Omar6741 said
For the sake of a thought-experiment, let us pretend Jesus did have that conversation. Why can we not just take him at face value as denying that the Messiah would be a biological descendant of David?
David king of Israel calls him Lord – its meant in a divine sense. The only way this can be interpreted as denying descent from David specifically is in the sense that it denies any human descent for the messiah generally.
But Jesus does not deny being human or being descended from humans.
Robert
As for Egypt, according to ** you do not have permission to see this link **:
Egyptians do not all have equal enjoyment of these [religious] rights, however. Muslims cannot convert legally to another faith, while Christians can legally convert to Islam. The children of Muslim converts to Christianity remain Muslims on official documents such as identity cards. Marriages between Muslim women and Christian men are not legally recognized. Christians suspected of proselytizing Muslims are dealt with harshly by security forces, while efforts by Muslims to convert citizens to Islam are unimpeded — if not encouraged — by the state.
Are you saying this does not occur in Egypt?
Steefen
Interesting. Thank you for posting.
brenmcg
But Jesus does not deny being human or being descended from humans.
Steefen
Jesus did not know Immaculate Conception runs in his family? He did not descend biologically from a human father and his mother probably did not descend biologically from a human father.
In Christianity, Mary is commonly referred to as the Virgin Mary, in accordance with the belief that the Holy Spirit impregnated her, thereby conceiving her first-born son Jesus miraculously, without sexual relations with her betrothed/husband Joseph, “until her son [Jesus] was born” (Matthew 1:25)
Immaculate Conception: the doctrine that God preserved the Virgin Mary from the taint of original sin from the moment she was conceived; it was defined as a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church in 1854.
Steefen said
Jesus did not know Immaculate Conception runs in his family? He did not descend biologically from a human father and his mother probably did not descend biologically from a human father.
In Christianity, Mary is commonly referred to as the Virgin Mary, in accordance with the belief that the Holy Spirit impregnated her, thereby conceiving her first-born son Jesus miraculously, without sexual relations with her betrothed/husband Joseph, “until her son [Jesus] was born” (Matthew 1:25)
Immaculate Conception: the doctrine that God preserved the Virgin Mary from the taint of original sin from the moment she was conceived; it was defined as a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church in 1854.
Yes but Mary is still his mother. The point is that the only to interpret the ‘son of David’ passage as a denial of descent from David is if its a denial of all human descent in general.
But Jesus didn’t deny he was a son of man – whether or not its the biblical or historical Jesus we’re talking about.
brenmcg said
mzejum said
I like the way Christians claim to interpret the words ‘order of Melchizedek’ but if u ask them for the meaning they will just go around saying alot of nothing. According to my understanding to be a Priest in the Order of Melkisedec means to be a Priest and a king. Because Melkisedec was a priest and king ( Genesis 14:18 ) and Jesus was a Priest and if the children of Israel. had accepted him fully he would have been their king.
Melchizedek was alive before Levi and Aaron so was a non-Levitical priest of God. The point of saying a priest “of the order of Melchizedek” is to distinguish him from the Levitical order.
You misrepresent the meaning of the last words of Isaiah 66:20-21, like any other christians does because the words “and i will take some of them also to be priests and Levites says the lord” this does not mean God is going to make Priests and Levites, because Levites were not a new tribe that will be made at that moment, Levites existed from before and he could not Change any other tribe from the 12 tribes and make new Levites.
Yes he’s not making a new Levite tribe in the literal sense. Its being used figuratively, so that some chosen gentiles will take on the roles of Levites, eg being a priest.
The statement ‘and i will take some of them ALSO to be priests and Levites’ will only mean the priest he will make will be Levites ONLY. otherwise if you claim he will make Priests as he choses, then the biblical god will be in conflict and contradicting his own words in Exodus 28:1. and i believe God can never contradict or conflict himself. it is man that misinterprets the words and change them to mean something else.
Isaiah 66:18 ” … I will gather all nations and languages and they will come and see my glory“. Its from these nations and languages that some will be chosen to be priests and Levites.
Exodus 28:1 is God’s instruction to the Israelites on how to chose new priests, not a promise about how all future priests will be chosen.
Whose people are mentioned in Verse 20?
Isaiah66:20-21 And they will bring all your people, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the Lord—on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels,” says the Lord. “They will bring them, as the Israelites bring their grain offerings, to the temple of the Lord in ceremonially clean vessels. 21 And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites,” says the Lord.
the term your people means ISRAELITES who were were brought from outside Judea.
I mentioned before the Priests for the children of Israel. and you have Just agreed with what i said before when you say “Exodus is God’s instructions to the israelites on how to choose new Priests”. Since Jesus is an Israelite, and he is a priest. he is a descendant of Aaron.
i don’t know what your point is in denying Jesus is a descendant of Aaron when Jesus completely denies the messiah is not from the House of David ? In Luke 20:44 , Mark 12:37 and in Mathew 22:45. the Jews themselves tell you in the bible Jesus is not from the house of David in John 7:42.
brenmcg said
Omar6741 said
For the sake of a thought-experiment, let us pretend Jesus did have that conversation. Why can we not just take him at face value as denying that the Messiah would be a biological descendant of David?
David king of Israel calls him Lord – its meant in a divine sense. The only way this can be interpreted as denying descent from David specifically is in the sense that it denies any human descent for the messiah generally.
No, that is not how the argument works. Jesus’ argument can be reconstructed as follows:
David calls the Messiah ‘Lord’ (based on a text, Psalm 110).
Fathers do not call their sons ‘Lord’. (based on common experience).
Therefore, the Messiah is not a son of David.
This seems to have been effective at shutting up Jesus’ opponents, who thought the Messiah must be a son of David and also attributed Psalm 110 to him.
The point is pretty clear: the Messiah is not a son of David. Why not take this point at face value, coming from Jesus himself?
Robert said
mzejum said
brenmcg said
mzejum said
I like the way Christians claim to interpret the words ‘order of Melchizedek’ but if u ask them for the meaning they will just go around saying alot of nothing. According to my understanding to be a Priest in the Order of Melkisedec means to be a Priest and a king. Because Melkisedec was a priest and king ( Genesis 14:18 ) and Jesus was a Priest and if the children of Israel. had accepted him fully he would have been their king.
Melchizedek was alive before Levi and Aaron so was a non-Levitical priest of God. The point of saying a priest “of the order of Melchizedek” is to distinguish him from the Levitical order.
You misrepresent the meaning of the last words of Isaiah 66:20-21, like any other christians does because the words “and i will take some of them also to be priests and Levites says the lord” this does not mean God is going to make Priests and Levites, because Levites were not a new tribe that will be made at that moment, Levites existed from before and he could not Change any other tribe from the 12 tribes and make new Levites.
Yes he’s not making a new Levite tribe in the literal sense. Its being used figuratively, so that some chosen gentiles will take on the roles of Levites, eg being a priest.
The statement ‘and i will take some of them ALSO to be priests and Levites’ will only mean the priest he will make will be Levites ONLY. otherwise if you claim he will make Priests as he choses, then the biblical god will be in conflict and contradicting his own words in Exodus 28:1. and i believe God can never contradict or conflict himself. it is man that misinterprets the words and change them to mean something else.
Isaiah 66:18 ” … I will gather all nations and languages and they will come and see my glory“. Its from these nations and languages that some will be chosen to be priests and Levites.
Exodus 28:1 is God’s instruction to the Israelites on how to chose new priests, not a promise about how all future priests will be chosen.
Whose people are mentioned in Verse 20?
Isaiah66:20-21 And they will bring all your people, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the Lord—on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels,” says the Lord. “They will bring them, as the Israelites bring their grain offerings, to the temple of the Lord in ceremonially clean vessels. 21 And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites,” says the Lord.
the term your people means ISRAELITES who were were brought from outside Judea.
I mentioned before the Priests for the children of Israel. and you have Just agreed with what i said before when you say “Exodus is God’s instructions to the israelites on how to choose new Priests”. Since Jesus is an Israelite, and he is a priest. he is a descendant of Aaron.
i don’t know what your point is in denying Jesus is a descendant of Aaron when Jesus completely denies the messiah is not from the House of David ? In Luke 20:44 , Mark 12:37 and in Mathew 22:45. the Jews themselves tell you in the bible Jesus is not from the house of David in John 7:42.
While I am reluctant to agree with brenmcg or to attach any importance whatsoever to this prophecy at the end of the book of Isaiah as a means to divining the ancestry of Jesus, one should read this text of Isaiah in context. It is the nations who are bringing the Israeli kin back to Jerusalem as an offering to the Lord and thus it is these gentiles who are figuratively acting as priests and Levites who traditionally those who make offerings to the Lord in the temple. This is the very clear meaning of the text of Isaiah, but of course it provides no insight into Jesus’ ancestry.
I thought so initially but the statement “And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites”, how will the Levites be selected from gentiles?
O
Omar6741 said
brenmcg said
Omar6741 said
For the sake of a thought-experiment, let us pretend Jesus did have that conversation. Why can we not just take him at face value as denying that the Messiah would be a biological descendant of David?
David king of Israel calls him Lord – its meant in a divine sense. The only way this can be interpreted as denying descent from David specifically is in the sense that it denies any human descent for the messiah generally.
No, that is not how the argument works. Jesus’ argument can be reconstructed as follows:
David calls the Messiah ‘Lord’ (based on a text, Psalm 110).
Fathers do not call their sons ‘Lord’. (based on common experience).
Therefore, the Messiah is not a son of David.
This seems to have been effective at shutting up Jesus’ opponents, who thought the Messiah must be a son of David and also attributed Psalm 110 to him.
The point is pretty clear: the Messiah is not a son of David. Why not take this point at face value, coming from Jesus himself?
ne thing you should notice: in Psalms 110:1 the statement reads “The Lord says to my lord:’ the second lord as used does not signify divinity since it is the letter L is in small letters not capital letter. But from the Gospels the letter is changed to capital Letter to signify Divinity. it just signify respect.
Robert said
mzejum said
O … ne thing you should notice: in Psalms 110:1 the statement reads “The Lord says to my lord:’ the second lord as used does not signify divinity since it is the letter L is in small letters not capital letter. But from the Gospels the letter is changed to capital Letter to signify Divinity. it just signify respect.
Sorry, but this argument has no merit. Hebrew does not distinguish between upper and lower case letters. What you’re seeing in English translation are merely interpretive decisions made by the translators
i never said that was done in the Hebrew text, did i?
mzejum said
I mentioned before the Priests for the children of Israel. and you have Just agreed with what i said before when you say “Exodus is God’s instructions to the israelites on how to choose new Priests”. Since Jesus is an Israelite, and he is a priest. he is a descendant of Aaron.
But the Israelites didn’t anoint Jesus a priest, he performed no sacrifices at the temple.
God made him a priest, outside the Aaronic order.
i don’t know what your point is in denying Jesus is a descendant of Aaron when Jesus completely denies the messiah is not from the House of David ? In Luke 20:44 , Mark 12:37 and in Mathew 22:45. the Jews themselves tell you in the bible Jesus is not from the house of David in John 7:42.
He doesn’t deny it in any of those synoptic verses he asks the pharisees to resolve a seeming paradox.
The jews of John 7:42 couldn’t resolve the question of how scripture could be correct but the messiah come from Galilee. It doesn’t say the question can’t in principal be resolved.
Omar6741 said
No, that is not how the argument works. Jesus’ argument can be reconstructed as follows:
David calls the Messiah ‘Lord’ (based on a text, Psalm 110).
Fathers do not call their sons ‘Lord’. (based on common experience).
Therefore, the Messiah is not a son of David.
This seems to have been effective at shutting up Jesus’ opponents, who thought the Messiah must be a son of David and also attributed Psalm 110 to him.
The point is pretty clear: the Messiah is not a son of David. Why not take this point at face value, coming from Jesus himself?
If Jesus were giving a historic account of David speaking directly to a contemporary and called him Lord then your interpretation would be correct. He wouldn’t be speaking to a son.
But David is speaking prophetically, “in the spirit” as Jesus puts it, about the messiah to come centuries later and refers to him as “Lord”. The point of the passage is show there’s something about the messiah the pharisees don’t understand. The pharisees can’t explain scripture – not Jesus denying scripture.
With the future point being that David as King of Israel should only have One that he addresses as “Lord”.
brenmcg
But Jesus didn’t deny he was a son of man – whether or not its the biblical or historical Jesus we’re talking about.
Steefen
His actions denied he was a son of man (human): telepathically forcing pigs to run off a cliff, multiplying food, Luke 7: 11-17 where he raises a dead man, raising the dead daughter of Jairus.
Did Jesus really have to say he was not a man?
Robert said
mzejum said
O … ne thing you should notice: in Psalms 110:1 the statement reads “The Lord says to my lord:’ the second lord as used does not signify divinity since it is the letter L is in small letters not capital letter. But from the Gospels the letter is changed to capital Letter to signify Divinity. it just signify respect.
Sorry, but this argument has no merit. Hebrew does not distinguish between upper and lower case letters. What you’re seeing in English translation are merely interpretive decisions made by the translators
Robert,
You like the NSRV and Bart has worked on the NSRV, I believe the situation is.
NSRV
Assurance of Victory for God’s Priest-King
Psalm 110 of David. A Psalm
The Lord says to my lord,
“Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”
Any priest-king of the united kingdom of Judah-Israel sits at the right hand of Lord God, no?
(Thinking)
Christ is the son of whom?
Jesus: What do you Pharisees think about the Christ? Christ is the son of whom?
The Pharisees say, the Christ is the son of David.
Jesus responded: David calls Christ “Lord”.
Why does the Lord God say to Christ, the Lord of David, sit at my right hand until I put Your enemies under Your feet?
Christ is only the personification of Salvation.
The Lord God loved David and as a result David always had Salvation.
Salvation would always serve his father, the Lord God who gave him to David as a son to serve David as a son would serve his father.
This is not about every descendant of David is a son and a Christ. Every descendant of David was not a Christ.
brenmcg said
mzejum said
I mentioned before the Priests for the children of Israel. and you have Just agreed with what i said before when you say “Exodus is God’s instructions to the israelites on how to choose new Priests”. Since Jesus is an Israelite, and he is a priest. he is a descendant of Aaron.
But the Israelites didn’t anoint Jesus a priest, he performed no sacrifices at the temple.
Jesus performed no sacrifice at the Temple?
“Not a letter of the law will change” Jesus did not perform a sacrifice at the Temple?
From the age of 12?
How did you get evidence for that?
Steefen said
Jesus performed no sacrifice at the Temple?
“Not a letter of the law will change” Jesus did not perform a sacrifice at the Temple?
From the age of 12?
How did you get evidence for that?
In the role of priest he didn’t perform sacrifices at the temple.
Matthew 9:13 however is an indication he didn’t believe in the sacrificial system “But go and learn what is ‘I desire mercy not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous but sinners.“
Noted: in the role of priest he didn’t perform sacrifices at the temple.
brenmcg
** you do not have permission to see this link ** however is an indication he didn’t believe in the sacrificial system “But go and learn what is ‘I desire mercy not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous but sinners.“
Steefen
I really want mercy more than completing rituals. Nevertheless, Matthew 5: verse 18
For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen,will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert