The Truth About Melchizedek

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

That's a reference to the concept of a guardian of a specific nation which in this case was Michael the angel standing for Israel. Nothing literal about the text. The time of trouble was the time in exile. At the end of the time of exile which is akin to sleeping in the graves of the nations, many would wake up, some to everlasting life which would be the return to the land of the living aka the Land of Israel and some to shame and everlasting contempt for not responding to the call of freedom by returning to Israel. (Dan. 12:2)

 

[Aimiel]

No, it's a reference to the Great Tribulation that shall come upon all the earth and to the rapture.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

No, it's a reference to the Great Tribulation that shall come upon all the earth and to the rapture.

According to whom Aimiel, do you care quoting a reference? Thanks.

 

[God's Truth]

1 - Wrong! That scripture is part of the 80% of anti-Jewish interpolations with the intent at promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

That scripture is Jesus' words according to John. How do you get it is a Pauline policy?

Paul explains that Jews and Gentiles are now included, everyone. You are the one with a replacement theology. You are trying to replace the Gentiles back out of being reconciled to God.

The Jews are blood related to Abraham, and through Abraham's Seed the Messiah would come.

God promised Abraham that because Abraham believed and obeyed God.

Since the Savior came, it does not matter to whom we are blood related anymore; it only matters if we have come to God through Jesus' shed blood on the cross.

2 - Wrong again! A person has to walk by sight to understand what he is talking about. The opposite would be to walk by faith and to leave the understanding with Paul. (II Cor. 5:7)

Walk by faith is about being sure that we are going to be with Jesus after we die, and that we are with him now.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

That scripture is Jesus' words according to John. How do you get it is a Pauline policy?

John never even saw Jesus. You are deluded to think that John the apostle of Jesus wrote any thing of the NT. Not a single page. It was all written by a Hellenist former disciple of Paul.

Paul explains that Jews and Gentiles are now included, everyone. You are the one with a replacement theology. You are trying to replace the Gentiles back out of being reconciled to God.

How? Jews and Gentiles are all included as what, Jews or Gentiles? Gentiles if you ask Paul. All Gentiles can be reconciled with God but according to Isa. 56:1-8.

The Jews are blood related to Abraham, and through Abraham's Seed the Messiah would come.

The Messiah who came from Abraham is Israel. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." (Hab. 3:13) That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord. Exod. 19:6 is another evidence of the Messiah being Israel.

God promised Abraham that because Abraham believed and obeyed God.

That's the only thing true you have said in this post.

Since the Savior came, it does not matter to whom we are blood related anymore; it only matters if we have come to God through Jesus' shed blood on the cross.

Jesus never shed his blood on the cross for us in contradiction to the Prophets of the Lord. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)

Walk by faith is about being sure that we are going to be with Jesus after we die, and that we are with him now.

Let me know when you get there. That's the only way to prove which one of us was right.

 

[Wick Stick]

The name is pious forgery to document Christianity.

I realize this is a stock answer from you, but really? Put in a little effort.

Textual criticism points out that this is one of the least likely chapters in the Bible to have been altered. Why? Because even though it has a direct contradiction in the problematic competing genealogy in Luke, that problem apparently was never "fixed."

Not to mention, we're talking about the one book of the NT originally written in Aramaic, and written to Jews specifically, and a section of the book that we can easily see is modeled on another Jewish source.

Adopted children were legitimate in all accounts but one, the Tribal identification which was processed through the father. An adopted child in Israel would never belong to the Tribe of the new father.

This argument has a logical fallacy: it assumes that how the rules work today, is how they have always worked. Unless you have some ancient source you can cite from that time period? I don't think you can produce one.

Papyrii from that period record traditions of Pharisee proselytism. A major feature thereof is that the proselytes were baptized in the name of Abraham, specifically as a way of changing their paternity, station, and destiny. That's basically the polar opposite of what you're saying.

We are not talking about any of the other Messiahs but the special one that Jesus is claimed to have been.

Except, I am.

An individual could not be the real Messiah. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a people before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36)

You're arguing individualism? That's some western philosophy. Your questions are wrong-headed.

A new messiah in every generation? The right way to look at it is... there is a messiah who continues from generation to generation - a succession of men who are not individuals, but rather the latest iterations of their ancestor.

The messiah doesn't die? On the contrary he dies all the time, and yet continues. The king is dead; long live the king.

No, he was not. He would have to be of the lineage of David and, the word of Paul cannot be taken for granted. (II Tim. 2:8)

Why not? You've tossed Paul aside in every other part of this conversation. I don't believe in any kind of infallibility or canonicity for the pastoral epistles and neither do you. I say we continue down that path and ignore 2Tim entirely.

And to be of the lineage of David, he had to be from the Tribe of Judah and, he was not because Joseph was not his biological father, according to Matthew 1:18

This all falls under my argument above about the chronological problem with your argument. But I'm curious, if not Judah, what tribe do you say Jesus was from? Is there such thing as an Israelite without a tribe?

Mat. 21 rather shows the real reason why Jesus was crucified; because his disciples were acclaiming him king of the Jews in Jerusalem, a Roman province at the time.

I think there's more than one reason, but I'll happily admit this as one of the reasons.

To my mind, the major one was he broke the Gold Rule. No, not the Golden Rule; the Gold Rule. Namely: don't mess with the Gold! If you disrupt lending and trade by turning over the tables, you've gone and messed with the money!

Want to find a murderer? Follow the money...

Besides, that Jesus was a sinner for having broken the Golden Rule in his treatment of the moneychangers.

Not so! The NT teaches us that we should want to be chastened. Revelation 3:19. And, all reports indicate that He took a whipping. You'll have to find a different rule to appeal to. This appears to be exactly how He would want to be treated.

Jarrod

 

[Wick Stick]

Regarding the Pharisees, I'll become a Christian like you if you prove to me that they believed in bodily resurrection. They didn't my friend, you are confusing some thing with something else.

Will you allow me an extended quotation? From Christopher Rollston (2012):

The fact of the matter is that within various segments of Late Second Temple Judaism, as well as within Early Post-Biblical Judaism, the notion of a resurrection was warmly embraced by many. The locus classicus in the Hebrew Bible is arguably the following text from the mid-2nd century BCE: “Many of those sleeping in the dust of the earth shall awaken, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting peril” (Dan 12:2; notice here that the correlative of “damnation” or “hell” is also present in some fashion, of course). Within the Old Testament Apocrypha, the notion of a resurrection is embraced at times as well, with the narrative about the martyrdom of “the mother and her seven sons” being a fine exemplar of this. Thus, according to the narrative, one of the sons said during the torture that preceded his death: “the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws” (2 Macc 7:9). Similarly, the mother herself says within the narrative, as an exhortation to her martyred sons: “the Creator of the world…will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again” (2 Macc 7:23). 2 Maccabees arguably hails from the first half of the 1st century BCE. Regarding the dead, the Wisdom of Solomon also affirms that the dead “seemed to have died,” but “they are at peace,” and “their hope is full of immortality,” and they will ultimately “shine forth” and “will govern nations and ruler over peoples” (Wisdom 3:2-8 passim, with the Greek future tense being used here). The Wisdom of Solomon arguably hails from the second half of the 1st century BCE. Significantly, all of these texts antedate the rise of Christianity and they all affirm a belief in a resurrection. In short, many Jewish people believed in a resurrection long before Christianity came along. To be sure, a belief in a resurrection was not universally accepted by all Jewish people in the Second Temple period.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/?p=440

There were many branches of Judaism prior to 90AD - Zadokites, Pharisees, Essenes, and Bathers, and that doesn't even take into account political affiliations (Zealots, Sicarii, Roman and Seleucid loyalists) or those who had entirely apostatized into Hellenism.

There were divisions even within those branches. For instance, the bathers were split into daily bathers and one-time bathers. The Pharisees had courtly disagreement between Hillelites and Shammaites.

To treat Judaism as if it were always united in its doctrine is false. Judaism has (almost) always been tolerant of alternative and minority viewpoints. Is not the Jewish spirit one of debate and inquisitiveness?

I continue to say that it is a shame that Akiba ostracized all but one tradition of one branch of Judaism. If you hack 6 branches off of a menorah, is it still a menorah?

Transmigration or reincarnation is the same as resurrection to me. For someone to transmigrate he must resurrect first. So, what's the point?

Transmigration doesn't require any resurrection; only a regular, natural birth. This isn't subjective, that you should say "to me."

Jarrod

 

[God's Truth]

John never even saw Jesus. You are deluded to think that John the apostle of Jesus wrote any thing of the NT. Not a single page. It was all written by a Hellenist former disciple of Paul.



How? Jews and Gentiles are all included as what, Jews or Gentiles? Gentiles if you ask Paul. All Gentiles can be reconciled with God but according to Isa. 56:1-8.



The Messiah who came from Abraham is Israel. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." (Hab. 3:13) That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord. Exod. 19:6 is another evidence of the Messiah being Israel.



That's the only thing true you have said in this post.



Jesus never shed his blood on the cross for us in contradiction to the Prophets of the Lord. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)



Let me know when you get there. That's the only way to prove which one of us was right.

The only way you can defend your false beliefs is to say the New Testament did not happen.

Denial is no defense.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

I realize this is a stock answer from you, but really? Put in a little effort.

If you check the evidences I supply you with the quotes, I need no more effort than which I put in as usual.

Textual criticism points out that this is one of the least likely chapters in the Bible to have been altered. Why? Because even though it has a direct contradiction in the problematic competing genealogy in Luke, that problem apparently was never "fixed."

Easy! Luke was a Greek daily companion of Paul. Why would he care to verify the cultural way of the Jews as genealogy was concerned?

Not to mention, we're talking about the one book of the NT originally written in Aramaic, and written to Jews specifically, and a section of the book that we can easily see is modeled on another Jewish source.

No book of the NT was written to this or that people discriminately but to all readers. The time was for Christianity and the Jews were to be replaced.

This argument has a logical fallacy: it assumes that how the rules work today, is how they have always worked. Unless you have some ancient source you can cite from that time period? I don't think you can produce one.

No fallacy at all. That was from the Jewish culture and Christianity could not change it.

Papyrii from that period record traditions of Pharisee proselytism. A major feature thereof is that the proselytes were baptized in the name of Abraham, specifically as a way of changing their paternity, station, and destiny. That's basically the polar opposite of what you're saying.

We are all circumcised in the name of Abraham.

You're arguing individualism? That's some western philosophy. Your questions are wrong-headed.

Am I to expect you to say that my questions are right according to the Scriptures? I didn't think so.

A new messiah in every generation? The right way to look at it is... there is a messiah who continues from generation to generation - a succession of men who are not individuals, but rather the latest iterations of their ancestor.

The Messiah is supposed to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36) And "the Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." (Hab. 3:13) That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord.

The messiah doesn't die? On the contrary he dies all the time, and yet continues. The king is dead
long live the king.

Jesus was not a king. So, the kink remains dead to this day.

Why not? You've tossed Paul aside in every other part of this conversation. I don't believe in any kind of infallibility or canonicity for the pastoral epistles and neither do you. I say we continue down that path and ignore 2Tim entirely.

Not so fast! Your Paul committed that mistake and I am not ready to let you go without it.

This all falls under my argument above about the chronological problem with your argument. But I'm curious, if not Judah, what tribe do you say Jesus was from? Is there such thing as an Israelite without a tribe?

That's exactly what Jesus was thanks to the Church: A Jew because of Mary but a Jew without a Tribe in Israel. And there is something else. Also thanks to the Church: A new light has shone upon John 8:41 which has become an evidence that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier and Jesus was born as a result of it. What a disservice to Jesus and his mother; not to talk about his father.

To my mind, the major one was he broke the Gold Rule. No, not the Golden Rule; the Gold Rule. Namely: don't mess with the Gold! If you disrupt lending and trade by turning over the tables, you've gone and messed with the money! Want to find a murderer? Follow the money...

I think you are joking about your Messiah.

Not so! The NT teaches us that we should want to be chastened. Revelation 3:19. And, all reports indicate that He took a whipping. You'll have to find a different rule to appeal to. This appears to be exactly how He would want to be treated.

And the joke continues. Now, you describe Jesus as a masochist.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

Will you allow me an extended quotation? From Christopher Rollston (2012):

Yes but, no commitment on my part as a result of an extra-Biblical quotation.

There were many branches of Judaism prior to 90AD - Zadokites, Pharisees, Essenes, and Bathers, and that doesn't even take into account political affiliations (Zealots, Sicarii, Roman and Seleucid loyalists) or those who had entirely apostatized into Hellenism.

There were only three official ones: Pharisees, Sadducees and the Sect of the Nazarenes aka "The New Way" based on the fact that the Sect of the Nazarenes was the most recent Jewish Sect in the First Century. Zadokites and Essenes were one and the same with the Sadducees. The Zadokites were the original ones who fought the Hasmonians and lost because the Hasmonians were Levites that governed the Country as kings and priests. Then the Zadokites escaped to the Negev desert qua Essenes who later acquired the political power granted by Rome qua Sadducees. Now, Zealots and Sicarii were one and the same who operated as fundamentalist hostile groups not quite organized.

There were divisions even within those branches. For instance, the bathers were split into daily bathers and one-time bathers. The Pharisees had courtly disagreement between Hillelites and Shammaites.

Hillelites and Shammaites were cultural-philosophical branches, not sects.

Transmigration doesn't require any resurrection; only a regular, natural birth. This isn't subjective, that you should say "to me."

Please, spare me! Once dead, NOTHING of the dead will ever return. (Isa. 26:14; II Sam. 12:23; Job 10:21) Nothing of the dead will ever be born again.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

The only way you can defend your false beliefs is to say the New Testament did not happen.

Denial is no defense.

The NT happened but we must read it with understanding and not by faith in the hope to live the understanding with Paul. Otherwise we will be entangled in the same web of those who are called by faith.(II Cor. 5:7)

 

[God's Truth]

The NT happened but we must read it with understanding and not by faith in the hope to live the understanding with Paul. Otherwise we will be entangled in the same web of those who are called by faith.(II Cor. 5:7)

All your beliefs about God and Jesus are based on denying the books that contain the written Word of God.

Your defense IS denial.

You have a made up fictional religion.

You pick and choose what you want to believe, and you throw out the rest. Then you add things that came to the imagination of men.

You have a fictional god and a made up story.

Read and believe the Holy Bible.

 

[Wick Stick]

Textual criticism points out that this is one of the least likely chapters in the Bible to have been altered. Why? Because even though it has a direct contradiction in the problematic competing genealogy in Luke, that problem apparently was never "fixed."

Easy! Luke was a Greek daily companion of Paul. Why would he care to verify the cultural way of the Jews as genealogy was concerned?

You missed/ignored the point, which is not WHY there is a contradiction in the first place, but rather that nobody corrected it. If nobody corrected it, then there is no gloss here.

Not to mention, we're talking about the one book of the NT originally written in Aramaic, and written to Jews specifically, and a section of the book that we can easily see is modeled on another Jewish source.

No book of the NT was written to this or that people discriminately but to all readers. The time was for Christianity and the Jews were to be replaced.

Give me a break! Most of the books of the New Testament are addressed to some specific group. e.g. Romans 1:7

You claim you wish to evaluate the New Testament logically and impartially, but your scholarship is lacking. If you had any idea of textual criticism or hermeneutics, you would know that one of the first, most important considerations of any book is that of audience.

The Biblical books are NOT written to nebulous "Christianity," but rather each has a specific audience.

This argument has a logical fallacy: it assumes that how the rules work today, is how they have always worked. Unless you have some ancient source you can cite from that time period? I don't think you can produce one.

No fallacy at all. That was from the Jewish culture and Christianity could not change it.

No - that is part of modern Jewish culture. Ancient Jewish culture did not contain that feature. It was added in Europe during the Dark Ages out of necessity due to the Inquisitions. You have projected modern traditions into the past, where they do not exist.

Papyrii from that period record traditions of Pharisee proselytism. A major feature thereof is that the proselytes were baptized in the name of Abraham, specifically as a way of changing their paternity, station, and destiny. That's basically the polar opposite of what you're saying.

We are all circumcised in the name of Abraham.

Circumcision is beriyth, a covenant but not an adoption. Baptism is tabal, an adoption ceremony showing forth death and re-birth.

The Messiah is supposed to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36) And "the Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." (Hab. 3:13) That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord.

Yes, just not exclusively so. As I said before, Messiah simply means "Anointed." Since Israel is God's people, set apart for priestly function, they are indeed "messiah" - anointed.

But that does nothing to remove the "messiach" - anointing - from any others. The high priest is anointed. The king is anointed. Thus they are all "messiah."

The messiah doesn't die? On the contrary he dies all the time, and yet continues. The king is dead; long live the king.

Jesus was not a king. So, the king remains dead to this day.

You are missing the point. What I am arguing here isn't even about Jesus in a specific sense. It is about the institution of the monarchy.

Why not? You've tossed Paul aside in every other part of this conversation. I don't believe in any kind of infallibility or canonicity for the pastoral epistles and neither do you. I say we continue down that path and ignore 2Tim entirely.

Not so fast! Your Paul committed that mistake and I am not ready to let you go without it.

Arguments against Biblical infallibility don't make any difference to me. I don't believe in it anyway.

This all falls under my argument above about the chronological problem with your argument. But I'm curious, if not Judah, what tribe do you say Jesus was from? Is there such thing as an Israelite without a tribe?

That's exactly what Jesus was thanks to the Church: A Jew because of Mary but a Jew without a Tribe in Israel.

Question - does that also work the other way round as well? I mean, if the mother is not Jewish, but the father is a Levite? The child is not Jewish by rule, but does he hold the possibility of passing on his Levitical lineage? If he marries a Jewish woman, would the child be viable as a priest?

I suppose that all sounds a little odd. Call it a personal question.

And there is something else. Also thanks to the Church: A new light has shone upon John 8:41 which has become an evidence that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier and Jesus was born as a result of it. What a disservice to Jesus and his mother; not to talk about his father.

Scant evidence. It seems they meant to insult His paternity, but that doesn't make it true. I have an alternate theory, but it is a bit long to try to explain here.

To my mind, the major one was he broke the Gold Rule. No, not the Golden Rule; the Gold Rule. Namely: don't mess with the Gold! If you disrupt lending and trade by turning over the tables, you've gone and messed with the money! Want to find a murderer? Follow the money...

I think you are joking about your Messiah.

I find it possible to express viable truths and incorporate humor at the same time.

Not so! The NT teaches us that we should want to be chastened. Revelation 3:19. And, all reports indicate that He took a whipping. You'll have to find a different rule to appeal to. This appears to be exactly how He would want to be treated.

And the joke continues. Now, you describe Jesus as a masochist.

Not at all. Tell me, do you still hold a grudge against your parents for the spankings you received? Please feel free to apply that logic here.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

All your beliefs about God and Jesus are based on denying the books that contain the written Word of God.

Your defense IS denial.

You have a made up fictional religion.

You pick and choose what you want to believe, and you throw out the rest. Then you add things that came to the imagination of men.

You have a fictional god and a made up story.

Read and believe the Holy Bible.

If you read John 17:17, once Jesus said that the Truth is the Word of God. Probably, his statement comes from having read Psalm 147:19,20 where it says that the Word of God was given to the Jews only and to no other people on earth. Prophet Isaiah so much believed what I do that he said, "And many people shall go and say, 'come you and let us go up to the Mountain of the Lord, to the House of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His way, and we will walk in His paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the Law and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.'" (Isa. 2:3)

Now, tell me, checking the Biblical quotes I have shown above, what in your mind I am denying or is fictional? Please, don't give me your word for I can't take it for granted. Show me evidences that what I have learned is fictional. If you do, it will be proved that both the NT and the Tanach are fictional.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

You missed/ignored the point, which is not WHY there is a contradiction in the first place, but rather that nobody corrected it. If nobody corrected it, then there is no gloss here.

That's what is called appeal to authority. "If it was not corrected is because it is true." Show me your own understanding of the Scriptures and not the understanding of another.

Give me a break! Most of the books of the New Testament are addressed to some specific group. e.g. Romans 1:7

Yea, groups of Jews in previous synagogues that Paul overturned into Christian churches. That's what he chose to do while claiming that he had assigned as an apostle to the Gentiles.

You claim you wish to evaluate the New Testament logically and impartially, but your scholarship is lacking. If you had any idea of textual criticism or hermeneutics, you would know that one of the first, most important considerations of any book is that of audience.

Oh! I am aware of that Christian strategy: You want me to evaluate the NT as a Christian and not as a Jew. It doesn't go that way.

The Biblical books are NOT written to nebulous "Christianity" but rather each has a specific audience.

I know, former Jewish audiences. Since Paul's first station in Damascus and until his last one in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace. (Acts 9:1,2 and 28:17)

No - that is part of modern Jewish culture. Ancient Jewish culture did not contain that feature. It was added in Europe during the Dark Ages out of necessity due to the Inquisitions. You have projected modern traditions into the past, where they do not exist.

Very convenient! You are of the opinion that what was added to ease up the crimes of the Inquisition should remain as a feature of Judaism. Nice try though! The concept of Pichuach Nephesh is allowed to be used but not to remain as a feature of Judaism.

Circumcision is beriyth, a covenant but not an adoption. Baptism is tabal, an adoption ceremony showing forth death and re-birth.

Circumcision was adopted by Judaism as part of the EVERLASTING Abrahamic Covenant. (Gen. 17:13)

Yes, just not exclusively so. As I said before, Messiah simply means "Anointed." Since Israel is God's people, set apart for priestly function, they are indeed "messiah" - anointed.

They are not "simply" a Messiah but the Messiah, special Messiah. (Exod. 19:6; Hab. 3:13; Jer. 31:36; Psalm 78:67-70)

But that does nothing to remove the "messiach" - anointing - from any others. The high priest is anointed. The king is anointed. Thus they are all "messiah."

I have gone through this with you, even specifying the kinds of Messiah we have. Any anointed by any other as in the case of Jesus by Christians has no consequence as the Jewish Messiah is concerned.

You are missing the point. What I am arguing here isn't even about Jesus in a specific sense. It is about the institution of the monarchy.

Your reference to Jesus when talking about the institution of Monarchy is a non-sequitur. There is no relation either as an anointed or as a king which he was neither, except for his anointing as part of the People of Israel. (Exod. 4:22,23) "Israel is My son; let My son go that he may serve Me." And here, one won't be in error to add, "To serve Me as My Messiah aka as a kingdom of priest and a Holy Nation." (Exod. 19:6)

Arguments against Biblical infallibility don't make any difference to me. I don't believe in it anyway.

That's not what you convey when talking about the NT.

Question - does that also work the other way round as well? I mean, if the mother is not Jewish, but the father is a Levite? The child is not Jewish by rule, but does he hold the possibility of passing on his Levitical lineage? If he marries a Jewish woman, would the child be viable as a priest?

No, he does not an will not. Judaism is not for Gentiles, unless he or she converts according to Halacha. (Isa. 56:1-8) I mean, if the mother is not Jewish, even if the father was the High Priest, the child is a goy in need of conversion if he wants to join.

I suppose that all sounds a little odd. Call it a personal question.

Okay, a personal question.

Scant evidence. It seems they meant to insult His paternity, but that doesn't make it true. I have an alternate theory, but it is a bit long to try to explain here.

Jesus' paternity was insulted by Paul and all Christianity to the day when Christians exonerate Joseph from having been Jesus' biological father. Hence, John 8:41.

I find it possible to express viable truths and incorporate humor at the same time.

Do you consider John 8:41 the incorporation of humor? If you ask me, it was a sad choice of a stand up comedian.

Not at all. Tell me, do you still hold a grudge against your parents for the spankings you received? Please feel free to apply that logic here.

Absolutely not!

 

[Wick Stick]

That's what is called appeal to authority. "If it was not corrected is because it is true." Show me your own understanding of the Scriptures and not the understanding of another.

You aren't quite getting it. The formal logical argument should be stated as: If the passage shows considerable contradiction with other Scriptures, then it isn't a gloss. That says nothing about whether it is true or not. Glosses are always made in order to "correct" the text; they never create new contradictions.

Yea, groups of Jews in previous synagogues that Paul overturned into Christian churches. That's what he chose to do while claiming that he had assigned as an apostle to the Gentiles.

Your scholarship is lacking here.

No synagogue was ever overturned or changed, except that perhaps some Jews amongst the congregation moved from one sect of Judaism to another.

Churches are not and were not synagogues:

• Churches were modeled after Greek koinonia; not the Jewish assembly. As such, they were primarily economic and political institutions, at least originally.
• Church was not held on the same day as synagogue, and this was done specifically for the reason that it should not conflict with it, and that Jewish members of the church should be able to attend both.
• Church was, by rule, held outside the city at a Pnux or amphitheatre (except when done in private homes as a matter of safety from Roman persecutions), and never in a building of its own.

Of course, over the years, specially after the Roman toleration of Christianity, "church" took on the form of pagan worship, and became hostile to Judaism. But that isn't a Pauline theology problem, so much as a problem of creeping paganism.

Oh! I am aware of that Christian strategy: You want me to evaluate the NT as a Christian and not as a Jew. It doesn't go that way.

Actually, I'd prefer you evaluated it as though you were neither. Studying a text for original meaning is best done with scientific detachment. Fervor has its place, and that place is not within the scope of academia.

I know, former Jewish audiences. Since Paul's first station in Damascus and until his last one in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace. (Acts 9:1,2 and 28:17)

No. Current Jewish audiences, as well as anyone who was willing to listen in the agora.

Very convenient! You are of the opinion that what was added to ease up the crimes of the Inquisition should remain as a feature of Judaism. Nice try though! The concept of Pichuach Nephesh is allowed to be used but not to remain as a feature of Judaism.

I really have no idea what you are trying to argue here. I simply said that the rule was added during the Dark Ages, and did not exist before that.

Circumcision was adopted by Judaism as part of the EVERLASTING Abrahamic Covenant. (Gen. 17:13)

I agree. It has little to do with what I said, but I do agree.

They are not "simply" a Messiah but the Messiah, special Messiah. (Exod. 19:6; Hab. 3:13; Jer. 31:36; Psalm 78:67-70)

Sorry, no such thing exists.

I have gone through this with you, even specifying the kinds of Messiah we have. Any anointed by any other as in the case of Jesus by Christians has no consequence as the Jewish Messiah is concerned.

I understand your point. I just don't agree with it.

Your reference to Jesus when talking about the institution of Monarchy is a non-sequitur. There is no relation either as an anointed or as a king which he was neither, except for his anointing as part of the People of Israel. (Exod. 4:22,23) "Israel is My son; let My son go that he may serve Me." And here, one won't be in error to add, "To serve Me as My Messiah aka as a kingdom of priest and a Holy Nation." (Exod. 19:6)

It's not non-sequitur, it's abstraction. If I can prove a principle to be true, apart from any particular example, then I can take my understanding of that principle and apply it elsewhere.

That's not what you convey when talking about the NT.

Yes it is. There are 8 books in the current canon which I think ought to be tossed out. If not do away with the concept of canon entirely.

You're just looking at me through the prism of your worldview, in which too many people have attempted to bludgeon you to death with Biblical infallibility of one shade or another.

No, he does not an will not. Judaism is not for Gentiles, unless he or she converts according to Halacha. (Isa. 56:1-8) I mean, if the mother is not Jewish, even if the father was the High Priest, the child is a goy in need of conversion if he wants to join.

Okay, a personal question.

Nah... I'm not much interested in converting to your flavor of Judaism. You haven't anything in it that I haven't already, and you lack some things I do have.

Jesus' paternity was insulted by Paul and all Christianity to the day when Christians exonerate Joseph from having been Jesus' biological father. Hence, John 8:41.

So do you then think that Joseph was the father?

Do you consider John 8:41 the incorporation of humor? If you ask me, it was a sad choice of a stand up comedian.

No, the joke was about the "gold rule" as opposed to the "golden rule." But if you have to explain the jokes...

Jarrod

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

1 - Glosses are always made in order to "correct" the text; they never create new contradictions.

2 - No synagogue was ever overturned or changed, except that perhaps some Jews amongst the congregation moved from one sect of Judaism to another.

3 - Churches are not and were not synagogues:

4 - Of course, over the years, specially after the Roman toleration of Christianity, "church" took on the form of pagan worship, and became hostile to Judaism. But that isn't a Pauline theology problem, so much as a problem of creeping paganism.

5 - Actually, I'd prefer you evaluated it as though you were neither. Studying a text for original meaning is best done with scientific detachment. Fervor has its place, and that place is not within the scope of academia.

6 - I really have no idea what you are trying to argue here. I simply said that the rule was added during the Dark Ages, and did not exist before that.

7 - Yes it is. There are 8 books in the current canon which I think ought to be tossed out. If not do away with the concept of canon entirely.

8 - You're just looking at me through the prism of your worldview, in which too many people have attempted to bludgeon you to death with Biblical infallibility of one shade or another.

9 Nah... I'm not much interested in converting to your flavor of Judaism. You haven't anything in it that I haven't already, and you lack some things I do have.

10 - So do you then think that Joseph was the father?

11 - No, the joke was about the "gold rule" as opposed to the "golden rule." But if you have to explain the jokes...

Jarrod

1 - Glosses usually create new contradictions.

2 - The Nazarene synagogue of Galatia was overturned by Paul into a Christian church. Galatian 1:6-8 is about the Nazarenes who had become Christians with Paul and were contemplating to return to the gospel of the Nazarenes which set Paul really upset. The "other gospel" Paul referred to was the gospel of the Apostles of Jesus which Paul condemned as being the preachers accursed and considered as false apostles. (II Cor. 11:4-6, 13)

3 - Read Gal. 1:6; and Acts 11:25, 26. The whole Nazarene synagogue of Antioch had been overturned by Paul during a whole year he was there preaching his gospel, invited by Barnabas, a VIP Nazarene.

4 - It was all about the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

5 - "I would prefer" is only a wish thinking. I also wish you could drop Jesus from using him, a Jew, to preach against His Faith which was Judaism.

6 - I meant to be aware of rules added during persecutions of Jews qua "Pichuach Nephesh to alleviate the sufferings of Jews but not to remain as doctrines of Judaism.

7 - Another wish thinking. We have got to do with what we have. I wish it could be this or that way does not move mountains.

8 - I am Jewish; what's new?

9 - You don't have to. You could at least stop using Jews to preach against Judaism. That's what Replacement Theology means.

10 - Yes, but you don't. So, get ready to answer about the contradictions in the NT.

11 - The Golden Rule has nothing to do with gold but with not doing unto others what you would no like they did unto yourself. A rule Jesus broke more than several times if we are to believe Mat. 23:13-33.

 

[Wick Stick]

1 - Glosses usually create new contradictions.

No - glosses are usually entered in order to resolve existing contradictions.

You might benefit from a book, or class. Here's one: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=textual+criticism+bible&tbm=shop&spd=12423210293596434018

2 - The Nazarene synagogue of Galatia was overturned by Paul into a Christian church. Galatian 1:6-8 is about the Nazarenes who had become Christians with Paul and were contemplating to return to the gospel of the Nazarenes which set Paul really upset. The "other gospel" Paul referred to was the gospel of the Apostles of Jesus which Paul condemned as being the preachers accursed and considered as false apostles. (II Cor. 11:4-6, 13)

No. The Galatian synagogue continued existing right alongside the Galatian church. The two came into conflict because the synagogue recognized that Paul was making converts to Judaism and therefore wanted them fully converted to Moses, while Paul only preached a conversion to Abraham.

3 - Read Gal. 1:6; and Acts 11:25, 26. The whole Nazarene synagogue of Antioch had been overturned by Paul during a whole year he was there preaching his gospel, invited by Barnabas, a VIP Nazarene.

I don't see how you get that out of those verses at all. You are anchored on this myth that synagogues were converted, when the fact of the matter is that churches were installed alongside synagogues, not in place of them.

4 - It was all about the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

Replacement Theology is not taught in the Bible. It is only a misunderstanding of what is written there.

What is taught both by Jesus and Paul, is that the people who claimed to be Israelite were a combination of true and false Israelites, and that they were about to be separated/purified through tribulation.

9 - You don't have to. You could at least stop using Jews to preach against Judaism. That's what Replacement Theology means.

I'm not a proponent of RT. There are plenty of things to pick on in Judaism, but most of them pertain to the changes made to it by its kings, well before Christianity even existed.

10 - Yes, but you don't. So, get ready to answer about the contradictions in the NT.

I'm happily undecided. Disregarding the science (and I usually do), there are significant reasons both within the text, and within history/mythology to interpret the account as something other than parthenogenesis.

11 - The Golden Rule has nothing to do with gold but with not doing unto others what you would no like they did unto yourself. A rule Jesus broke more than several times if we are to believe Mat. 23:13-33.

I'm aware of the golden rule.

The "gold rule" is named similarly as a matter of irony. The rule itself could not be farther from the golden rule in its intent. Just say you understand the joke, and let's move on from this one.

Jarrod

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

No. The Galatian synagogue continued existing right alongside the Galatian church. The two came into conflict because the synagogue recognized that Paul was making converts to Judaism and therefore wanted them fully converted to Moses, while Paul only preached a conversion to Abraham.

Because Paul was making converts TO Judaism or FROM Judaism and into Christianity? Paul then was no longer a Jew but a Christian, an anti-Jewish religion-to-become.

I don't see how you get that out of those verses at all. You are anchored on this myth that synagogues were converted, when the fact of the matter is that churches were installed alongside synagogues, not in place of them.

And you are anchored into the myth that Paul continued making converts to Judaism which may make sense but only to you. How could Judaism coexist alongside an anti-Jewish church? Wake up from that, WS! Paul became the root of all anti-Semitism against the Jews throughout History with the NT. So much so that, when the Dictator Assad in Syria on the TV was wandering why Americans were so friendly with Israel when the Jews had killed their god. Where did he got that anti-
Jewish idea if not from the NT?

Replacement Theology is not taught in the Bible. It is only a misunderstanding of what is written there.

Read Gal. 4:24-31 and tell me if it is only a misunderstanding by the reader. It is Replacement Theology taught by Paul.

What is taught both by Jesus and Paul, is that the people who claimed to be Israelite were a combination of true and false Israelites, and that they were about to be separated/purified through tribulation.

That's what I meant to stop using Jesus to preach against His own Faith which was Judaism; but you are back on your saddle again.

I'm not a proponent of RT. There are plenty of things to pick on in Judaism, but most of them pertain to the changes made to it by its kings, well before Christianity even existed.

Prove it! I am right here. Let us see what you mean by RT in the Tanach. Changes made by kings! These yes, are glosses of Christianity to hide the truth with its slanders against Judaism.

I'm aware of the golden rule. The "gold rule" is named similarly as a matter of irony. The rule itself could not be farther from the golden rule in its intent. Just say you understand the joke, and let's move on from this one.

"Similarly!" What does it mean, that the Golden Rule was named as a joke? Mind you that the Golden Rule covers more than the second part of the Decalogue. So much so that when Jesus said that if one comes to the Temple to plead for salvation and, suddenly comes to his mind that he has offended someone else, he should leave every thing behind and go settle things right with his neighbor first and then return to his prayers in the Temple. I wonder why he didn't forgive him of his sins right there and then instead of reminding him of the Golden Rule. (Mat. 5:23,24)

 

[Wick Stick]

Because Paul was making converts TO Judaism or FROM Judaism and into Christianity? Paul then was no longer a Jew but a Christian, an anti-Jewish religion-to-become.

Definitely TO. Are you not aware of the chronology of the split of Judaism and Christianity?

"The Way" was a sect of Judaism. Efforts to segregate this sect and exclude it from Judaism did not begin in earnest until AFTER the destruction of Herod's temple. Rabbi Akiva began the efforts to "purify" Judaism of all its sects other than the Pharisees. "The Way" was not completely separated from Judaism until Akiva proclaimed Simon bar Kochba to be "the messiah," and all who would not swear allegiance to be enemies. That time frame is 90-135 CE.

Paul died around 67-68 CE. Whatever converts he made, were converts to Judaism, albeit of a sect other than Pharisee.

And you are anchored into the myth that Paul continued making converts to Judaism which may make sense but only to you.

The problem is that you do not see that early Christianity IS Judaism. It's just a different sect than what you are used to.

How could Judaism coexist alongside an anti-Jewish church?

The church wasn't anti-Jewish until the mid-2nd century. Anti-Semitism became widespread in the 2nd century, having been spread by Roman soldiers who had fought in the two insurgencies in 70 and 135 CE.

How could a church which WAS Jewish possibly be anti-Jewish?

Paul became the root of all anti-Semitism against the Jews throughout History with the NT. So much so that, when the Dictator Assad in Syria on the TV was wandering why Americans were so friendly with Israel when the Jews had killed their god. Where did he got that anti-Jewish idea if not from the NT?

Generations of Muslim teaching, perhaps?

Read Gal. 4:24-31 and tell me if it is only a misunderstanding by the reader. It is Replacement Theology taught by Paul.

It's a paradigm issue. You view Judaism as synonymous with Moses. Paul views it as synonymous with Abraham.

Paul endeavors to adopt his proselytes "ben Abraham" but without Moses, which in his view was "added afterwards because of transgressions." Galatians 3:19.

From your perspective, Paul has departed from Judaism, because Judaism equates with Moses, and Paul's proselytes are without Moses.

From my perspective, Judaism equates with Abraham, and practice of the Abrahamic covenant constitutes practice of Judaism.

Yes - that is not Pharisee Judaism. It's a different sect; a different "Way."

Prove it! I am right here. Let us see what you mean by RT in the Tanach. Changes made by kings! These yes, are glosses of Christianity to hide the truth with its slanders against Judaism.

I didn't say there was RT in the Tanach. I said that there was corruption within Judaism by the kings. A separate thread, perhaps? Give me a day or so to put together a post.

Jarrod