Jesus has broken the Sabbath

[Cornelius8L]

Wonder why it referenced Acts 27?

22 And now I exhort you to be of good cheer: for there shall be no loss of any man's life among you, but of the ship. 23 For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, 24 Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar:

Is that considered to be a prophecy? Didn't he request in Acts 25 to be taken to see him?

10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. 11 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.
12 Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go.


It think what we have there is God's purpose.

Many things happened in Acts 27 that can alter the outcome. God just reaffirmed the goal to Paul.

 

[Cornelius8L]

As I said before, Hebrews is describing the Earthly tabernacle. The one in Revelation makes it clear it is speaking of the one in heaven. There are two (possibly three if you count the one in Ethiopia that was made for king Solomon's and Queen of Sheba's son.) but anyway, there is a Heavenly one, which came first and an earthly one.
The heavenly ones contains the Covenant only
The earthly one contained the tablets, the pot of manna and Aaron's rod.

HOWEVER, after it came back in the time of David, from the Philistines taking it, it no longer contained the pot of manna or Aaron's rod. Also during Jeremiah's time it disappeared or was hidden so the Babylonians couldn't take it.
It was not in the temple during Jesus' time on earth.

Not sure how you came to this conclusion since you also say the earthly was made under God’s instruction as a copy of the heavenly. If it was by a man’s will to remove the manna and the rod in the ark (1 Kings 8:9), will the man’s will become the copy in heaven? And if they were removed, why don’t Hebrews 9:4 excludes them when explaining heavenly things?

Revelation 17:8
The beast that you saw--it was, and now is no more, but is about to come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. And those who dwell on the earth whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world will marvel when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet will be.

And the two witnesses who can breathe fire from their mouths?

As I said, the Righteous King Melki = King - Tzedek = righteous one or King of Righteousness.
I don't understand the connection between him being a priest and that meaning a replacement. '

It was not a replacement but a different means of operation.

Instead of being in the 'mind' it is being applied in the 'heart'.

Jesus, from the tribe of Judah (kings), inherit the priesthood (rightfully from the tribe of Levi). “Different means of operation” have changed the law because someone from the tribe of Judah cannot be a priest.

 

[Lulav]

That’s an adorable pic But it was not recorded that the blind has no eyes, these are speculation. It can be deformed eyeballs or something else. Either way, he still cannot see and was blind on his way to the pool. He cannot see Jesus when Jesus applied the mud is obvious.

Which he had been around probably all his adult life. He knew his way.

You can call it speculation but about 10 years ago this was something the LORD showed me and I just share it when I can.

 

[Lulav]

Not sure how you came to this conclusion since you also say the earthly was made under God’s instruction as a copy of the heavenly. If it was by a man’s will to remove the manna and the rod in the ark (1 Kings 8:9), will the man’s will become the copy in heaven? And if they were removed, why don’t Hebrews 9:4 excludes them when explaining heavenly things?

And the two witnesses who can breathe fire from their mouths?

Jesus, from the tribe of Judah (kings), inherit the priesthood (rightfully from the tribe of Levi). “Different means of operation” have changed the law because someone from the tribe of Judah cannot be a priest.

He actually was from both tribes, both Levi and Judah. His mother had two parents.

 

[Cornelius8L]

You can call it speculation but about 10 years ago this was something the LORD showed me and I just share it when I can.

Mind to explain further?

 

[Cornelius8L]

He actually was from both tribes, both Levi and Judah. His mother had two parents.

But all children of Israel retain the tribe of their fathers, not their mothers.

Hebrews 7:14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, a tribe as to which Moses said nothing about priests.​

Otherwise, Jesus' Genealogy has Rahab the Canaanite, and Ruth the Moabites. Is Jesus also Canaanite and Moabite?

 

[Lulav]

But all children of Israel retain the tribe of their fathers, not their mothers.

Hebrews 7:14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, a tribe as to which Moses said nothing about priests.​

Otherwise, Jesus' Genealogy has Rahab the Canaanite, and Ruth the Moabites. Is Jesus also Canaanite and Moabite?

Quite the conundrum, eh?
Yes in ancient Israel it was determined by the father but that has changed and today it is determined by the mother, a more 'accurate' way of knowing.

If one believes in the virgin birth then they also must believe that Jesus had a human mother only. However she would have DNA from both a Father and a Mother. They didn't have to be from the same Tribe.
We see in Luke that Elizabeth was a blood relative of Miriam. She was of the daughters of Aaron, so she was from the bloodline of the first High Priest, not just a Levi but a Kohen. This would mean that Miriam would also have been from the line of Aaron as well. So that serves for the Levitical line or Priestly line.

Now we don't know if it was her mother or father , but one of them was.

There's many other things in scripture that point to him sitting on David's throne and that he comes from the line of Judah so I won't go into that here.


So as you can see he would be as Melchizedek. Which means directly righteous King, but in Genesis we also read that he was a Priest of the most High God.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Quite the conundrum, eh?
Yes in ancient Israel it was determined by the father but that has changed and today it is determined by the mother, a more 'accurate' way of knowing.

If one believes in the virgin birth then they also must believe that Jesus had a human mother only. However she would have DNA from both a Father and a Mother. They didn't have to be from the same Tribe.
We see in Luke that Elizabeth was a blood relative of Miriam. She was of the daughters of Aaron, so she was from the bloodline of the first High Priest, not just a Levi but a Kohen. This would mean that Miriam would also have been from the line of Aaron as well. So that serves for the Levitical line or Priestly line.

Now we don't know if it was her mother or father , but one of them was.

There's many other things in scripture that point to him sitting on David's throne and that he comes from the line of Judah so I won't go into that here.


So as you can see he would be as Melchizedek. Which means directly righteous King, but in Genesis we also read that he was a Priest of the most High God.

Genealogies are not as important compared to before since Jesus ascended. Things changed.

1 Timothy 1:4 or devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work, which is by faith.​

​

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the law, because these things are pointless and worthless.​

So we take Mary as from the tribe of Judah before Christ came, else Hebrews 7:14 is meaningless.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Genealogies are not as important compared to before since Jesus ascended. Things changed.

1 Timothy 1:4 or devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work, which is by faith.​

​

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the law, because these things are pointless and worthless.​

So we take Mary as from the tribe of Judah before Christ came, else Hebrews 7:14 is meaningless.

View attachment 324629

Africanus' explanation was that both genealogies were Joseph's, but different due to levirate marriages.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Quite the conundrum, eh?
Yes in ancient Israel it was determined by the father but that has changed and today it is determined by the mother, a more 'accurate' way of knowing.

If one believes in the virgin birth then they also must believe that Jesus had a human mother only. However she would have DNA from both a Father and a Mother. They didn't have to be from the same Tribe.
We see in Luke that Elizabeth was a blood relative of Miriam. She was of the daughters of Aaron, so she was from the bloodline of the first High Priest, not just a Levi but a Kohen. This would mean that Miriam would also have been from the line of Aaron as well. So that serves for the Levitical line or Priestly line.

Now we don't know if it was her mother or father , but one of them was.

There's many other things in scripture that point to him sitting on David's throne and that he comes from the line of Judah so I won't go into that here.


So as you can see he would be as Melchizedek. Which means directly righteous King, but in Genesis we also read that he was a Priest of the most High God.

I think Melchizedek was a Jebusite priest-king of Jerusalem. Abraham was in "Shalem" (certainly Jerusalem). Before David conquered Jerusalem, it was Jebusite controlled. Melchizedek is a theophoric name (see the other theophoric name of "Adonizedek," another Jebusite ruler of Jerusalem in Josh 10).

The point of Hebrews is that Jesus is our High Priest. To affirm this, the author must explain how this is possible if he doesn't have Levite, Aaronic or Zadokite lineage. His solution is that there is another priesthood that belongs to the Messiah, and which David had assumed on his conquering of Jerusalem. Namely, he assumed this priesthood of the Jerbusite priest-kings of Jerusalem (that of Melchizedek and Adonizedek) that apparently worshiped Yahweh. In fact, we see David performing priestly functions immediately after conquering Jerusalem and moving the ark there (1 Sam 6:14-20). The author of Hebrews argument is pretty simple too - Abraham himself considered this priesthood legitimate as he offered sacrifices though it. Q.E.D.

 

[Lulav]

Genealogies are not as important compared to before since Jesus ascended. Things changed.

They are when they are teaching prophecy fulfillment.

View attachment 324629

Jehoiachin was cursed (Jer 36:30-32) So he and all those descended from him were as well. So the chart you provided for Joseph isn't valid. However the one for Mariam could be on her fathers side (Heli).

Notice also that there are two 'Levis' in Miriam's list.

 

[Lulav]

I think Melchizedek was a Jebusite priest-king of Jerusalem. Abraham was in "Shalem" (certainly Jerusalem). Before David conquered Jerusalem, it was Jebusite controlled. Melchizedek is a theophoric name (see the other theophoric name of "Adonizedek," another Jebusite ruler of Jerusalem in Josh 10).

The point of Hebrews is that Jesus is our High Priest. To affirm this, the author must explain how this is possible if he doesn't have Levite, Aaronic or Zadokite lineage. His solution is that there is another priesthood that belongs to the Messiah, and which David had assumed on his conquering of Jerusalem. Namely, he assumed this priesthood of the Jerbusite priest-kings of Jerusalem (that of Melchizedek and Adonizedek) that apparently worshiped Yahweh. In fact, we see David performing priestly functions immediately after conquering Jerusalem and moving the ark there (1 Sam 6:14-20).

So you are saying then that David was the first King-Priest?

The author of Hebrews argument is pretty simple too - Abraham himself considered this priesthood legitimate as he offered sacrifices though it. Q.E.D.

Sacrifices or Tithes?

 

[Hawkins]

You need to be familar with laws in order to understand.

When the courts or public have doubt about the context of a piece of law, a dedicated authority may be called to give an authenticated explanation on what this piece of law actually says. The OP assumes too fast that this authority is the Jews. This authority is not the Jews but Jesus Christ Himself. That's the actual meaning of Jesus being the Lord of Sabbath, from a legal/lawful point of view.

So if the Lord saves on Saturday, He's not breaking the law of Sabbath. That's the authenticated explanation of Law from the dedicated authority responsible for providing such an explanation.

 

[Leaf473]

You need to be familar with laws in order to understand.

When the courts or public have doubt about the context of a piece of law, a dedicated authority may be called to give an authenticated explanation on what this piece of law actually says. The OP assumes too fast that this authority is the Jews. This authority is not the Jews but Jesus Christ Himself. That's the actual meaning of Jesus being the Lord of Sabbath, from a legal/lawful point of view.

So if the Lord saves on Saturday, He's not breaking the law of Sabbath. That's the authenticated explanation of Law from the dedicated authority responsible for providing such an explanation.

I think that's a good explanation of Jesus being lord/master of the Sabbath.

And of course we, the church, are the body of Christ on Earth. And Jesus gave (to Peter at least) the authority of binding and loosing.

Peace be with you all

 

[Yekcidmij]

So you are saying then that David was the first King-Priest?

No. I'm saying it was normal in ancient near east.

Sacrifices or Tithes?

I think sacrifices are implied in the text as sacrifices go with priests, tithings and blessings in the ancient world (cf: Lev 27:30, Deut 12:6, Num 18:24-26), but it's beside the point I'm making. The text eplictly says Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God (Gen 14:18) and whether Abraham offered animals that were sacrificed or animals that were kept, the point is that both the text and Abraham considered Melchizedek as a legitimate priest (or he presumably wouldn't have tithed to him, accepted a priestly blessing from him, or sacrificed with him at all nor would the text have said he was a priest of the Most High God without further qualification).

The text presents Melchizedek was a legitimate priest and Abraham considers him as a legitimate priest. He was also the king of Salem (which I take to be Jerusalem). So, there existed some sort of legitimate priesthood that was not Levitical, Aaronic, or Zadokite. I think this particular priesthood is attached to the office of king (and maybe even more in particular the king ruling Jerusalem), just like it was for Melchizedek and David - so the king of Israel could serve some sort of priestly functions just as David was known to do. I think the author of Hebrews uses something like this sort of reasoning to explain how Jesus can be our High Priest though he wasn't a Levite.

 

[Cornelius8L]

They are when they are teaching prophecy fulfillment.

If so, how are you sure that you won’t be part of these?

1 Timothy 1:4 or devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work, which is by faith.​

​

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the law, because these things are pointless and worthless.​

Jehoiachin was cursed (Jer 36:30-32) So he and all those descended from him were as well. So the chart you provided for Joseph isn't valid. However the one for Mariam could be on her fathers side (Heli).

Jer 36:30-32 is David’s throne. “So if David calls Him ‘Lord,’ how can He be David’s son (Matthew 22:45)?” Jesus’ genealogy is direct from Matthew 1. So you are saying Matthew 1 is not valid?

Notice also that there are two 'Levis' in Miriam's list.

Jesus' father is called Joseph, does that mean Jesus belongs to Joseph’s tribe?

 

[Lulav]

If so, how are you sure that you won’t be part of these?

1 Timothy 1:4 or devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work, which is by faith.​

​

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the law, because these things are pointless and worthless.​

My name isn't Titus so this private letter to him doesn't really hold any weight on me.

Jer 36:30-32 is David’s throne. “So if David calls Him ‘Lord,’ how can He be David’s son (Matthew 22:45)?” Jesus’ genealogy is direct from Matthew 1. So you are saying Matthew 1 is not valid?

That is not what I said. I have done some deeper digging and found that Matthew 1 has not been translated properly for hundreds of years. You have to go to the Yom Tov Matthew. The book or Gospel of Matthew in it's original Hebrew.

The opening page to the Gospel of Matthew in original Hebrew. Circled above is the last name on the list, Yoseph abi Myriam -- Joseph, father of Miriam.

There when mentioning Joseph after Matthan and Jacob, that isn't Miriams husband, it is her father. The other genealogy in Luke is from Joseph, step father of Jesus.

So the Matthew genealogy is for Miriam's Judah line through her father. Her Zadokite line is a bit more hidden throughout scripture.

Jesus' father is called Joseph, does that mean Jesus belongs to Joseph’s tribe?

Yes, his adoptive earthly father, But that same man had a FIL by the name of Joseph.

 

[Leaf473]

I have done some deeper digging and found that Matthew 1 has not been translated properly for hundreds of years. You have to go to the Yom Tov Matthew. The book or Gospel of Matthew in it's original Hebrew.

I've heard of this, but I believe it is scholarly speculation. The weight of the evidence is that the book we call Matthew was originally written in Greek imo.

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Lulav]

I've heard of this, but I believe it is scholarly speculation. The weight of the evidence is that the book we call Matthew was originally written in Greek imo.

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Not scholarly or speculation.

According to Papias of Hierapolis (70-130 A.D.), the Gospel of Matthew was written in the Hebrew language and some Christians translated it into Greek, which was the lingua franca in those days, and perhaps other languages.​

Eusebius preserved the excerpt from Papias on the origins of the Gospel of Matthew in his writings:​

​

"Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each translated it as best he could." ​

If you want to learn more, check out this webpage, it goes into all the different problems regarding the genealogies of Messiah.

Why Are Jesus' Genealogies In Matthew And Luke Different?​

 

[Cornelius8L]

My name isn't Titus so this private letter to him doesn't really hold any weight on me.

I think Paul’s advice to Titus also applies to the rest of the Christians.

That is not what I said. I have done some deeper digging and found that Matthew 1 has not been translated properly for hundreds of years. You have to go to the Yom Tov Matthew. The book or Gospel of Matthew in it's original Hebrew.

The opening page to the Gospel of Matthew in original Hebrew. Circled above is the last name on the list, Yoseph abi Myriam -- Joseph, father of Miriam.

There when mentioning Joseph after Matthan and Jacob, that isn't Miriams husband, it is her father. The other genealogy in Luke is from Joseph, step father of Jesus.

So the Matthew genealogy is for Miriam's Judah line through her father. Her Zadokite line is a bit more hidden throughout scripture.

Yes, his adoptive earthly father, But that same man had a FIL by the name of Joseph.

Wow, thanks for your explanation. I think this can be an interesting new thread. Can you open a thread and let us know? Meanwhile, I will read up the link you provided