Who appointed Jesus to the Priesthood?

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:12 pm

Who, (besides the unknown author of Hebrews), appointed Jesus "Priest"? Some defenders of Pauline Christianity point to this role to support the validity of his atoning "blood sacrifice".

But who appointed him to this role? Where was this done?

Isn't the unknown author of the book of Hebrews simply offering his/her own theological interpretation of Jesus role in his own martyrdom?

Avoice · Post by **Avoice** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:24 am

[Replying to post 2 by Eloi]

DOES GOD SPEAK OF HIS SON? WHAT DOES GOD SAY ABOUT HIS SON? Who is His son?

"Glorified by him who spoke" Oh, now that is clear! Yes, I will obey he who spoke. Who us that? They don't say. But since i like what they are selling then i shall make it God's voice. Whats wrong with me? Although there is a book where God does communicate to me. And he makes sure that I know it is HE WHO SPEAKS. No allusion or word games or making ne guess. Why dont i pay attention to what he says in that book? Instead I believe in doctrine written in a book that sounds nothing like the God of my fathers.. "Him who spoke?"

The Christian Testament sure aludes to God being the speaker here and there. Lets stick to the truth its an allusion. If it was God speaking they would have said it. They knew better than go that far.

HIS SON IS ISRAEL

"Thus says the Lord, Israel is My son, even My firstborn."

Avoice · Post by **Avoice** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:06 am

[Replying to post 35 by onewithhim]

What prophecies spoken of in revelations have been fulfilled,?

Avoice · Post by **Avoice** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:15 am

[Replying to post 38 by JehovahsWitness]

If Christians want to explain this away they should just say that Jesus didn't mean people. He just said some standing here. Maybe he meant the trees!!! Trees, standing, they live hundreds of years. Of course!!! No, he meant trees.

There. Now you guys dont have to do somersaults to account for this not happening. Trees...he meant trees.

Avoice · Post by **Avoice** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:40 am

[Replying to post 33 by Elijah John]

If Christian today entered a time machine and went back to the time of King David do you really think they say it was about Jesus? Of course not? No, not even Yeshua. Theyd say: Who? Yeshua?

The person (psalmist) who wrote this worshipped the God of Israel. The Jews are monotheistic. There is only one God. Not a three-headed god. Where one head can be killed by mankind.

The psalmist is saying (paraphrasing) The God of Israel said to King David ... the day will cone when your enemies will wish they'd have worshipped me.

King David would have been called lord by the psalmist.But its a different kind of lord. Like we might say lord of the Manor. Do we mean the landlord is God? No.

In Hebrew it says the lord (Adonai) said to my lord (adonee) English translations want it to be about Jesus so they capitalized one of the Lords. There are no capitals in hebrew. Scandalous

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:17 am

Avoice wrote: [Replying to post 33 by Elijah John]

If Christian today entered a time machine and went back to the time of King David do you really think they say it was about Jesus? Of course not? No, not even Yeshua. Theyd say: Who? Yeshua?

The person (psalmist) who wrote this worshipped the God of Israel. The Jews are monotheistic. There is only one God. Not a three-headed god. Where one head can be killed by mankind.

The psalmist is saying (paraphrasing) The God of Israel said to King David ... the day will cone when your enemies will wish they'd have worshipped me.

King David would have been called lord by the psalmist.But its a different kind of lord. Like we might say lord of the Manor. Do we mean the landlord is God? No.

In Hebrew it says the lord (Adonai) said to my lord (adonee) English translations want it to be about Jesus so they capitalized one of the Lords. There are no capitals in hebrew. Scandalous

I agree, the first LORD is YHVH, the second Lord is King David, and the Psalm was written by another Psalmist. That Psalmist's earthly Lord was King David, and his Heavenly one was YHVH. And so, it seems my interpretation aligns with a Jewish one?

Wnen English Bibles capitalize LORD in the "Old" Testament (Hebrew Bible), it is a stand-in for the Tetragrammaton, YHVH. When written with a caplital "L" followed by lower case, the reference is ususally to someone else. In this case, King David, not Jesus.

William · Post by **William** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:55 am

Elijah John: Wnen English Bibles capitalize LORD in the "Old" Testament (Hebrew Bible), it is a stand-in for the Tetragrammaton, YHVH. When written with a caplital "L" followed by lower case, the reference is ususally to someone else. In this case, King David, not Jesus.

William:The Tetragrammaton - a well known symbol, often associated with the occult

[center]

[/center]

William:The Tetragrammaton - a well known symbol, often associated with the occult.
@A=1...Z=26
166
Interesting Data
Centre of learning
The Healing Power
Supernatural
Science of Truth
Tetragrammaton
Before The Beginning

tam · Post by **tam** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:03 pm

Elijah John wrote:
Avoice wrote: [Replying to post 33 by Elijah John]

If Christian today entered a time machine and went back to the time of King David do you really think they say it was about Jesus? Of course not? No, not even Yeshua. Theyd say: Who? Yeshua?

The person (psalmist) who wrote this worshipped the God of Israel. The Jews are monotheistic. There is only one God. Not a three-headed god. Where one head can be killed by mankind.

The psalmist is saying (paraphrasing) The God of Israel said to King David ... the day will cone when your enemies will wish they'd have worshipped me.

King David would have been called lord by the psalmist.But its a different kind of lord. Like we might say lord of the Manor. Do we mean the landlord is God? No.

In Hebrew it says the lord (Adonai) said to my lord (adonee) English translations want it to be about Jesus so they capitalized one of the Lords. There are no capitals in hebrew. Scandalous
I agree, the first LORD is YHVH, the second Lord is King David, and the Psalm was written by another Psalmist. That Psalmist's earthly Lord was King David, and his Heavenly one was YHVH. And so, it seems my interpretation aligns with a Jewish one?

Wnen English Bibles capitalize LORD in the "Old" Testament (Hebrew Bible), it is a stand-in for the Tetragrammaton, YHVH. When written with a caplital "L" followed by lower case, the reference is usually to someone else. In this case, King David, not Jesus.

There is no single Jewish interpretation; I found three in the first page of a google search. Some said it was about Abraham, some said it was David speaking about himself... despite avoice's opinion that a Psalm 'of David' means that it is about David, and can't be David speaking. This is in error though, since Psalm 109 is also called 'a Psalm of David', but it is clear that David is the one speaking. Rabbinic tradition holds that David wrote all the Psalms; some modern scholars suggest that many people wrote the Psalms.

Please note though: the main (only) objection that I saw to this being about the Messiah was an objection to the trinity doctrine which "Christianity" claims that Psalm 110 supports. The objections in all the posts I read made sure to explain that the second Lord CANNOT be referencing God (YHWH). The Jewish objections were a focused reaction against only the trinity doctrine ... which is indeed a false doctrine. This is significant because if you remove the trinity suggestion, there is no reason this verse could not be referring to the Messiah. In fact, another rabbi acknowledged that this verse is simply about a king being anointed (a king-priest in fact), only possibly David.

So a) it is possible that this verse refers to the Messiah; and b) Christ (also a Jew) SAID that this verse refers to the Messiah whom David called Lord (the second Lord).

I just do not understand how a Christian can think that their opinion, or the opinion(s) of a religious group, or the opinions of a person on the internet... could EVER take precedence over Christ and His word. He is the Truth and the Word of God, and the One to whom God said to listen.

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:53 pm

[Replying to post 46 by tam]

How do you know it was "Christ" and not the Gospel Evangelist who put word's on Jesus mouth. It would not be the first time.

And do you think things were ever mistakenly attributed to a given author in the Bible?

Sure, some Psalms David wrote, others he did not.

tam · Post by **tam** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:48 pm

Peace to you,

Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 46 by tam]

How do you know it was "Christ" and not the Gospel Evangelist who put word's on Jesus mouth.
Gospel Evangelists, plural, you mean?

The authors of Matthew (22:42-45) and of Mark (12:35-37).

Did you not earlier ask for evidence from the synoptics because you claimed the epistles were theological commentary and not biographical material (unlike the synoptics)?

You asked for evidence (from the synoptics); you received evidence (from the synoptics); that evidence (from the synoptics) conflicts with your preferred interpretation - and you must acknowledge that it makes no sense for a Christian not to listen to Christ, as God told us to do - so now the authors of the synoptics just made it up?

That is a lot of spinning, EJ.

**

Of course, you could always take it to Christ Jaheshua Himself and ask to know the truth from Him.

It would not be the first time.
So you claim.

And do you think things were ever mistakenly attributed to a given author in the Bible?
Already asked, EJ, already answered.

Peace again to you, and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:19 pm

[Replying to post 48 by tam]

The Synoptics are a more reliable account of the historical Jesus, though not completely reliable.

The Epistles have very little to do with the historical Jesus. The "risen Christ" is not reliable, at least not when he spoke though John the Revelator.

Revelation 22.7

The risen Christ speaking many, many centuries ago.

Behold, I come quickly

Still waiting. Even if he arrived today for his 2nd Advent, that would not be "quickly" or "soon", unless you want to play games with words.