• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Is it Biblical to separate the moral law from the other parts of the Law?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Bible Highlighter, Jun 4, 2017.

  1. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +5,170
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    And the context of Acts 15:1.

    "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment." (Acts 15:24).

    Also, it does not make sense for Paul say that Christ shall profit you nothing if you be circumcised if he were to turn around and just hand them over to the Jews to be circumcised. That makes no sense.

    I mean, do you believe you have to make animal sacrifices once the temple is rebuilt?

    Circumcision was a requirement to be considered a Jew. Salvation was of the Jews according to Jesus.

    Yes. This means that the laws on the priesthood of the Aaronic priesthood were no longer binding anymore. Jesus is our Heavenly High Priest and Passover Lamb.

    Jesus entered the Heavenly Temple and the temple veil in the Earthly Temple was torn to show that the Earthly temple was no longer a valid priesthood order anymore.

    Uh, no they didn't. Show me the verses.

    No. It is literal. 1 Timothy 4 also says,

    4 "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
    5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." (1 Timothy 4:4-5).


    ...
     
  2. the old scribe

    the old scribe old scribe Supporter

    212
    +134
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Well, you got me on this! I can't find any reference either. From my faulty memory I recall my surprise at the number 2300 when I first saw it. I thought the article and reference were saved under Theonomy for reading or for a reference at another time. At the time I did not actual think the number was legitimate. I thought it would prove to be either quackery or some convoluted application. I suppose I confused the numbers since I often have several biblical projects on the desk top at a time and or collect information as it is discovered - currently about 58,000 documents. Given this number, it would be a good bet that the 2300 claim is not the only false memory I have.

    I wish to thank you for calling me on this. One less thing that must be checked out!
    I am always encouraging people to be more skeptical. Seems you are on target.
    Recognizing ones own limits, presuppositions, bias, and possibilities of being mistaken and deluded are essential to being objective. Something most of those posting seem to know little about.
     
  3. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,199
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Before I start I just want to tell you how much I appreciate your tone and thoughtful responses. This is how it should be... we won't always agree, but we can be kind to one another, we serve the same God through the same Messiah. Thank you!

    That is troubling. I generally find that most people who call him Lord but who come to conclusions that differ from others love him and simply have reached a different conclusion. For example.... the Acts 15 letter.... I imagine that your take is that this was what was accepted of the gentiles. After all, most of Christianity takes it that way. So I ask you, is it your sin that has caused you to take this wrong understanding about God's intention? Don't get mad at me... give me a second to explain.....

    The debate among Jews in that day was what was expected of a proselyte (convert) … those that adhered to the teachings of Beit Shamai believed that one must those four things listed in Acts 15 AND they needed to know all 613 commandments AND be circumcised. This was the position of the men who confronted Paul and Barnabas in the first couple of verses of Acts 15. The other school of Pharisaical teaching, was Beit Hillel (where Paul attended, by the way) and they did not believe that one needed to know all the commandments or be circumcised at first... instead, they came up with a list of 4 things that would act as a starting point and then they would go and learn the rest over time. What the Acts 15 counsel did was simply reverse a bad decision and make it so new believers did not have a great weight placed on them... instead, they had a place to start and then they would be expected to go and learn and grow, hence:

    Acts 15:19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,

    Acts 15:20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

    Acts 15:21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

    See, they give the list of 4 things and then say that Moses (an idiomatic reference to God's law) is read in the Synagogues every Sabbath. In other words, go be a disciple (a student)... which is what we are called to do. We don't learn it all at once, we start small and work up. The Acts 15 letter wasn't the finish line, it was only the starting point.

    As for me asking if you not understanding this was because of your sin... that was kind of offensive, wasn't it? Now you know how I felt and how others reading felt when they read you make the same statement about those who don't reach the same conclusions you do.

    Agreed Jason...but when we come up with terms and phrases that help us understand God, that isn't bad because we are not “God” and need to do what we have to in order to come to certain understanding. BUT.... when we take those terms and use them to make doctrine, then we have gone too far. God does NOT break His law in 3 parts, man does in order to understand God's law. The bible doesn't do that.... He gave the law, it included how we act in relation to Him and each other, how the priesthood was to act, how a woman acts on her period, or how we function if there were a Temple, which there isn't.

    I agree, and even more, I think each command reveals His heart. After all, if He says to avoid something or refrain from something and/or He calls something sin... that is because it stands in contrast to His name – His character, reputation, and authority. And when He gives permission to do something, it is because it stands in harmony with His name.

    I think you and others (and this is not meant condescendingly) don't understand the Hebraic idea of love. John wrote, “this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.” So love then leaves the realm of a fuzzy warm emotional feeling and enters the realm of action... of the emotion being expressed in obedience and works. NOT unto salvation... but as a son of God, a part of His family, we simply follow His house rules because we love Him and belong to Him and He is Lord and we are not. You call the Sabbath ceremonial but God called it an EVERLASTING sign between Him and His people. See the difference, you have placed one tag on it... but God placed a different one. Why not call it what HE calls it?

    And... the Feasts were designed to teach and mainly about the work of Messiah. The Spring feasts when you study them will speak of his first coming and the fall feasts speak of his return. Before them all... listed first and separate... the Sabbath. What does it teach us? Well, to an eternal God, “a day is as a thousand years” is meaningless... He is ETERNAL, time has no bearing at all on one who exists outside of time. It was a keygen Jason, a day is as a thousand years.....

    6000 years of decay, death, disease, toil, sweat, hard work all pictured in 6 days of work, sweat, and decay. And then 1000 year reign of peace and restoration... pictured in the say God set aside for us to rest. The Sabbath continues to point to what it was always designed to point to... the coming Kingdom.

    Yes and no... adultery is still a sin, the spirit of the letter revealed by Yeshua who said to even look in lust was adultery, so don't make it sound like that isn't a sin anymore. But the punishment? We do not live in a Torah based society, nobody has since before Christ was born. We live in a secular nation with no authority to administer punishment based on what God says is or is not sin.

    Ritual.... as in a customary observance or practice? Or a prescribed procedure for conducting religious ceremonies? So you mean like meeting every week at the same time? Singing together, praying together, hearing a sermon...each week, over and over throughout your life? That is ritual... so which one is wrong? Which do we avoid? The ones Christianity has said, “well that is old?” How about the ones our model... messiah himself... the ones he did? But those are the old ones! Did he not commit adultery so we could? Did he not murder so we could? Did he not eat catfish so we could? We begin to lose biblical integrity when we maintain that paradigm, Jason.

    Overall I don't really disagree with you I am just taking this section out to make this statement.... don't forget that ALL of the Law and Prophets (ALL OF IT) hangs on loving God and loving neighbor. So like you said, “at its core it is moral,” to which I agree. But something can be a ritual, repetitive, and still be moral. Do you pray before or after your meals? That is a ritual... do you give a % of your income? If yes, that can be a ritual but also moral because it is a command that fell on loving God. ALL the Law hangs on those two.... imagine two nails... one says “Love God” and the other says, “Love neighbor.” Every commandment can be written on a piece of paper and then hung on one or the other EVEN IF right now we don't understand how with some of them. :)

    Two different priesthoods Jason. The Levitical priesthood was TO ISRAEL, the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek (of which Yeshua is head) IS ISRAEL and to the nations. The Levitical currently has no job because there is no Temple and we are in the nations under secular rule. But I can show you at least 3 verses where God specifically calls the Levitical priesthood an everlasting order. The WEIGHT has been transferred from one to another... that is what the Hebrews verse is saying. When you look up the word for “changed” in Hebrews 7:12 ( μετατίθημι G3346) means “to transfer” not change. Both are everlasting, God said so even if that stands outside our current understanding.

    Amen... the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit and a contrite heart. What that means is that the “sweet aroma” that went up before God wasn't the burning flesh of the animal... it was the heart condition of the Israelite who made that sacrifice knowing that his sin caused the death of that animal. That is the heart condition God seeks and that messiah had as he considered us.

    I can prove otherwise if you want to hear it. As for the 613... never has 613 applied to any one person including messiah. For example, included within the 613 is one about a woman on her cycle separating herself from others. He isn't a woman... that one doesn't apply. Or included are the commandments that pertain to Levites... but he is Judah not Levi so they don't apply. Some commandments deal with work animals, but I don't see him using any so they don't apply... you get the idea. :)

    Again, you live in the nations under secular rule... you don't live in a society that uses God's law as the law of the land like Israel did for a time. The punishments were no different then the US law in that.... we too have do's and don'ts and there are punishments attached. However... the US has hundreds of thousands of laws, perhaps millions when you factor in tax laws... all God had was 613 of them and most didn't apply to you. Which is the real burden? By the way Christianity acts, it is God's law that is the burden despite that fact that God Himself (who is good, and love, and light, and perfect) is the AUTHOR of it. :) We adhere to man's laws with hardly a grumble anymore... but God's laws... that's the real bondage. :doh: :)

    Shalom brother.
    Ken
     
  4. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,668
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Why don't you do that, because since He sent His Son, there is no need for sacrifice for sin, unless it is for the unbelieving Jews.
     
  5. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,668
    Non-Denom
    Private
    The Melchezedek priesthood is not Israel.

    So much pride in thinking they still have God's favor. Israel hardened their hearts to our Messiah and those who are in anyway following the 'religion' Judaism, don't even know or care who Jesus or Yeshua is.

    They are so sure in fact, that they don't know or care about Christ's lineage or if He met all the prophecies, because they are NEVER taught about Christ and as a matter of fact, won't even have Jesus name mentioned. God told them what to expect and laid it out so they wouldn't miss it. Guess what? They missed it and still do.

    Most of Israel is not even Israel of the OT. That is why only a remnant will be saved.
     
  6. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,199
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Exodus 40:15 You shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may minister to Me as priests; for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations."

    Numbers 25:13 and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.' "

    Not going to bother with your next post, it doesn't matter. I will say this... "a remnant will saved?" (Romans 9:27) You should dig into that one a little... it is a quote of Isaiah 10:22 where 'saved' doesn't appear, "returned" does. It is talking about the promised return of Israel as first spoken in Deuteronomy 30:1-6. Also, "remnant" doesn't mean "small amount," it means "that which is left" and can be a great amount. Our modern Christian theology forced remnant to mean few... but it isn't what it means in English or Greek.

    Night.
    Ken
     
  7. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,668
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Exodus 40:15 is not about the Levitical priesthood, but the Aaronic.

    Numbers 25:13 is not about the Levitical priesthood, but the Aaronic.

    So can you come up with 3 verses?
     
  8. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,668
    Non-Denom
    Private
    That is not what I am reading.
    Romans 9:6-8
    6
    It is not as though God’s word has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are Abraham’s descendants are they all his children. On the contrary, “Through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned.”a 8 So it is not the children of the flesh who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as offspring.

    18Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.

    The Calling of the Gentiles

    19One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”g 21Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?

    22 What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction? 23 What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the vessels of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory— 24 including us, whom He has called not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles?

    25As He says in Hosea:
    I will call them My people who are not My people,
    and I will call her My beloved who is not My beloved,”h

    26 and, “It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
    ‘You are not My people,

    they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”i
    27
    Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites is like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved. 28 For the Lord will carry out His sentence on the earth with thoroughness and decisiveness.”


    Sounds to me like God is talking about now, the time of the Gentiles because of Israel's disobedience. I think these verses make my point very well. As you asked me to dig around a little bit through these verses.
     
  9. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,199
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I really don't know what to say. I don't think I have ever seen anyone try to take a priesthood and break it into two different priesthoods.

    Joshua 21:4 Now the lot came out for the families of the Kohathites. And the children of Aaron the priest, who were of the Levites, had thirteen cities by lot from the tribe of Judah, from the tribe of Simeon, and from the tribe of Benjamin.

    If the children of Aaron are Levites, what is Aaron? And just so there is a second witness and no chance to take what I am saying any other way...

    Exodus 4:14 So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and He said: "Is not Aaron the Levite your brother? I know that he can speak well. And look, he is also coming out to meet you. When he sees you, he will be glad in his heart.
     
  10. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,199
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    In Romans 9 Paul is quoting Hosea 1 which is dealing with the Northern Kingdom, Israel. They were punished (Assyrian captivity, scattered afterward into the nations) but promised by God to be brought BACK... hence, "return." Isaiah 10:22, which is what Paul quotes in Romans 9:27, has a form of shuv in Hebrew and I don't see any of the top translations (KJV, NKJV, NIV, RVS, NASB, NLT, etc.) using any other English word than "return" in that Isaiah verse. Since THAT IS what Paul is quoting, then that is what should appear in Romans 9:27. That verse isn't dealing with eternal salvation, it is dealing with the promised return of the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

    As for remnant... doesn't matter what you are reading, it matters what the word means. We adjust to Scripture, we don't adjust it to us.

    Remnant - (Webster's 1828)
    1. Residue; that which is left after the separation, removal or destruction of a part.
    2. That which remains after a part is done, performed, told or passed.

    Modern Webster's -
    a : a usually small part, member, or trace remainingb : a small surviving group —often used in plural

    See what has happened... the word changed in meaning. We NOW use "small part" but the word "remnant" first appeared in our bibles with a different meaning. So, to settle this, let's look at the Greek and Hebrew:

    H7605 - she'âr
    BDB Definition:
    1) rest, residue, remnant, remainder

    G2640 - kataleimma
    Thayer Definition:
    1) remnant, remains

    The remains... that which is left.... if a million Israelites were taken into Assyria and then scattered into the nations and 10 descendants are alive today, then the remnant is 10 people. But if a million went into the nations and today 500 million are descendants, then the remnant is 500 million people. And ToBeLoved..... the number of the seed is uncountable... not a "few" but a number so great we can't even count it!
     
  11. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,199
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married

    You asked for an explanation... I can't openly give one but I did share a means through which you could get an answer to what you wanted to hear. I also have not read any rule that says I can't discuss the two Kingdoms, I have simply been told that is the rule. Since that word came from somebody I respect, I have decided to respect them and leave it alone for the most part. Did you read those first few paragraphs and look up the references? If yes, great... send me a message and share your thoughts. If no... don't bother commenting, you'll understand in a moment.


    I just went back and looked at all my verbosity and now know what you are. That aside, I did answer your question directly. I dealt with the English as well as the Hebrew and Greek definitions, the historical context, as well as show how the word "gentile" has gone the way of "gender" and "gay." Since you are seemingly more concerned with your sesquipedalian tendencies over having a meaningful discussion, then I see no reason to comment on anything else you wrote.

    If you want to discuss anything, alert me through private message as I will ignore any alert I see. Sorry, but I don't have time to waste on discussions that are unfruitful and unedifying.

     
  12. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,199
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Brother, this is not accurate. God uses imagery we can understand and relate to in our visions and dreams but the things used in those dreams and visions are only symbols. The Pharaoh saw 7 sick cows eating 7 healthy cows. If we take the symbols literally, no farmer should ever place healthy cows in a pen with sick cows, right? :) God used unclean animals NOT to tell us all that catfish are now clean... He used unclean animals to depict PEOPLE. As soon as the vision with 3 sheets was over, three Greeks (unclean men according to Jewish halacha at that time) were at the door. Peter goes with them, sees God work in their lives, then understands the vision and comes back and says this when questioned:

    Acts 10:28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

    Where? When? The vision... the vision was about men not animals, the animals were only symbols used to depict men. Now look, I don't care what you eat... that is between you and God. But this part of Scripture was not designed to support your view. If it were, you would think Peter would have added that little gem.

    No, there are no sacrifices because there is no Temple. Look, the sacrifices only pointed forward to Yeshua's work. Most eschatologists look at Ezekiel and see the continuation of sacrifices in what appears to be the Millennial Kingdom. That doesn't and won't detract from Yeshua's work... it would still only be pointing but then, instead of pointing forward at what he will do, it will point back at what he did. Yet it still will only point.

    Who will do them? You? Me? No.... we will have been perfected, what need will there be? Then who? The answer is... the nations.
    Zechariah 14:16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

    Revelation 20:7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison
    Revelation 20:8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.

    We will have been perfected, but clearly if there are those left in the nations who came against Jerusalem who will be coming to keep Sukkot and worship Yeshua, and there will be those in the nations who came still be deceived by Satan after we have been perfected.... then the ones doing the sacrifices will be thise people. Why? To learn about Yeshua.... they POINTED (and will point) to His work and we will be teaching them.

    Paul wrote to and both he and Yeshua lived in a culture that was no "Torah based." In other words, when David was King and somebody broke a law, that person would be taken to the elders, they hear the case and adjudicate. The elders had no authority in that day, ROME ruled the land. Paul was writing to a people in captivity, not a people who had the ability to fully operate within the Torah (God's law or instructions) as their rule of law.

    Here is the problem Jason... we are raised in a culture that for some reason thinks law and grace can't co-exist. But it is the law that says we fall short and need grace... so they HAVE to co-exist or there is no reason for grace. :) The problem is, because of the culture we are born into, we view the law as a "whole" rather than breaking it into the parts GOD DEVISED. By that I mean not breaking it into Moral, Ceremonial and civil... but understanding that the civil (the punishments, judgments, ability to prosecute) are ONLY FOR the times when we live in a Kingdom that uses God's law as the rule of law. So the "eye for an eye" can't work today anyway... we don't live in that culture. We can obey the commandments, but we can't punish those who don't. All we can do is what Paul shared... do to the sinner and point it out. If he doesn't repent, take elders. If he still doesn't repent, rebuke before all.

    Always error on the side of mercy!

    Regarding the Sabbath and stoning, look at my answer above. In another post, I shared how the word for "changed" in Hebrews 7:12 means "to transfer." Look it up... Strong's, Thayer, Liddel-Scott... they all say the same thing, "transferred." The idea isn't that the priesthood changed, or the law about the priesthood changed... it is that the weight was shifted from the Levitical to the Melchizedekian. As I shared with ToBeLoved, the Levitical was called "everlasting" by God. I gave a couple of verses for that.
     
  13. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,668
    Non-Denom
    Private
    There is obviously a difference because one was called the Aaronic priesthood and one is called the Levitical priesthood.

    This article sums up EXACTLY what I believe. I will underline some parts.

    Question: "What was the Levitical priesthood?"

    Answer:
    The Levitical priesthood began with Aaron, the older brother of Moses (Exodus 28:1–3). Aaron’s descendants served as the priests in Israel, ministering in the tabernacle and, later, the temple, primarily as mediators between man and God. The Levitical priests bore the responsibility of offering the sacrifices required by the Mosaic Law. Some of the Levitical priests in the Bible are Ezra; Eli; and Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist.

    The term Levitical is derived from the Israelite tribe of Levi. Levi was the third son of Leah and Jacob (Genesis 29:34) and the father of the tribe of Levi, the tribe of Moses and Aaron. Originally, it was the firstborn son of every family who was consecrated to God and inherited the birthright, leadership, authority, etc. (Exodus 13:2). We see this institution of “first” things being what God requires as far back as Genesis 4:4 when God was pleased with the firstborn of Abel’s flock that he offered to God (see Proverbs 3:9 and Romans 11:16). Later, when God made Israel into a nation, He called them His firstborn son (Exodus 4:22–23), and each individual Israelite was called to be holy, priestly, and royal (Exodus 19:5–6). And then out of the nation of Israel God chose the tribe of Levi to serve Him and the sons of Aaron to be the priests. Thus, all priests were Levites, but not every Levite was a priest.

    Some Bible commentators have said God chose the tribe of Levi to be His priests because they were obedient to God after the infamous “golden calf” incident at the foot of Mt. Sinai (Exodus 32:26–29). However, God had made Levi’s tribe priestly before that time (Exodus 28:1–4). Furthermore, on his deathbed, Jacob had issued a stern malediction against his son Levi (Genesis 49:5–7). Patriarchal prophecies such as these were not taken lightly, and Jacob’s words must have dealt Levi a sharp blow.

    Jacob’s prophecy that Levi’s descendants would be scattered throughout Israel (Genesis 49:7) was fulfilled when God appointed them as the priestly tribe who, unlike the other tribes, would receive no land inheritance. However, in God’s sovereign and mysterious way, Jacob’s prophecy turned into a blessing because Levi’s inheritance was better than land—it was God Himself (Numbers 18:20). And God promised to provide for the Levites from the abundance of all of the other tribes (Numbers 18:8–14).

    The Levites who were not priests were given various duties in the caretaking of the tabernacle and its furnishings (Numbers 3:21–26). The priests among the Levites were given the immeasurable privilege of doing service in the tabernacle. The Levitical priests also served as judges (Deuteronomy 17:8–13) and teachers of God’s law (Deuteronomy 33:10).

    The high priest could deliver edicts to guide the nation (Numbers 27:21). He was the only one permitted to enter the Most Holy Place (1 Chronicles 6:49; Leviticus 24:9), divided by a curtain from the rest of the tabernacle and containing the Ark of the Testimony (or Covenant), the symbol of God’s very presence (Hebrews 9:3; 1 Kings 8:6; Exodus 25:22). The high priest could only enter the Most Holy Place once a year on the Day of Atonement to offer sacrifices for all the people, including himself (Hebrews 9:7). There was only one high priest at a time.

    God held the priests to the most stringent standards of behavior and ritual purity (Leviticus 21). Abihu and Nadab were sons of Aaron and two of the first priests. They disobeyed God, however, and were instantly struck down (Leviticus 10:1–2). Later, the sons of the high priest Eli “treated the offering of the Lord with contempt” and were also judged (1 Samuel 2:12–17).

    In the time of Christ, the Sadducees comprised most of the priesthood and were known to be a wealthy class of people. The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection (Matthew 22:23) or in any kind of spiritual realm such as angels and demons live in (Acts 23:8). The chief priests Caiaphas and Annas were instrumental in having Jesus crucified (John 18:13).

    The Levitical priesthood was never intended to be permanent (Hebrews 7:11). The death of Christ put an end to the Old Covenant and the Levitical priesthood, as evidenced by the rending of the temple veil (Matthew 27:51). Now Jesus Himself serves as the believer’s Great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14), called according to the order of Melchizedek, not of Levi (Hebrews 7:11–17). Through His death and resurrection, we have access to God’s presence, where we can freely enjoy Him forever (Hebrews 6:19–20).
     
  14. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,199
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I just gave you two verses that say Aaron is a Levite. Your reasoning... that "Aaronic" and "Levitical" have to be two would mean that what... "son of God" and "Son of man" are two different people? Scripture often has more than one word that means the same thing. There are a score of examples, probably more, where "Moses" is used for "God's law." It is an idiom.... and Aaron is a Levite... so I am not impressed with your article, respectfully. I am impressed with what God says.
     
  15. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +5,170
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Dear Ken:

    I am reading the new book I just received in regards to the 3 fold division of the Law and I am taking notes on the Scripture verses they have. This may take some time. Please be patient. I will try to get back to you on this one. I say this because there is a lot of good Scriptural information on the three fold division of God's Laws.

    May God bless you.
    And please be well.


    ...
     
  16. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,199
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    No problem... drop me a PM to alert me that you are back to this thread. I won't be here too much for the foreseeable future. Blessings.
     
  17. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,668
    Non-Denom
    Private
    The root word of the word is "shear", however the actual word is not.

    Looking at Isaiah 10:22 the following is the Hebrew word used for remnant:

    šə·’ār — 8 Occurrences

    1 Chronicles 11:8
    HEB: יְחַיֶּ֖ה אֶת־ שְׁאָ֥ר הָעִֽיר׃
    NAS: repaired the rest of the city.
    KJV: repaired the rest of the city.
    INT: and Joab repaired the rest of the city

    2 Chronicles 24:14
    HEB: וִֽיהוֹיָדָ֜ע אֶת־ שְׁאָ֣ר הַכֶּ֗סֶף וַיַּעֲשֵׂ֨הוּ
    NAS: they brought the rest of the money
    KJV: [it], they brought the rest of the money
    INT: the king and Jehoiada the rest of the money made

    Isaiah 10:20
    HEB: יוֹסִ֨יף ע֜וֹד שְׁאָ֤ר יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וּפְלֵיטַ֣ת
    NAS: Now in that day the remnant of Israel,
    KJV: And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the remnant of Israel,
    INT: again again the remnant of Israel who

    Isaiah 10:21
    HEB: שְׁאָ֥ר יָשׁ֖וּב שְׁאָ֣ר
    NAS: A remnant will return, the remnant
    KJV: The remnant shall return,
    INT: A remnant will return the remnant

    Isaiah 10:21
    HEB: שְׁאָ֥ר יָשׁ֖וּב שְׁאָ֣ר יַעֲקֹ֑ב אֶל־
    NAS: will return, the remnant of Jacob,
    KJV: shall return, [even] the remnant of Jacob,
    INT: A remnant will return the remnant of Jacob about

    Isaiah 10:22
    HEB: כְּח֣וֹל הַיָּ֔ם שְׁאָ֖ר יָשׁ֣וּב בּ֑וֹ
    NAS: of the sea, [Only] a remnant within them will return;
    KJV: of the sea, [yet] a remnant of them shall return:
    INT: the sand of the sea a remnant will return A destruction


    Isaiah 11:11
    HEB: לִקְנ֖וֹת אֶת־ שְׁאָ֣ר עַמּ֑וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר
    NAS: with His hand The remnant of His people,
    KJV: to recover the remnant of his people,
    INT: his hand recover the remnant of his people who

    Zephaniah 1:4
    HEB: הַזֶּה֙ אֶת־ שְׁאָ֣ר הַבַּ֔עַל אֶת־
    NAS: And I will cut off the remnant of Baal
    KJV: and I will cut off the remnant of Baal
    INT: place this the remnant of Baal the names

    ______________________________________________________________

    שְׁאָר noun masculine Isaiah 16:14 rest, residue, remnant ( = יֶתֶר, especially Isaiah and late; on form Köii. 1, 141 NöBeitr. r. Semitic W. 30); — ׳שׁ absolute Isaiah 14:22 +, construct Isaiah 10:19 +; — rest, residue, remainder, of trees Isaiah 10:19, silver 2Chronicles 24:14, city 1 Chronicles 11:8, territory Esther 9:12; דִּבְרֵי שְׁלֹמהֹ ׳שׁ2Chronicles 9:29 (יֶתֶר in "" 1 Kings 11:41, and usually in like phrase); of men 1 Chronicles 16:41; Ezra 3:8; Ezra 4:3,7; Nehemiah 10:29; Nehemiah 11:1,20; Esther 9:16; of Moab Isaiah 16:14, Aram Isaiah 17:3 ( = last remnant), archers of Kedar Isaiah 21:17; "" posterity, וָנֶכֶד Isaiah 14:22 (of Babylon); הַבַּעַל ׳שׁ Zephaniah 1:4, i. e. Baal, to the last remnant, vestige (soWe and others; ᵐ5 שֵׁם, compare Schw Now GASm); technical term = purified remnant of Israel (GieBeiträge 37 f.) Isaiah 10:20 ("" מְּלֵיטָה), Isaiah 10:21; Isaiah 10:21; Isaiah 10:22; Isaiah 11:11,16; Isaiah 28:5. — רוּחַ לוֺ ׳וּשׁ Malachi 2:15 is obscure; read לָנוּ ׳וַיַּשְׁאֵר ר

    We Now, compare GASm.
    שְׁאָר noun masculineEzra 7:20 rest, remainder (see Biblical Hebrew I. שׁאר; Egyptian Aramaic noun שאר Cooke203, verb ישתאר be left (outstanding) Cooke404 = S-CL 9, Christian-Palestinian Aramaic [​IMG]); — ׳שׁ absolute Ezra 4:10 +, construct Ezra 4:9 +; emphatic שְׁאָרָא Daniel 7:7,19; — of a thing, remainder Ezra 7:18,20; of cities Ezra 4:10,17; of persons Ezra 4:9; Ezra 4:10; Ezra 4:17; Ezra 6:16>; Daniel 2:18, of beasts Daniel 7:7,12,19.

    It is the Hebrew word giving Isaiah 10:22 meaning.
     
  18. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,668
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I hope you are planning on finishing this discussion. That is only proper since you have said I was in error.
     
  19. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,199
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    It is like you just want to argue and you are doing it from a copy and paste what others think position. I gave you the definition of remnant in English, Greek and Hebrew. Ever sew? Crochet? Buy carpet? Go to the store and find a brand new 100 yard roll and buy 1 yard... leaving 99 yards. The 99 yards is the remnant... that which is left over.
     
  20. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,668
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Why haven't these 500 million people, the one's you call the 'remnant' not returned to Israel then?

    Where are they? Not following God I imagine.
     
Loading...