Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just wanted to drop in and say hello!! I was working all day, and have go get to bed early...and it will take me a little bit to catch up with this thread. I will do my best to be back fairly soon!!
I wanted to say something really quick about being "learned" vs. "unlearned."
I am familiar with the traditional kinds of interpretations in Christianity..because it was what i first learned about 20+ years ago. Not all of them agree of course.
In learning more about the Big Picture from studying the religions of the world, and about world history (which used to be my least favorite subject), I started to feel like I could "think outside the box" more.
I love Jesus and God with all my heart, but I feel I have to ask very challenging questions, because the more my knowledge has increased, the more differently i began to see things. But I really don't want to find fault with any scripture..or with our Lord.
Anyway...I have to run...I'll be back soon and explain more and respond to some posts when I can!!
Acts 4:13. Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.
When you know, pesonally, who you are dealing with, you don't need letters of other men to tell you about them, anymore. Or, more precisely, you don't need the letters of "educated" men to tell you about a friend you know personally.
I couldn't agree more!
This is an interesting concept. Because with all of the differing takes on Scripture...the bottom line is, we have our own personal relationship with God to steer us right, and to lead us to green pastures. We can debate endlessly, but it does not affect this basic Truth.
It was Paul who said that. Paul reminded Timothy that all Scripture is God breathed. This included the Old Testament Scriptures and what New Testament Scipture existed at that point. In pointing out that all Scripture is God breathed, Paul was stating that God's words were given through men superintended by the Holy Spirit so that their writings are without error.
The fact that certain church fathers in later times had doubts about some of the New Testament books is irrevelent. At the time of their writing, the New Testament books were accepted by the churches. The church could not make any book canonical. It could only recognize what was already canonical by virtue of having been inspired by God.
Yes, you are correct. I meant "the book of Timothy"....but I was in a hurry and spaced.
Now how about this: The book of Enoch was excluded...but that comes from the OT period, and I believe was originally accepted (correct my if I'm wrong in this!) In your opinion then, should it have been included..or can it be included...especially since Enoch is referenced in the NT?
There are I think other OT books that the Jews accepted that the Christians rejected...so this concept of "all scripture" is a little hard to define. Not a big deal. But I just wanted your opinion!
To the contrary. Animal sacrifice was instituted by God with the fall of man. In fact, God killed the first animal and made garments for Adam and the woman (Gen 3:21). God accepted the animal sacrifice of Abel but rejected the offering from Cain which consisted of fruit or vegetables. God then instituted a more expansive program of animal sacrifice for Israel. As already stated, animal sacrifice was a graphic means of illustrating to the Jews the work that the Messiah (Jesus Christ) would do when He went to the cross.
As do many, you totally disregard the knowledge of trained Theologians and prefer your own interpretation of things. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
I have already given you what theologians say about Isaiah 1:11.
My point is that there are theologians who feel otherwise, and who mention Melchisidek and how his Priesthood was desirable over the Aaronite Priesthood. His name itself means "righteous priest king." You act as if the perspective you put forth is the only one and it isn't.
Melchisidek goes all the way back to the time of Abraham, and he didn't sacrifice animals. Making clothing from an animal, or killing an animal for food (which has always been okay with God) is not the same as saying that God wanted animal sacrifice as penance for sin..and that it was supposed to "illustrate to the Jews" the work of the coming Messiah.
There are many theologians who disagree with this perspective that you put forth.
We can just agree to disagree...because there is evidence in support of both perspectives. If you try to act like your view is the only one out there...that is just not true. I've done enough reading to know. I don't agree with the view you adhere to.
There are also those who believe that the meanings attributed to Christ's death are in fact erroneous as well. But we can leave that one for another thread.
To the contrary. Animal sacrifice was instituted by God with the fall of man. In fact, God killed the first animal and made garments for Adam and the woman (Gen 3:21). God accepted the animal sacrifice of Abel but rejected the offering from Cain which consisted of fruit or vegetables. God then instituted a more expansive program of animal sacrifice for Israel. As already stated, animal sacrifice was a graphic means of illustrating to the Jews the work that the Messiah (Jesus Christ) would do when He went to the cross.
As do many, you totally disregard the knowledge of trained Theologians and prefer your own interpretation of things. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
I have already given you what theologians say about Isaiah 1:11.
I wanted to add, there are many that are of the impression that there was an incorrect concept of God during much of the time of the OT, due to Man's fallenness, and the influence of the Egyptians. I'll post evidence of this viewpoint soon...when I have some time!
I think many theologians like to change the meaning of Isaiah 1:11 into something else, because they don't want anyone to think the OT has any contraditions or inconsistencies in it. But the more you look at the scriptures, the more evidence you see that there are in fact inconsistencies, and many many attempts to "harmonize" or explain these. \
I think we should look carefully at Jewish history, and see where Isaiah himself was coming from, and what was going on at the time, to see what it really meant. I bet it's something we can illustrate very well...as to what it must have really meant. But if we accept this as its meaning...it would mean the OT has contradicting viewpoints (supposedly all coming from the same God) regarding animal sacrifice...and many many theologians don't want to, or refuse to consider, that possibility. Many of them like to start with a premise of absolute inerrancy, and then they do whatever they can to defend that.
My point is that there are theologians who feel otherwise, and who mention Melchisidek and how his Priesthood was desirable over the Aaronite Priesthood. His name itself means "righteous priest king." You act as if the perspective you put forth is the only one and it isn't.
Melchisidek goes all the way back to the time of Abraham, and he didn't sacrifice animals. Making clothing from an animal, or killing an animal for food (which has always been okay with God) is not the same as saying that God wanted animal sacrifice as penance for sin..and that it was supposed to "illustrate to the Jews" the work of the coming Messiah.
There are many theologians who disagree with this perspective that you put forth.
We can just agree to disagree...because there is evidence in support of both perspectives. If you try to act like your view is the only one out there...that is just not true. I've done enough reading to know. I don't agree with the view you adhere to.
There are also those who believe that the meanings attributed to Christ's death are in fact erroneous as well. But we can leave that one for another thread.
You neither understand what I am saying or the differences between the Levitical priesthood of the dispensation of Israel and the royal priesthood which belongs to the dispensation of the church. Concerning Israel, God chose the priesthood to come through the tribe of Levi. The animal sacrifices were for the purpose of graphically demonstrating to the Jews that God required a substitutiony sacrifice to atone for mans sins. That sacrifice would be Jesus Christ.
Now Jesus Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Jesus Christ is superior to the Levitical priesthood established in the Old Testament, demonstrating that the only priesthood existing today is the royal priesthood of Christ, in the order of Melchizedek. In the dispensation of the church, every believer is a priest because every church-age believer is in Christ and shares His priesthood.
The royal priesthood of the believer in the dispensation of the church IS superior to the Levitical priesthood of the age of Israel. But we are talking about the Levitical priesthood and the purpose of the animal sacrifices.
The animal sacrifices were figurative. They were a picture, a type, a demonstration of the atoning work of Christ on the cross. They were a teaching aid which taught the Jews the doctrines of redemption, atonement, propitiation and other associated doctrines. The animal sacrifices were a reminder of sins year by year (Heb 10:3). In other words, as a part of the Mosaic Law, the Levitical offerings revealed the Person and the work of the Messiah in shadow form.
Hebrews 10:1 'For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near.
Animal sacrifice was instituted by God after the fall of man and again is shown in Genesis 4 concerning Cain and Abel. God expanded the sacrificial system for Israel.
With the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, the animal sacrifices were to stop as the reality had come and the shadow form of the animal sacrifices were no longer necessary (Hebrews chapter 10). The animal sacrificial system of Israel belonged to the Mosaic Law and was required by God to be observed.
If you are able to understand Hebrews chapters 9 and 10, then you can understand that God required Israel to observe the animal sacrifices.
As for the meaning of Christ's death on the cross, He died as a substitutionary sacrifice for man's sins so that those who believe in Him will have eternal life. The Scriptures are quite clear on why Jesus went to the cross.
Jesus went to the cross as per the predetermined plan of God (Acts2:23) in order to pay the penalty for mans sins.
Hebrews 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Hebrews 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God.
I wanted to add, there are many that are of the impression that there was an incorrect concept of God during much of the time of the OT, due to Man's fallenness, and the influence of the Egyptians. I'll post evidence of this viewpoint soon...when I have some time!
I think many theologians like to change the meaning of Isaiah 1:11 into something else, because they don't want anyone to think the OT has any contraditions or inconsistencies in it. But the more you look at the scriptures, the more evidence you see that there are in fact inconsistencies, and many many attempts to "harmonize" or explain these. \
I think we should look carefully at Jewish history, and see where Isaiah himself was coming from, and what was going on at the time, to see what it really meant. I bet it's something we can illustrate very well...as to what it must have really meant. But if we accept this as its meaning...it would mean the OT has contradicting viewpoints (supposedly all coming from the same God) regarding animal sacrifice...and many many theologians don't want to, or refuse to consider, that possibility. Many of them like to start with a premise of absolute inerrancy, and then they do whatever they can to defend that.
You neither understand what I am saying or the differences between the Levitical priesthood of the dispensation of Israel and the royal priesthood which belongs to the dispensation of the church. Concerning Israel, God chose the priesthood to come through the tribe of Levi. The animal sacrifices were for the purpose of graphically demonstrating to the Jews that God required a substitutiony sacrifice to atone for mans sins. That sacrifice would be Jesus Christ.
Now Jesus Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Jesus Christ is superior to the Levitical priesthood established in the Old Testament, demonstrating that the only priesthood existing today is the royal priesthood of Christ, in the order of Melchizedek. In the dispensation of the church, every believer is a priest because every church-age believer is in Christ and shares His priesthood.
The royal priesthood of the believer in the dispensation of the church IS superior to the Levitical priesthood of the age of Israel. But we are talking about the Levitical priesthood and the purpose of the animal sacrifices.
The animal sacrifices were figurative. They were a picture, a type, a demonstration of the atoning work of Christ on the cross. They were a teaching aid which taught the Jews the doctrines of redemption, atonement, propitiation and other associated doctrines. The animal sacrifices were a reminder of sins year by year (Heb 10:3). In other words, as a part of the Mosaic Law, the Levitical offerings revealed the Person and the work of the Messiah in shadow form.
Hebrews 10:1 'For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near.
Animal sacrifice was instituted by God after the fall of man and again is shown in Genesis 4 concerning Cain and Abel. God expanded the sacrificial system for Israel.
With the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, the animal sacrifices were to stop as the reality had come and the shadow form of the animal sacrifices were no longer necessary (Hebrews chapter 10). The animal sacrificial system of Israel belonged to the Mosaic Law and was required by God to be observed.
If you are able to understand Hebrews chapters 9 and 10, then you can understand that God required Israel to observe the animal sacrifices.
As for the meaning of Christ's death on the cross, He died as a substitutionary sacrifice for man's sins so that those who believe in Him will have eternal life. The Scriptures are quite clear on why Jesus went to the cross.
Jesus went to the cross as per the predetermined plan of God (Acts2:23) in order to pay the penalty for mans sins.
Hebrews 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Hebrews 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God.
It totally get and understand everything you're saying. What I'm saying is that there is another school of thought completely THAT EXISTS, regarding all of this, as well as the meaning of Isaiah 1:11.
There is no point in going on further, because nothing you post can convince me that this other school of thought does not exist. And as I've mentioned I will post evidence of it soon, when I have some time.
For the record, I completely understand all of this...and have known about all of this for over 20 years. I choose to adhere to a different interpretation of events, and I am aware of many who feel the same way.
The point that you also did not address is that Melchisidek did not sacrifice animals...and so he is an exception apparently, to what God wanted from the Israelites (which was for their priests to kill animals in order to make up for the sins of the people...until such time that this merciful God would decide to send his Christ).
I know that you wish to stick to the way you understand it, and that is fine.
It totally get and understand everything you're saying. What I'm saying is that there is another school of thought completely THAT EXISTS, regarding all of this, as well as the meaning of Isaiah 1:11.
There is no point in going on further, because nothing you post can convince me that this other school of thought does not exist. And as I've mentioned I will post evidence of it soon, when I have some time.
For the record, I completely understand all of this...and have known about all of this for over 20 years. I choose to adhere to a different interpretation of events, and I am aware of many who feel the same way.
The point that you also did not address is that Melchisidek did not sacrifice animals...and so he is an exception apparently, to what God wanted from the Israelites (which was for their priests to kill animals in order to make up for the sins of the people...until such time that this merciful God would decide to send his Christ).
I know that you wish to stick to the way you understand it, and that is fine.
It is not a matter of other schools of thought. The issue is what the Scriptures say about the matter. The Scriptures as I have shown you already say that the Mosaic Law to which the Levitical offerings belong were a shadow of the reality which was to come with Christ. If you choose a false interpretation instead of truth, that is your affair. You also believe that Jesus sinned when He prayed to God the Father in the garden of Gethsemane. And you are wrong on both counts.
Regarding Melchisidek, the king of Salem, he was a priest of God Most High (Gen 14:18). He was a righteous ruler who was God's representative. Some think that he was a Theophany- a preincarnate appearance of Jesus Christ. Since he preceded Abram, he was not a Levitical priest. David in looking beyond the Levitical priesthood prophesied that the Messiah (Jesus Christ) would be a priest after the priesthood of Melchisidek (Psalm 110:4 See also Heb 7:17).
The book of Hebrews shows how Jesus fulfilled the order of the Levitical priesthood in His death and began a better order. Hebrews shows that the Levitical priesthood needed to be replaced with a better priesthood.
The Levitical priesthood with its system of animal sacrifices belonged to the age of Israel. It was replaced with a superior priesthood in which Jesus is the great high priest and all believers of the church-age are priests because they share the priesthood of Christ.
God established the Levitical priesthood for Israel, and He established a better priesthood for the church (1 Peter 2:5,9; Rev 1:6).
It is not a matter of other schools of thought. The issue is what the Scriptures say about the matter. The Scriptures as I have shown you already say that the Mosaic Law to which the Levitical offerings belong were a shadow of the reality which was to come with Christ. If you choose a false interpretation instead of truth, that is your affair. You also believe that Jesus sinned when He prayed to God the Father in the garden of Gethsemane. And you are wrong on both counts.
Regarding Melchisidek, the king of Salem, he was a priest of God Most High (Gen 14:18). He was a righteous ruler who was God's representative. Some think that he was a Theophany- a preincarnate appearance of Jesus Christ. Since he preceded Abram, he was not a Levitical priest. David in looking beyond the Levitical priesthood prophesied that the Messiah (Jesus Christ) would be a priest after the priesthood of Melchisidek (Psalm 110:4 See also Heb 7:17).
The book of Hebrews shows how Jesus fulfilled the order of the Levitical priesthood in His death and began a better order. Hebrews shows that the Levitical priesthood needed to be replaced with a better priesthood.
The Levitical priesthood with its system of animal sacrifices belonged to the age of Israel. It was replaced with a superior priesthood in which Jesus is the great high priest and all believers of the church-age are priests because they share the priesthood of Christ.
God established the Levitical priesthood for Israel, and He established a better priesthood for the church (1 Peter 2:5,9; Rev 1:6).
Ok bro, well since you want to claim that other schools of thought (methods of interpretation) are not important...then this will be my last post to you.
I have more important things to do than to debate this endlessly with you...though when I have a lot more time I will make a separate post showing the alternate interpretation of both history and the scriptures.
I may actually do it on anothe board as well, for reference, and show the other responses that I get and then show them to you. lol
I gotta run! I have a busy week! Be back soon
Peace
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
