David and his descendants.Ok then, who was the Psalm talking about? Who was a high priest forever because of the speech of Melchizedek?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
David and his descendants.Ok then, who was the Psalm talking about? Who was a high priest forever because of the speech of Melchizedek?
The items within Yeshua's own speech, "the sons of light" is an Essene concept.There's not only no evidence for that, what evidence there is suggest he actually had no such ties, and historians in general are largely aware of that.
David and his descendants.
David and his descendants.
The word used here for priest can also mean 'ruler'. Neither was Melchizedek of the Levites (they didn't exist yet), but 'priest' just means someone who minsters, someone who has a certain authority to do something. For instance, we can say that 'he ministers to the sick', but this doesn't mean this person is a minister or a vicar, pastor etc. Also, see the alternate NRSV translation, which also has 'King' instead. Melchizedek was also a King-Priest.David wasn't a priest, so I've heard. According to the law of Moses only Levites could be priests.
Let me recommend that you get into the details with the Essenes, and you'll better see why the above is unlikely. Jesus, by all indications, was a Pharisee operating from a Pharisee paradigm, as was Paul. Jesus never quotes any of the non-Torah Essene books, at least as far as we can tell, plus he didn't act the part of relative seclusion to avoid ritual contamination.The items within Yeshua's own speech, "the sons of light" is an Essene concept.
"It shall be like the days of Noah, they were eating, and drinking"... We can justify 'drinking' in normal Jewish understanding of scripture; yet 'eating meat' as this could imply, is an Essene concept.
When Yeshua warns, "be weary of the leaven within the bread of the Pharisees", this could be seen as a deliberate contrast to the Essene bread of the time, that was sanctified by what God gives.
The idea that everything is provided for, "that the lily is dressed better than Solomon", and "the raven gets free food", so God will provide everything for free, are Essene concepts.
The prophetic understandings about the soon approaching destruction of Jerusalem, were believed by the Essenes as well.
Can go on... Yet just because we find odd Essene concepts, we can also show odd Pharisaic ones; as we'd expect from the Messiah, to be able to expound upon both concepts.
The idea that we should go with the majority scholarship, as the church has suppressed all other information, isn't logical in my understanding.
The word used here for priest can also mean 'ruler'. Neither was Melchizedek of the Levites (they didn't exist yet), but 'priest' just means someone who minsters, someone who has a certain authority to do something. For instance, we can say that 'he ministers to the sick', but this doesn't mean this person is a minister or a vicar, pastor etc. Also, see the alternate NRSV translation, which also has 'King' instead. Melchizedek was also a King-Priest.
Here it says the passage was meant for David's Lord.
You are a Priest Forever
1A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."
And it goes on to the part about being made "high priest forever"
Who was David's Lord?
David's dynasty will exist forever. The Mashiach will be a descendant of David also, as you know.But it says Priest forever. It seems like if something isn't lost in translation it can be fairly easily with the Hebrew language.
Like Jesus?David's dynasty will exist forever. The Mashiach will be a descendant of David also, as you know.
No, he is a dead carpenter.Like Jesus?
The same reason Joseph didn't have Mary executed. Reductionism turns the text into an animated being, and pretty soon reductionism leads to women getting executed for being pregnant, doing animal sacrifices for no other reason than the talking book tells them so. The story of Jesus is about someone who rejects the word of God and eventually that becomes the word of god, and a religion forms that eventually begins killing people for being heritics, by the followers of the heritic jesus in his own time. That's in a shell reductionism at work as being personally fundemental. That's true in religion therefore it's true in science.It struck me as strange that there are no accounts of Jesus or his disciples making animal offerings at the temple.
The old covenant was still in effect because Jesus hadn't ascended yet and from my understanding it is taken that Jesus and his disciples were Jewish.
I found it strange that it's conspicuously missing. You would think that animal offerings would be accounted for in the New Testament narrative prior to the crucifixion by Jesus and the disciples.
What do you think the reason is that something as importiant as making offerings to God at the temple, mentioned many times in the Canon, is never mentioned or ommited throughout the entirety of the New Testament ?
They were still under the old law at the time. Wern't they?
Why dosent biblical narrative record shows it then?
That's what he gets for being a carpenter!!! Say something sensical and boom dead.today we sue. That probably was brought about because the first two "white collar" degrees were theology and law. 1094 bologna.No, he is a dead carpenter.
Jesus was essene. Some Essenes didn't offer animal sacrifices. One separated as a nazarite could not approach a dead thing. anotther term would be Naassene which are known and mentioned by Hyppolytus in his Refutation of HeresiesIt struck me as strange that there are no accounts of Jesus or his disciples making animal offerings at the temple.
The old covenant was still in effect because Jesus hadn't ascended yet and from my understanding it is taken that Jesus and his disciples were Jewish.
I found it strange that it's conspicuously missing. You would think that animal offerings would be accounted for in the New Testament narrative prior to the crucifixion by Jesus and the disciples.
What do you think the reason is that something as importiant as making offerings to God at the temple, mentioned many times in the Canon, is never mentioned or ommited throughout the entirety of the New Testament ?
They were still under the old law at the time. Wern't they?
Why dosent biblical narrative record shows it then?
order as in pattern. like the avatars of vishnu, like the dalai lama, panchen lamas in tibetan buddhism. it doesn't follow a blood line per se.There's no such thing as an order of Melchizedek.
There are differing ideas. One says it is Abraham (Rashi's commentary):
"The word of the L-rd to my master: Our Rabbis interpreted it as referring to Abraham our father, and I shall explain it according to their words (Mid. Ps. 110:1): The word of the L-rd to Abraham, whom the world called “my master,” as it is written (Gen. 23: 6): “Hearken to us, my master.”"
Tehillim - Psalms - Chapter 110
and another says it is David (as David is speaking in third person, so it would be 'The L-rd said to Me').
https://outreachjudaism.org/psalm110/
David wasn't a priest, so I've heard. According to the law of Moses only Levites could be priests.
then what was joshua doing in the tent of meeting?
I know.melchizedek wasn't jewish, or an israelite.. job, like noah, and job were tzaddik. neither was israelite, or jewish.