doesn't the bread and wine turn into the Body and Blood of Christ within us? Think about that. Believing in the true presence of the Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist is not as illogical as you may think if you realize believers are Christ's Body and ESPECIALLY bread sanctified by the Holy Spirit, offered as a thanks offering to God, and eaten as a Symbol of physical Oneness of the physical Bride of Christ IS indeed truly part of Christ's mystical Body.

I was once a Protestant who did not believe this because it sounds like hocus pocus. I'm not a Roman Catholic either. I believe the bread and wine are simultaneously the body and blood of Christ within the Church, His Holy Bride. Those who reject this fact are still eating Christ's flesh and blood at the Eucharist - even if they deny it.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004.


This sounds nothing like Catholicism., but even disproves it. And it also answers the question as to who is Melchizedeck?

Jesus Like Melchizedek.....

If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar.

For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.

For it is declared: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

"The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.' "Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people.

He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), November 23, 2004.


For a viewing of the entire article from which Faith, again, cut and pasted, go here:

http://www.contenderministries.org/Catholicism/catholicview.php

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 23, 2004.



I believe that Psalm 110 originally was about not Jesus, but the High priest of the Israelites during David's reign. After all, the Psalm is ascribed to King David.

Even today, there is no High Priest, but every Jew knows the lineage of the High priest. Have you seen a Kahane, Cohen, Caan,Cohn,....lately? Well, they are the descendants of the priests.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.


So who is this guy?

He is from the same order of Jesus, that is Judah.

He is a priest forever like Jesus.

His names means, "King of Righteousness." Sounds like Jesus

He was king of Salem which means, "King of Peace." Sounds like Jesus

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.


I don't understand your post Gail. Faith's post was Hebrews 7:11-28 verbatum, via NIV. The site you provided says nothing about this issue. Help me out, is there a link I am supposed to click?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.

Luke, Melchizedeq was not an Israelite. He was a Jebusite, a Cananite tribe. He was a priest of El Shaddai in Jebus or Salem (later known as Jerusalem) during Abraham's days. Abraham it seems had his own God in Ur. We are never given his name. Some people think it was Sin (the Moon God).

El Shaddai was later identified in Exodus with Yahweh (see Ch. 3-6).

I believe the true rendering should be a word play in the name Zadoq. [you heard it from me first. I have never ever read anything on this before]Zadoq became the High priest during David's days with Abiathar, the descendant of the High Priest Eli, who descended from Ithamar, one of Aaron's sons. Zadoq descended from Eleazar, another of Aaron's sons.

2Sa 8:17 And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, [were] the priests; and Seraiah [was] the scribe;

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.


You'll have to forgive me Elpidio. I'm having one of those moments when I don't agree with you but it's obvious you are more informed.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.


So Psalm 110 is about Zadoq.

Later generations, including Jesus, applied that Psalm to him.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.


I need to get with it. I'm making instant banana pudding. Last time, the cream cheese was still too hard from the fridge. I microwaved it a few seconds.

A few seconds too long.

So this time I'm letting it thaw. Ever want to test your patience? Wait for something to thaw.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.


Gail.,

I didn't cut and paste any articles--what are you talking about?

How bad do you *not* know your Scriptures anyway??

-- (faith01@myway.com), November 23, 2004.


Luke.,

You need to pay attention to this part of the Scriptures:

And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life...

Clearly there is *another* to come who is *like* Melchizedek...that's not to mean that they are the very same. You have to read all of Hebrews 7.

-- (faith01@myway.com), November 23, 2004.


It has to do with Hebrew grammar, Luke.

Zedakah is righteousness. Zadok means righteous.

The Bible is full of places that have been mistranslated.

Examples: locusts for carob (in Hebrew)food for John the baptist's food. Camel for thread made of camel (in Greek) in Jesus parable about the camel going through the eye of the needle. In revelation, thigh for mark(banner)n where the mark of the beast is.

Goliath 9 1/2 feet when in reality he was 6 1/2 feet (in dead sea scrolls).

......

And the most famous not only a mistranslation but a misapplication of prophecy: parthenos for neanis (in Greek) to translate the Hebrew Almah. Almah is a marriageble woman. Parthenos is a virgin which in Hebrew is Bethulah. Isaiah 7:14 refers to Ahaz wife, the mother of Immanuel, better known as king Hezekiah.

Isiah 7:14 was used by the writer of Matthew to apply it to Jesus. No other New testamen write or apostle makes that claim.

So much for Trinitarianism.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.


Elpidio,

I posted Hebrews 7:11-28. That is all I have really posted in this thread--yet Gail has come on board and attacked me by claiming I cut and pasted some article?#@?%.

Luke was discussing Hebrews 7. I responded with more of Hebrews 7, but did not post any articles. So what's up with her?

-- (faith01@myway.com), November 23, 2004.


You are right faith. I saw the article. Gail did nt realize it was also a quote from Hebrews.

Oh, well...

I just hope that WWWIII doesn't start around Thanksgiving ...

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.


Faith, I think if would be helpful if when you are quoting something (especially Scripture) to provide the reference and the version. I'm not sure if NIV even allows such quoting, but if they do, I'm sure they'd want you to at least cite your sources.

I don't think this excuses what Gail posted, but just a suggestion. God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 23, 2004.


I dunno Elpidio,, the heat would help roast my turkey. I sure hope it thaws before tomorrow morning. I have to pop it in at 6am to have it ready by 9ish (it's a small turkey) for the Thanksgiving party at work.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.

Here's what the rules are for NIV quotations"

When quotations from the NIV are used in non-saleable media, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparencies or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required but the initials (NIV) must appear at the end of each quotation.

Quotations and/or reprints in excess of five hundred (500) verses, or other premission requests, must be directed to, and approved in writing by, International Bible Society.

Yikes, okay so I think everyone here has violated these rules.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.


I have been quoting the NIV for as long as I can remember--and I have never heard anyone request that I cite the obvious source.

The joke is that Gail doesn't even recognize God's Word. She thought I copy and pasted an article that she obviously didn't agree with. Lol!! She doesn't agree with God?

I usually do reference the exact chapter and verse when I post Scripture--I have no reason not to want to. I simply forgot, and then didn't really think it mattered since it was obviously Scripture and since we vere talking about Hebrews chapter 7 anyway. It doesn't really take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

-- (faith01@myway.com), November 24, 2004.


Actually, Faith, I totally meant it as a joke. I found the scripture passage at an anti-Catholic website which was the scripture passage you used. I didn't think there was any prohibition AT ALL concerning the quoting of various translations, so what I said above was intended to be just 'teasing.'

Now, it appears that we are not supposed to quote the Bible either without the citing the source.

So, I'M SORRY, okay!

gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 24, 2004.


Elpidio,

You said:

"I believe that Psalm 110 originally was about not Jesus, but the High priest of the Israelites during David's reign. After all, the Psalm is ascribed to King David."

This is completely untenable. The Midrash, while commenting on Psalm 18:36 (35 in the AV), says that the phrase "Sit thou at might right hand" is a Messianic phrase. Thus it is very unlikely that the Jews would have ever applied Psalm 110 to anybody but David and the Messiah. Christ also affirmed the traditional Jewish view of this Psalm when He applied it to Himself (Matt. 22:41-46).

As for Christ being a priest, this is not Catholic doctrine but a Biblical doctrine. Note that Zechaiah 6:12 speaks of the Messiah

"Behold a Man whose name is Branch..."

(this was accepted by the Jews as is universally attested to in the Targum, Jerusalem Talmud, and Midrashim).

The teaching of Christ as priest then follows in verse 13:

"He will be a priest on His throne" (NASB)

Kind regards,

Scott

-- Scott (scott_pk@yahoo.ca), November 24, 2004.


Scott, there was a rewriting of History.

When Jesus preached his message of salvation between AD 28-30 (he was executed in April 30), his contemporaries considered him a KING. That is why everyone calls him SON OF DAVID, not Son of Melchizek or Son of Aaron.

By 64 AD Paul was executed. Between 64-67 most of the other disciples had either been killed or executed.

By AD 70 Jerusalem laid in ruins. Those Zealots and Ebioites who were members of Jesus church who had participated in the revolt against the Romans had also mostly died. Thos that made it then thought of Jesus as the second Temple. He became a perpetual High Priest. That is what you find at the Dead Sea Scrolls: a poem on Melchizedek. Melquizedek had to come. So then, Melchizedek was Jesus.

The only thing needed was to make Jesus say it. But he never did. Jesus never claimed to be a priest.

Now, there are those who think that Jesus was a priest when he did the last supper. But, as everyone familiar with Judaism knows, the man of the house was in charge of delivering the passover to 10 or more people or his household. Priests were only in charge of slaughtering the passover lamb or goat.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 24, 2004.


Elpidio--

The Bible clearly identifies Jesus as the Utmost High Priest.

Oh wait--that's right, this is where you declare the Scripture in question is a fraud or something? Convenient. Not smart--but it works for you, right?

The Bible is not like some big buffet dinner--where you can come up to the table and just pick what you like.

You either have to reject it all and walk away--or accept it all--and get into that pen with jesus' sheep. Sitting on the fence might make you feel safe, but its a false sense of security because hungry wolves will eventually knock you right off.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 24, 2004.


Elpidio,

Mere facts aside, to suggest that the prevailing belief amongst the majority of Christians that "made it" was to think of Jesus "as the second Temple" is quite speculative. Let me give you an equally good alternative piece of “speculation” to explain what early Christians believed:

Jewish converts were suffering great persecution and ridicule for leaving Judaism for Christianity. The book of Hebrews was purposely written (likely before AD 70) to these Jewish converts to encourage them that Christianity was in no way inferior to the old economy of Judaism. Even though the Old Testament had introduced Judaism with its mediatorship in Moses, a covenant with God, a tabernacle, priests, and a sacrificial system, the very same Scripture also promises that the coming Messiah would fulfill and surpassed all these things.

You also said:

“He became a perpetual High Priest. That is what you find at the Dead Sea Scrolls: a poem on Melchizedek. Melchizedek had to come. So then, Melchizedek was Jesus.”

Now it’s unlikely that there’s any connection between the Melchizedek of the Dead Sea Scrolls and early Christian beliefs:

1. This has been carefully argued against by L.D. Hurst in "The Epistle to the Hebrews. It’s Background of Thought." (Something to check out) 2. The early Christians would have gone to great lengths to avoid associating themselves with the heretical beliefs of the Qumran sect, which linked Melchizedek with the angel Michael.

Besides all this Elpidio, the only way you can support this view is to dismiss the clear statement of Zechariah 6:13, which directly describes the Messiah as a priest.

-- Scott (scott_pk99@yahoo.ca), November 25, 2004.


Well, faith=creation science

did Jesus ever claim to be a priest? No. Acts doesn't say it. The gospels don't say it.

Thus, he wasn't.

As for Paul, h wasn'r Jesus disciple faith.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 29, 2004.


Scott,

From KJV (I changed Lord to Yahweh and Branch for Zerubabel, who descended from King David. ) 6:11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set [them] upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;

6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh Yahweh of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name [is] The BRANCH (Zerubabel); and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of Yahweh:

6:13 Even he shall build the temple of Yahweh; and he[Zerubbabel] shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne[of David]; and he [Joshua the High Priest]shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both[Zerubbabel and Joshua the High Priest].

Zerubabel was descended from King David. Zechariah expected him tio become King one day. It never happened. This prophey came true. Zerubabel rebuilt the Temple around 515 BC. Then he disappeared from History. The Prophets Haggai and Zechariah exhorted them to finish building the Temple. Joshua the High Priest also helped Zerubbabel in the rebuilding of the Temple. Joshua is Jesus in Greek. So The writer of Hebrews tried to make a connection between that Jesus, Zarubbabel, and Jesus of Nazareth. It worked in the sense that people believe there is a connection. But that is not true.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 29, 2004.


Elpidio,

You wrote, "did Jesus ever claim to be a priest? No. Acts doesn't say it. The gospels don't say it. Thus, he wasn't."

So are you saying that Jesus is not a "priest"???

If this is true, then how do you reconcile your view with what Heb 2:17 states???

"Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 29, 2004.


Elpidio,

God's Word is a total revelation. Just because Jesus may not have said something himself--doesn't mean the truth about something isn't revealed elsewhere in the Scriptures. Jesus never came out and said He is God--yet it is fully revealed that He is. That is how revelation works. The Old Testament reveals that Jesus is Messiah-- yet it doesn't say it out right.

God's Word is designed so that those who do not believe-- will never experience revelation.

Parables show that design most perfectly, but it is true throughout the Scriptures. For those who do not want God's truth--there is plenty of ways in which unbelievers can be confounded. It has clearly happened to you.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 30, 2004.


Heb. 2:17 , Kevi, is like any comments people make based on what they interpret.

None of Jesus disciples ever said Jesus was a priest.

Years later, when the Temple was destroyed by AD 70, Jesus was interpreted as th New High Priest by his later followers. Does that make him a priest? No.

Jesus was a sacrifice just like Isaac was when he was offered by Abraham. That is why he is the mediator of a new covenant.

You cannot be priest a offering at the same time. You yourself know better than that. If you are a priest, then there is a need for a sacrifice(offering) always. That is the mentality of Catholics, Kevin.

The Christian Yahwist

PS: There is more to be found at the Bible faith. I have spent more than 30 years of my life trying to find the truth. And the truth will make us free.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahooo.com), November 30, 2004.


Correction Elpidio--

You have spent the last 30 years denying the truth.

Only Jesus can set you free.

There is a huge difference between the priesthood of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Numbers 3:10 tells us that :

"Appoint Aaron and his sons to serve as priests; anyone else who approaches the sanctuary must be put to death."

Only Aaron and his descendants were appointed to the priesthood. Aaron and his descendants were the only ones who could carry out the duties of of the priests and approach God's dwelling place.

But now with Christ as our High Priest--our intermediary with God-- anyone who follows Him is also called a priest.

1 Peter 2:4-10 tells us:

As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:

"See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

"The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, " and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall."

They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Messiah Jesus is priest of a higher order:

Psalm 110:4

The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

Obviously the Jewish law was unable to save people and this is why God sent Christ -- sacrifices needed to be repeated and they offered only temporary forgiveness. But under the new Covenant, the Levitical priesthood was cancelled in favor of Christ's role as High priest.

Human priests die and animal sacrifices were insuficient...but Christ lives forever and intercedes for us.

Hebrews 7:17-25 assures us:

For it is declared: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he (Jesus) became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind:

'You are a priest forever.' "Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

-- (faith01@myway.com), November 30, 2004.


You still don't get it, faith. I told you about whom Psalm 110 is about: Zadok, David's and Solomon's High Priest.

As for I Peter 2, the message is even clearer. We are a royal priesthood. So if we are a priesthood, then Jesus is not a priest, but an offering . We offer(that is request God Yahweh) that through the offering of his son Jesus we obtain the forgiveness of our sins.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


The problem Elpidio--is that we didn't offer Jesus as a sacrifice for our sins. That is not how it went down. Jesus offered Himself. He gave Himself up.

Jesus has made a new relationship between the believer and God. Previously, people approached God through priests. But after Jesus' resurrection, any believer could approach God directly. A new day has dawned and now all believers are priests, talking with God personally and directly. We approach God, not because of our own merit, but because Jesus is our great high priest--and He has made up acceptable to God.

-- (faith01@myway.com), November 30, 2004.


"Heb. 2:17 , Kevi, is like any comments people make based on what they interpret."

Actually, Hebrews 2:17 means exactly what it states that Jesus is our High Priest...

"None of Jesus disciples ever said Jesus was a priest."

They didn't have too... He could not be a High Priest while He were on the earth... Hebrews 8:4 states, "For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law;"

Jesus is now in heaven, and is our High Priest!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 30, 2004.


No Kevin,Jesus is our advocate!!!!

Jesus doesn't have to be a priest in Heaven. He already was an accepted offering. No need for sacrifices anymore!!!!

That is why he is now an advocate (sort of intermediary).

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


"No Kevin,Jesus is our advocate!!!!"

Yes Jesus is our advocate and He is also our High Priest...

"Jesus doesn't have to be a priest in Heaven. He already was an accepted offering. No need for sacrifices anymore!!!!"

He is our High Priest in heaven because He is our advocate...

"That is why he is now an advocate (sort of intermediary)."

That is why Jesus is a High Priest... Only a High Priest could fulfill these duties as advocate...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 30, 2004.


Does Jesus sacrifice something other than his body(which he did 2000 years ago), Kevin ,everyday in Heaven?

that will be the only reason for him to be a priest. What is it?

Just because someone thought of Jesus as a High Priest.....doesn't make him one.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


"did Jesus ever claim to be a priest? No. Acts doesn't say it. The gospels don't say it... As for Paul, h wasn'r Jesus disciple faith." -Elpido.

Are you saying that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews (which we are quoting)? If so, this contradicts your history.

You said Paul died in 64 AD. You also said that the disciples who survived the Roman rebellion in 70AD are responsible for making Jesus out to be a priest.

If Hebrews was written by Paul, it must have been years before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Paul would have had nothing to do with this. Where did he get his belief from?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


oops.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.

i still have not mastered the shift-release combo

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.

Elpidio., you said that just because *someone* recognized Jesus as our high priest doesn't make it so?

Even when this is revealed in the Scriptures? That "someone"--is God.

You ignore clear Scriptural revelation at your own peril.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 01, 2004.


No, faith.

I didn't say that.

I said that Jesus never claimed to be a priest. Jesus own disciples never claimed he was a priest. Even I Peter's letter states we are are the Priests.

So if we are the priests, then Jesus is not.

QED

None of Jesus disciples wrote Hebrews.

Case closed.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 01, 2004.


It is likely that Hebrews was written by Paul. I can tell by his literary style. But it doesn't matter who wrote it. It is Scripture and we can trust that we have God's Word exactly as He intended for us to have.

Do you really think that God would go through all that He did to see to the writing of His Word through His prophets and apostles all those years--only to fall short in the end, allowing something as trivial as evil men to screw it all up?

You need to stop picking and choosing what you think sounds right and just trust the canon of Scripture that God's providence assured for us.

God starts revealing the truth about Jesus in the Old Testament with this:

Genesis 22:2 tells us that God requires sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin...

Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

In verse 8 we find that Abraham's faith will make a difference....

Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together. 22:13 says that God will accept a substitute...

Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."

Jesus is revealed as the ultimate High Priest when He offers Himself as that substitutionary sacrifice for us--in a once for all time sacrifice that ends the sacrificial system altogether.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 02, 2004.


"None of Jesus disciples wrote Hebrews. Case closed."

How do you know this Elpidio??? Is the book of Hebrews in your Bible??? If it is, then it is Scripture... We will be judged by what is written...

To claim that Jesus is "not" a High Priest (and He is), you are once again rejecting another portion of God's word... You "claim" that you follow God however, this is not true, especially since you cast doubt on what has been written concerning Jesus Christ...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), December 02, 2004.


Elipido, come on! The Old Testament clearly calls the whole people " a priestly people" even though there was a specific clan of Levites who were priests of the temple.

As for Jesus, just as Caiaphas was a high priest while other men served as priests, so too, Jesus could not be anything BUT the high priest is Christians were "a royal priesthood"!

If you have priests then you need a High Priest, and if you have a High Priest, then there has to be a priesthood.

As for Jesus and the priesthood... the Messiah had to be king * (prophecy) and he also had to be a prophet (according to Moses), and as King David was both King and Prophet but prophecied that the Messiah would be greater than he, we conclude that this King and prophet would also be Priest.

Only by completely ignoring the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah could you think that he wasn't a priest or king or prophet.

Only by ignoring the New Testament could you think that priesthood and high priesthood are mutually contradictory.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.


For faith:

Hebrews cannot be written by Paul. Paul always used someone to write his letters. He just signed them. Check Galatians. It was written by Tertius . Paul dictated.

Hebrews lacks not only the introduction, a common occurrence with Paul, but the farewell closing speech at the end of the letter.

Hebrews uses language only a person working at the Temple could know. That eliminates Paul and the rest of Jesus disciples (They were fishermen, tax collectors,...)except (Joseph)Barnabas and (his cousin John)Mark .They were Levites.(See Acts).

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.


Well, Kevin, there are many other books in my Bible.

What about the Song of Songs? A poem about making love. Do you think is necessary for salvation.

What about Qohelet better known as Ecclesiastes, a work on depression. The writer has lost hope on life.

What about Jude? It relies on another book not in most Bibles: Baruch.

What about Esther (Ishthar? It never ever mentions God Yahweh's name.

What about Daniel? This book is not even mentioned as sacred by Jesus Ben Sirach in his book (written around 200 BC)which the Catholic Church calls Ecclesiasticus.

What about Job? Who is he? Is he related to Abraham?

As you can see, Kevin, I do know my Bible.

But most people don't.

So when I said Jesus or his disciples never stated he was a priest, I knew they were right. Jesus wasn't.He Never was. The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.


Jesus was of the tribe of David, which wasn't a levite tribe...but as we know from the Old Testament, there were priests prior to Moses and Aaron... and thus, as the Messiah fulfills the plan of God begun in Genesis - way before the Mosaic law - his priesthood is of another order and hence, not a priesthood of Aaron.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.

I like your logic, Joe Stong.

Unfortunately, the passage shown to make a correlation in Zecharian that Jesus is a priest doesn't say so in Hebrew.

The word for branch (Netser) found in Isaiah 13 is not in Zechariah 2:13 but Tsemach(sprout). It is a bad translation.

Just like many I have found, the most famous being almah(marriagiable or married young woman woman) for Bethulah(a real virgin)in Isaiah 7:14 which not only is a bad translation but a misapplication of a prophecy. Immanuel is not Jesus but King Hezekiah, since the prphecy was for King Ahaz around 740 BC.

These bad translations are used to make Jesus God Yahweh. But Yahweh never died. Yahweh cannot die becuas God doesn't die. Jesus did. So Jesus never was God.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.


Elpidio.,

You are very amusing but you are so messed up. You have no base--no foundation--no source of truth and guidance, because you reject the Word of God.

I can't even debate with you because you come out of left field with claims I never heard nor care to address.

The Holy Bible is my total authority and if I can't argue from the Scriptures without having to hear you declare that those verses are false or that book is false-- or that's not the real author.,blah, blah, blah...then it is all just a bunch of non-sense and no one can help you. Why do you bother with any of it since you reject what you don't like anyway?

I think you are deceived, Elpidio.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 02, 2004.


Do you think faith the Song of Songs was inspird of God? Give me a break.

Say to someone you want to have sex with: Your breast are like... your neck is like....

That is what the Song of Songs is, faith, an erotic poem.

I know my Bible, faith. That Poem is not the word of God.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.


Are you serious Elpidio?

Who are you to say that God cannot be the author of our sexual desires?

Do you think that the Song of Songs is dirty?

Perhaps the problem stems from your attitude about sex?

Sex--created by God and pronounced *good* in Eden, has been twisted, exploited and turned into a casual and self-gratifying activity today. But that was not God's design and it is certainly not the intentions of this most beautiful book which tells of the love between a bridegroom and his bride.

Song of songs is an intimate story of a man and a woman, their love, courtship and marriage.

Of course I believe that God authored it!!

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 02, 2004.


I put my discussion on the the Book of The Song of Songs here faith.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 03, 2004.


We are all entitled to our opinions Elpidio--which, of course, is all that you are offering.

Like I said earlier--you reject the only foundation of truth that there is--God's Word.

Your attitude towards Song of Songs has to do with today's immorality.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 03, 2004.


Just because somethong is in the Bible doesn't make it into the word of God, faith. To be the word of God Yahweh it must have been revealed by him.

Thus, using this criteria, at least 5 books can be rejected from the Protestant Bible: Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Job,....Daniel? Ruth?

What is in: Genesis ch. 10-50, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronmy, Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,12 minor prophets,Chronicles, Psalms, ....

Matthew, Luke, and John are based on Mark and Tomas Gospels. Acts, Romans,Corinthians, Colossians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon,...except Hebrews which may be Barnabas belonging to Paul.

I Johon being from John(Mark)?. I and II Peter belong to Peter's disciples. James and Jude.

The Apocalypse 1-7. 8-20 based on Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 03, 2004.


You may have your own criteria for what constitutes as the inspired Word of God, but that is you.

According to God--it is fulfilled prophecy, spoken by men He chose as His prophets--who were authorized to write His Word. Also, those men who were chosen by Jesus--and whose writings reveal that there was fulfilled prophecy, miracles and healings performed by these same apostles.

Of course there were fraudulent books that falsely claimed the names of these said prophets and apostles--but by God's Divine Providence-- these things have been determined and weeded out.

The canon is closed--and it is true, in spite of men.

Solomon's Wisdom 1Kings 4:29-34

God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore. Solomon's wisdom was greater than the wisdom of all the men of the East, and greater than all the wisdom of Egypt. He was wiser than any other man, including Ethan the Ezrahite-wiser than Heman, Calcol and Darda, the sons of Mahol. And his fame spread to all the surrounding nations. He spoke three thousand proverbs and his songs numbered a thousand and five. He described plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of walls. He also taught about animals and birds, reptiles and fish. Men of all nations came to listen to Solomon's wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 04, 2004.


Elpidio wrote, "As you can see, Kevin, I do know my Bible."

I will ask you again, is the book of Hebrews in your Bible??? If so, then you do "not" know your Bible... The book of Hebrews states that Jesus "is" a High Priest... and yet Elpidio says, this is not so... I choose to believe God...

Elpidio wrote, "But most people don't."

This is a true statement however, you do "not" know your Bible. If the book of Hebrews is in your Bible, it is Scripture and cannot be ignored...

Elpidio wrote, "So when I said Jesus or his disciples never stated he was a priest, I knew they were right. Jesus wasn't.He Never was."

Jesus nor His disciples needed to state this in order to be true... We have evidence else where in the Bible where Jesus "is" a High Priest... If you reject this, then you reject what has been written and we will be judged by what is written...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), December 04, 2004.


Kevin, how do you know what belongs in the Bible and what doesn't? There were hundreds if not thousands of religious writings around the time of Christ. Who's to say?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), December 05, 2004.

Kevin you go back to the same starting question: If in the Bible, then it must be sacred.

No, Kevin, like I said, the Song Of Songs is in the Bible but it is not sacred.

In the same manner the Book of Hebrews is in the Bible but iit wasn't written by one of Jesus disciples.

That is why I know my Bible, Kevin. I can see the Greek, Hebrew ,a dn Aramaic tomes in it. Most people can't.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


Yes, faith, Solomon wrote many proverbs, sayings,.... but he also lost Yahweh's favor.

He began to worship other Gods.

So Yahweh didvided his Kingdom at his death. Jeroboam inherited the Northern Kingdom known as Israel, his Son Rehoboam the South known as Judah.

Solomon and Saul are people in the Bible that serve as examples that our salvation is not guarranteeed, faith.

Both were chosen by Yahweh. Both were rejected later for disobeying or changing the worship.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


The topic was about whether or not we could count the Song of Songs as being Scripture. The answer is yes. Even other accepted books speak of His songs. Scripture really does confirm Scripture....

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.

No, faith, it isn't.

Just because it was there, The Protestants accepted it. But truly, it wasn't part of the Hebrew Bible either.

Proof of that is the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach better know as Ecclesiasticus. He never mentioned Daniel, Song of Songs,....Job, Tobit,Judith,....in his book, Ch. 45-50. He lived around 200 BC. He should have known.

Protestants follow a later Jewish version which included many of these books.

So later Jews, Catholics, and Protestants are wrong in accepting them.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


There is no valid means by which anyone can identify which texts belong in the Bible, except the Canon which was given by the Holy Spirit to the Catholic Church at the end of the 4th Century. If you accept that Canon as the work of the Holy Spirit, then you know with certainty which 73 texts are scriptural. If you don't accept it, then you have no valid way of knowing whether ANY text is scriptural.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 07, 2004.

Paul.,

When will you admit that the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Bible?

The Bible is the inspired Word of God--given to us by God.

Early believers recognized the Scriptures of the New Testament as they were being written, and the Jewish cannon was understood centuries before the Roman Catholic Church even existed.

That the Roman Catholic Church gave the canon it's stamp of approval-- does not mean that they gave us the Bible. We would have these writings and recognize inspiration without your church.

Your religion also accepts books that are not recognized as inspired, so in that respect--you are out of the loop.

We are all just players and part of God's plan. He used whatever means He chose to see to it that His Word would be recognized. He used prophecy., miracles., and healings to confirm the validity of His authors.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


Faith, those early believers as you call them were Catholics - they were deacons, priests and bishops, they were organized in local Churches, but were united together... they fought major heresies (Gnostics anyone?) they made creeds and developed theology - all while most of the New Testament wasn't confirmed as "scripture". There were more letters of Paul and others than are found in the bible - people wrote lots of things during the 300 years prior to the deciding of the canon... to claim that the bible just fell out of the sky untouched by man is ridiculous. ALMOST as ridiculous as believing that non-Catholic "believers" just put wrote the epistles and whilly nilly 3 centuries later the alien Church dropped down from the sky to adopt these as its own canon!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.

Faith, you said:

"Your religion also accepts books that are not recognized as inspired, so in that respect--you are out of the loop."

Not recognized by you perhaps, but they are recognized by Catholics as well as some Protestant groups. As you know, they were recognized in Carthage and Hippo, councils convened at the behest of the Pope.

You also are completely in error as you have been shown over-and-over again with regard to the structure of the Church. I have provided countless quotes from our ancestors as EVIDENCE that they were ONE. Yet you refuse to look at the evidence, but are flying by the seat of your pants. Your faith is based on pure conjecture that flies in the face of the facts and/or logic, and is grounded in nothing more than anti-Catholic jargon for which you can offer ZILCH in the way of EVIDENCE.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 08, 2004.


Sorry Gail--

But it is a fact that the deuterocanonical books were not writen by prophets or apostles of God. Therefore they are not *inspired* Scripture--but second class books written by mere men, like it or not.

The Jews did not accept them and neither do those people who want to stay in keeping with what was given by God.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


Weak argument if you are trying to say that because the Jews rejected such books we should also reject those books. The some of the Jews rejected Christ. Your logic would require us to reject Christ. So, what do you really mean, Faith?

And, what goes through your mind if and when you read those books you reject?

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.


That should be:

"Some of the Jews rejected Christ."

Not:

"The some of the Jews rejected Christ."

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.


rod,

The Old Tesament Hebrew Scriptures were accepted by Jesus--that is why they are accepted by me. Those apocryphal books were not a part of the context. That is good enough for me.

The deuterocanonical books contain legend and error. Not to mention that they contradict the true canonical books.

That is what I am saying!

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


You say many things, but usually mean something else. So, how do you know that these books are in error? Do they go against your personal teachings or what?

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.


There are many instances even in the four gospels that do not agree, nor was Luke an apostle, nor do we know whether Jesus "accepted" any of the books of the New Testament since they were written after His ascension.

I know many Protestants that are angry that the deuteros were not left in their canon and that they have to purchase this rich spiritual literature under separate cover.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 08, 2004.


rod,

For example, it is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel (722 B.C.) as well as when Jeroboam revolted against Judah (931 B.C.), which would make him at least 209 years old. Yet, according to the account, he died when he was only 158 years old.

Moreover, the book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon (Judith 1:1).

Such inaccuracies are inconsistent with the doctrine of inspiration, which teaches that inspired books are "God-breated" and free from error!

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


Faith, you said:

"Such inaccuracies are inconsistent with the doctri9ne of inspiration, which teaches that inspired books are "God-breated" and free from error!"

Surely you aware there are scores of discrepancies amongst not only the gospels themselves, but the entire Bible as well.

Here are just a few:

Who went to the tomb on that sabbath day?

Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

************

Who was in the tomb?

Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Luke 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

John 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

*******************

Was Jesus on a plain or a mount?

Matt 5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

Luke 6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

*************

What was the last thing Jesus said?

Matthew 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

*************

Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

*******************

Who is the father of Joseph?

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

***********

The thieves on the cross; in one gospel one went to paradise, in the other gospel they were both schmucks!

************* *************

The above texts are excerpts from an Athiest website who lists MOUNDS OF errors and discrepancies throughout the entire Bible! Here is the site: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible- contradictions.html#empty_tomb

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 08, 2004.


There are no contradictions in the Bible Gail--just supposed ones. They are all dealt with and I myself spent much time at another site doing just that.

For example, there is no contradiction in these verses:

Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

All I can see is different perspectives.

That is a big difference from actual historical errors.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


The Bible is replete with scientific, theological and historical inaccuracies, contradictions and discrepancies, Faith, not differing "perspectives."

For instance: Was Jacob the father of Joseph, or was Heli? It is a "historical biological fact" that either Jacob was the father of Joseph, or that Heli was the father of Joseph. They can't both be the fathers of Joseph, can they?

****

Concerning St. Paul's Damascus Road experience, in Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

But then in Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

Which is it? Historically speaking, did those around Paul hear the voice, or not? Keep in mind that the book of Acts was written by the same man, Luke, who was not an apostle and who gathered his information from other sources. His record is supposed to be the most accurate, and yet here we have a glaring contradiction.

**************

If I am following you correctly, when you say the Bible is free from all error, you are not referring to scientific, historical, biological or theological inconsistencies . . . but only historical inaccuracies ?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 08, 2004.


Well Gail..,

Perhaps the problem is in your translation?

My Bible reads:

Acts 9:7

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

and Acts 22:9

My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

So you tell me?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


Also Gail,

Could you please cite the verse that says Heli was the father of Joseph--husband of Mary?

I find that Jacob is listed as the father of this Joseph.

We also know that there was a Jacob from Old Testament times who is father of a different Joseph.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


Oh come on. Paul saw and heard Jesus. His companions saw a light, but didn't here the words or see Jesus. Both are right. No contradiction.

His companions saw something a light - Paul saw an apparition of Jesus and heard his voice.... different perspectives, that's all.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.


Matthew 1:16 . . . and to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23 And when he began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, (or Heli).

New American Standard Bible (Protestant Bible)

Is this type of discrepancy compatible the "Bible contains no errors" or not?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 08, 2004.


Matthew 27: 9 Then that which was spoken through JEREMIAH the prophet was fulfilled, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." NASB

Only trouble is the quote is NOT from Jeremiah AT ALL, but is rather found in Zechariah 11:12 . . . "So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. Then the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the Lord. NASB

*********

Matthew apparently did not know from which book he was quoting . . .?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 08, 2004.


My Bible says that Heli was Joseph's father-in-law. It goes on to say that Luke probably received that geneology from Mary and would likely have wanted to show her geneology because of the prominence he liked to give woman in his gospel.

I fully trust that the Bible is error free in every way....with the exception of some minor translation problems.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


Can you quote the verse please?

I think you must have posted over the "Jeremiah" matter just above.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 08, 2004.


Faith, I have looked in every translation I have and nowhere does it state that Heli was Joseph's father-in-law, which I guess would make Heli Mary's father, which doesn't even pertain to the genealogy of Joseph whatsoever anyway.

Are you relying on someone's commentary?

The Heli matter and the Jeremiah/Zechariah are not translation errors. What kind of errors would you call those? I don't see that they are in anyway of less import than the matters you state against the deuteros.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 08, 2004.


Although this prophecy is found in Zechariah--it was probably taken from Jeremiah 17:2,3; 18:1-4; 19:1-11; or 32::6-15. In the Old Testament times, Jeremiah was considered the collector of some of the prophet's writings, so this is probably why his name was cited.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.

I'm just saying, Gail--that I trust ther Scriptures are God-breasthed and therefore cannot be in error.

The things you cite are the errors of men's understanding.

The errors I cite in the deuterocanonicals are historical and cannot be justified. They can only happen when the author is writing of his own authority.

People have been trying for centuries to disprove the Bible--yet they have failed.

I am surprised--but not really--that you would buy into the contentions of atheists. You should trust God better than this.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


Also Gail., both genealogies are about Jesus, not Joseph.

I think that Matthew's genealogy shows Jesus' legal right back to the throne of David. Luke's genealogy shows Jesus blood line through Mary back to David.

Interestingly., either way--Jesus' right to the throne of David is legitamate. He can trace it back legally as though through an adoption by Joseph--or by blood through his mother.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


I realize all of that Faith, and I understand that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Men -- humans, as you said, wrote the Bible at God's insistence, and therefore any errors would certainly be attributable to MAN, and not God. Yes, I believe all of too. But the fact is that the Bible contains those 'human' errors, and it is because of those human errors that you cannot say that the Bible as we have it now is 100% free of error -- because of the human element - - Can you?

Gail

BTW, though I pulled many of these 'problems' from an athiest site, (mainly because of the ease in which they had them laid out) you can certainly find Christians addressing these problems on their own web sites.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 08, 2004.


No Gail, I disagree.

I do not think we could justify human error in the Scriptures themselves.

I can excuse human error in the understanding only.

Fortunately--there are no contradictions or mistakes in the canon of Scripture which is inspired by God.

If you think you find any--better do a real study to discover what it is you might be missing when you write it off as wrong.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


I'm not entirely sure of what you are saying, but it seems that you are denying that there are any errors in the Bible, whether of human origin or not . . .

Please clarify.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 08, 2004.


Exactly Gail.

I am denying any error in inspired Scripture.

Any supposed contradictions are always refutable--as I showed you.

Bad translations or understandings on the part of man are entirely possible. But error from God is impossible.

I have never failed to satisfy in my mind, any supposed contradiction. With just a little honest searching and some good reading--you can discover that these things have been addressed.

I am totally confident in God's Word and He has not let me down yet : )

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


Unless I admit variations in text, I'll forever believe that there were four Jesus Christs, or that one Jesus was crucified four times, while his fourty-eight apostles fled.

On the other hand, the story does not change, and is uniform.

Jesus resurrection: Women went to the tomb at the end of the Sabbath, found it empty, and an angel told them Jesus was risen.

Crucifixion: Jesus was murdered on a cross with others. One of the men repented.

Judas' death: The money the Pharisees paid Judas to betray Jesus was used to purchase the land he died on.

Father of Joseph: Father is not limited to one generation. Jewish geneaologies frequently leave out entire generations.

The test of an inspired work isn't the contradiction in minor details, but in theological priniciples and the nature of God. Books that do not match the singular God of the hermeunetic texts do not belong.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 09, 2004.


Exactly Faith and Luke, you have faith that all of these inconsistencies, and/or what appears to be errors have an explanation.

Likewise, Faith, I have faith that any apparent mistakes or errors in the deutors that you have thrown at us repeatedly, have an explanation as well. The deuteros have been relied upon for centuries all the way back to the apostles. Our ancestors have relished in their rich literaracy, and fortunately for me and all Catholics and other european Christians, they were NOT removed from the canon.

Gail

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 09, 2004.


These are not contradictions that people think they see. They are different perspectives.

Think of it like this. If four people went to a Bruce Springstein concert and were asked to give an account of what they saw and heard., undoubtedly each person's account would differ from the others. They would all have sat in different spots, around different people, and would have noticed different aspects of the event.

That doesn't mean any of them are wrong or that they were mistaken in what they saw., just because each of them reported different things. Its all about perspective.

But if you would take each of their accounts and combine them--you would get a pretty good feel for the entire concert.

This is a big difference from historical errors and fanciful legendary tales which we find in the deutercanonicals.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 09, 2004.


Yes, yes, I agree with you on your analogy. It's the same argument I have given myself.

But Faith, there are historical dating problems in the Bible too. (I don't have time right now to list them) They are the same type of historical dating problems you cite against the deuteros. My point is that if you impeach the deuteros on the dating inconsistencies, or historical inaccuries, then you would have to apply that same standard to the rest of the Bible.

I have to get to work. I'll check back later.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 09, 2004.


"That doesn't mean any of them are wrong or that they were mistaken in what they saw., just because each of them reported different things. Its all about perspective. "--Faith.

That's how rumors get started. Rituals, based on Tradition, has a higher potential for being true; That's if the Traditions are kept and not fooled with, the potential for truth would perpetuate.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 09, 2004.


True Rod, unless the tradition was flawed from the beginning. And, even if it was started for good reason, the intention behind it can change over time.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 09, 2004.

That's why it is important to open one's horizons and not keep to "Sola Scriptura". The Bible keeps getting translated, paraphrased, edited, and versionized. Traditions must not.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 09, 2004.


Yes, Luke. I can see your point, as well. I think that is the main concern of Traditionalists Catholics.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 09, 2004.


I believe the mature mindset is to acknowledge that traditions and rituals should be in place only to develop good habits and to keep accountable. They really have nothing to do with salvation, and the belief as such is what turns many against "religion."

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 09, 2004.

Well, how else can one remain in a state of good habits and accountability that leads one to Salvation, if not through Traditions?

I know what some will say--"Faith Only". But, "Faith Only" is not accurate when good habits and accountability falls into the "works" practice.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 09, 2004.


I think it's all a matter of the heart!

For instance, I find the liturgical calendar so rich and meaningful, while someone else may find it mundane, boring and meaningless. Traditions are helpful in leading a life focused on Christ IF the heart is in it.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 09, 2004.


Gail,

You are absolutely right. I think the same thing applies to some of the things we do at mass. Some people claim that a catholic mass is nothing but a bunch of empty rituals, however I think people often become too dismissive without thinking about things.

For example, think of one of the first things we do at mass, the penitential rite. Think about it for a minute, before we start worshiping God, we call to mind the fact that we are sinners and need to lay our sins before God and ask for forgiveness before the worship service begins. Can anyone think of a better way to begin a worship service? Unfortunately, I found this distinctively lacking in the Protestant churches that I attended. The protestant churches I attended had a lot of nice things, comfortable seating, enjoyable music, dynamic use of powerpoint during the sermon, etc. However, as wonderful as some of these things were, there were a lot of other things that were missing, which of course was why I returned the the Catholic Church.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 09, 2004.


Hi James,

Yes, those traditions are glorious indeed when they are met with true heart felt devotion. I am head-over-heels in love the majesty and beauty of the mass, that "Lamb's Supper ritual" we do every Sunday.

I experienced the same sorts of things at Protestant churches as well, high-tech, great music, comfortable settings! My brother attends a Willow Creek affiliated church. They are PROGRESSIVE to the hilt, and take advantage of very new concept imaginable, but I worry where will they be 10 or 20 years from now . . . "where do we go from here." I also wonder how much of these things are really feeding the flesh rather than the spirit. I mean, do you feed the spirit with high-tech music, Powerpoint, big cushy chairs, donuts and coffee, or do you feed the flesh?

It's not for me, HOWEVER I'm glad my brother is going to church! He has NEVER been committed to church attendance before, so for that I will rejoice, yes, I will rejoice!

Bless you!

gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 09, 2004.


Gail.,

My point is that you do not need to compromise God's Word for any reason.

In the same way that the Catholic has compromised His Word for the theory of evolution (theistic evolution), you seem to want to make space for these claims that the Bible has innaccuracies or errors-- just because man says so.

I am telling you that these claims are what is in error.

Just bring them on.

If I find time, I will show you how each and every one can be proven wrong.

The only contradictions are in man's understanding of the facts and the only other possible error would be in translation. These minor problems have been corrected for the most part.

But as far as the initial inspired Word--it necessarily is error free. How could God produce anything else? So if Luke says Heli and Matthew says Jacob--then they are both right, and we need to dig deeper to understand.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 09, 2004.


Hi Faith,

I'm not sure what you mean by "initial" inspired word. If you mean the original transcripts of the Word of God, then I agree with you 100% -- absolutely, completely free from error! That is the standard Christian position.

But the Bible has been handed down to us through people and people make mistakes. Like you said, most of these mistakes have been corrected, but some have not been satisfied yet. Perhaps the minor flaws in the deuteros will be someday as well!

Gotta run,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 09, 2004.


But Gail,

The errors in translation are only minor and can and have been pointed out right away.

The contradicions you seem to agree are there, like the ones you listed above--are not contradictions at all, nor are they minor translation problems. They are simply man's claim and man is wrong. Heli, for example--is not a translation mistake.

I spent a lot of time refuting this sort of thing, and though I am not anxious to dig all that stuff back up again, I will if you have some examples you would like to see refuted.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 09, 2004.


Gail says:

"He has NEVER been committed to church attendance before, so for that I will rejoice, yes, I will rejoice!"

Yes, I will rejoice too. I think that we often miss how much in common when we focus on what we disagree on.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 09, 2004.


You guys and gals do know that the Church fathers, including Thomas Aquinas faced these issues with scripture and solved the apparent contradictions right? Sometimes I get the feeling that you are trying to personally reinvent the wheel instead of refering to the work others have already done.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 09, 2004.

Joe, if you had spent any time at all reading through this thread you would see what it is about. You obviously are in just long enough to put in your 2 cents worth.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear, or perhaps I have been misunderstood. Let me say this once and for all -- I couldn't really personally care less about the insignificant alleged 'problems' with the Bible. (But thanks Faith for offering to delve into these matters; that is very kind of you).

I merely am trying to point out that inspite of things that look "spurious" we can still accept the Word of God -- all of it -- including the deuteros, as the infallible Word.

Faith, maybe the things you point out about the deuteros are REALLY BIG ISSUES to you, but quite frankly I don't care a hoot about the insignificant matters you raise. I have read these books. They are marvelous. They were quoted over and over and over again by our EARLY ancestors. They are useful in equipping the believer in the life of holiness-- SUPERBLY useful.

God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 09, 2004.


Gail.,

I think the deuterocanonicals are as valuable as any good book. You can be entertained by them---Consider Bell and the Dragon, Tobit, and Judith, which have the earmarks of legend where even the authors themselves give hints to this along the way.

We can learn much about the people and the times trough these books.

But the historical errors I mentioned cannot be be counted as bad translation or misunderstandings. They are simply innacurate. This is not so with the *inspired* Scriptures.

The contents of the deuterocanonicals is subbiblical and parts are clearly fanciful.

They were never part of the Hebrew Canon that Jesus recognized and weren't writen in Hebrew either--but Greek. These books were not written by prophets as in the Old Testament times or by apostles as in the New Testament times.

This is why they are called deuterocanonical or second class. They do not meet the criteria of *inspired* or God-breathed.

Since they are not inspired, we need not be alarmed by the error within their pages.

However--if the inspired Scriptures could be proven to be in the same type of error., I would be alarmed.

Fortunately, I know without a doubt that there is a great rebuttal for every such supposed contradiction or error supposedly found in God's Holy Word : )

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 09, 2004.


Rod, the power of salvation must be present our lives before the traditions have any meaning or value. Yet, they still have no bearing on our salvation. I'll be saved regardless of whether or not I go to church every Sunday or whether or not I serve food at the shelter during Christmas time. But my relationship with God will suffer. It is impossible to achieve any depth of spiritual life or any advanced degree of Godliness if I don't seek God in everything I do. The purpose of tradition is to remind and to grow. Never is it necessary to keep it, but I'll be making things very hard for myself if I don't.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 09, 2004.

Hi Luke,

generally.....I agree with your view and belief. In my experience, it sometimes takes a swift kick or a ritual work to get the horse trained. The horse eventually comes to understand his master and his work. Then, it isn't the work, but the faith that keeps him in God's eye. Then, the work keeps His Children in His eye. It is never one without the other. I'm sure God knows, especially when we get the order confused, if it is confused at all that is.

I never believed that my work is my saving grace. But, I do believe that both faith and works are required for Salvation.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 09, 2004.


Hi Faith,

And similarly there are rebuttals for the problems that you have with Judith and Tobit, JUST LIKE the rebuttals you get for other problems mentioned concerning other parts of the Bible.

You have stated in many places that the "scripture interprets scripture" which for the most part is true, EXCEPT for those occasions when one must look to extrabiblical sources in order to solve problems. Wouldn't you agree?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 10, 2004.


No, I wouldn't agree, Gail.

I would never turn to extra-biblical or non-biblical workings to solve a question I have about God's Holy Word.

I would accept only other *inspired* Scripture to answer any questions or misunderstandings I have with regard to His Word.

I would be interested to see the *rebutals* you say exist with respect to the historical innacuracies I mentioned above.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 12, 2004.


Faith, for instance, as to Joseph's father (Joseph the stepfather of Jesus), two separate dads. One text says one thing, and another next says something different. You offered, what I believe to have been a commentary, as to the disparagy. Right?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 12, 2004.


It wasn't a commentary Gail. And it isn't a disparage in the text-- just in our understanding. That is different from the errors I showed you--which are within it's very own text and has nothing to do with understanding. It is simply an error.

I have read the rebutal before about Mary's lineage and Joseph's lineage being both listed for good reason., and I agree with it mostly because we can see that the two genealogies differ in more than just the listing of Jacob and Heli. Remember that the passages are not about showing who is Joseph's father. It is about showing Jesus' lineage back to the throne of David. He gets it from both sides--leaving no room for argument.

Through Mary, Jesus traces back...

56.Abraham 55.Isaac 54.Jacob 53.Judah 52.Perez 51.Hezron 50.Ram 49.Amminadab 48.Nahshon 47.Salmon 46.Boaz 45.Obed 44.Jesse 43.David 42.Nathan 41.Mattatha 40.Menna 39.Melea 38.Eliakim 37.Jonam 36.Joseph 35.Judah 34.Simion 33.Levi 32.Matthat 31.Jorim 30.Eliezer 29.Joshua 28.Er 27.Elmadam 26.Cosam 25.Addi 24.Melki 23.Neri 22.Sheilteal 21.Zerubbabel 20.Rhesa 19.Joanan 18.Joda 17.Josech 16.Semein 15.Mattathias 14.Maath 13.Naggai 12.Esli 11.Nahum 10.Amos 9.Mattathias 8.Joseph 7.Jannai 6.Melki 5.Levi 4.Matthat 3.Heli 2.Joseph 1.Jesus

Through Joseph, Jesus traces back.....

41.Abraham 40.Isaac 39.Jacob 38.Judah 37.Perez 36.Hezron 35.Ram 34.Amminadab 33.Nahshon 32.Salmon 31.Boaz 30.Obed 29.Jesse 28.David 27.Solomon 26.Rehoboam 25.Abija 24.Asa 23.Jehosephat 22.Jehoram 21.Uzziah 20.Jotham 19.Ahaz 18.Hezekiah 17.Manasseh 16.Amon 15.Josiah 14.Jechoniah 13.Shealteil 12.Zerubbabel 11.Abiud 10.Eliakim 9.Azor 8.Zadok 7.Akim 6.Eliud 5.Eleazar 4.Matthan 3.Jacob 2.Joseph 1.Jesus

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 12, 2004.


But we still have Jacob as the father of Joseph in one gospel and Heli as the father in the other!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 12, 2004.

Ya, Faith, you didn't really address Gail's point.

Here's my understanding of Jewish genes Gail (invented)

Jesse's heritage: Jesse, the son of Logan, the son of Rick, the son of Randy, the son of Philip, the son of Yumminabad shubad.

That's one way to go, but sometimes you get this:

Jesse, the son of Logan, the son of Philip, the son of kasher.

Sometimes, entire generations are left out.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 12, 2004.


Yes, Luke, I am aware that sometimes geneologists would skip generations, and I'm sure something like that would explain the "alleged" discrepancy, but you're right Luke, my point is you cannot explain the difference without "extra-Biblical commentary."

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 12, 2004.

When the virgin birth took on as dogma, there was a need to make sure that if Jesus was not the son of Joseph, then he had to be the son of Mary.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 13, 2004.


Gail.,

I explained the differences in the genealogies. There is no error. Just a misunderstanding from us--who are less informed of the way things were done then.

You on the other hand, have not offered any rebutal for the erros I listed from those uninspried works of the apocrypha.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 13, 2004.


Faith, you said "I explained the difference," and yes you did, with your commentary, which is fine, acceptable and perfectly reasonable. You answered this dilemna, however, through extra-Biblical research and came to perfectly reasonable conclusion. Scripture did not explain it though, you did with your research, as did Luke and Elpidio above.

Here is a link to the questions you asked about Judith and Tobit. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307bt.asp Take it or leave, I really don't care.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 13, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ