Patching the Israel-flaw in Covenant Theology

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
You don't find it conspicuously germane that Elijah never actually died? You should, because Jewish scholars do. ALL Jews, as far as I know, are awaiting the return of Elijah. The question is whether he is supposed to return in his original body or in a new one. If he returns in a new one, I think that would count as a bona fide reincarnation.

One of my personal theories is that John the Baptist's soul was an infinitesimally small piece of Elijah's soul. Naturally he would not, in ordinary conversations, identify himself as Elijah just as I would never claim that my name is Adam.

John came in the spirit of Elijah. He came in the manner and practice that Elijah practiced. Elijah baptized, spoke truth to power and caused Israel to repent.

John came back in that same manner. He was not Elijah re-incarnate. And guess what? When asked if he was Elijah? He answered no. And it is said that this answer was the truth.

(2) Jesus actually SAID - twice - that John was Elijah and I happen to believe Him (Mat 11:14; 17:13).

Notably, He prefaced it with, "If you are willing to accept it". As various commentators have pointed out, Jesus obviously anticipated an unwillingness to accept it. Why is this important?

Because it requires a mind that can understand the prophecy and knows the history of Elijah. A person who knew both would know that this was not a re-incarnation because God has never re-incarnated a person and never taught through his word that this was a practice of his.
Because if John were merely a TYPE of Elijah, no one would have difficulty accepting it!

Which is why so many Jews today are still waiting for Elijah? You are making no sense.
It is precisely because reincarnation is a doctrine difficult for many to accept that Jesus anticipated resistance to the idea - precisely what I've seen on this thread !!!

It isn't a doctrine.

(3) Resistant to reincarnation, the commentators claim that Elijah merely typified John even as David typified Christ, but this Davidic typing only strengthens my case since the NT does not identify Christ as David but, on the contrary, as the Son of David (Mat 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; 22:42; Mk 10:47-48; 12:35; Lk 1:32; 18:38-39; 20:41; Jn 7:42; Rom 1:3; 2Ti 2:8; Rev 5:5; 22:16).

The prophecies never said that the Messiah would be David himself, but of his seed. Cut it out already. If there were even the remotest possibility that the Davidic prophecies were talking about re-incarnation, Jesus smashed that idea himself.

"If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore."

Whereas John is never called "son of Elijah", on the contrary Christ actually twice called him Elijah.

Because he was the one who came in the spirit of Elijah. Not because he was actual Elijah.
 
Upvote 0

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,444
3,769
Eretz
✟317,123.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Part of your point? Then what is your point?

Read the thread. The law is God's mind and word. It existed before Sinai. Just because there is no Temple does not mean there is no law. If Yeshua did not preach and keep Torah, He would not be doing the Will of His Father.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
John came in the spirit of Elijah. He came in the manner and practice that Elijah practiced. Elijah baptized, spoke truth to power and caused Israel to repent..
You evidently must find the NT to be a very misleading document. Essentially it exhausts the limits of language to indicate that John was Elijah. What more can it do? Jesus said that John was Elijah. If He appeared to you right now, tapped you on the shoulder, and shouted, "As I SAID, John is Elijah!", you'd reply, "I don't believe it!".

This is because some readers have a tendency to shove their own doctrines down God's throat.
John came back in that same manner. He was not Elijah re-incarnate. And guess what? When asked if he was Elijah? He answered no. And it is said that this answer was the truth.
Irrelevant because already addressed. As I said, that would be the appropriate response. It's just like someone asking me, "Are you Adam or Eve?", to which my reply would be, "Neither. I'm JAL."
Because it requires a mind that can understand the prophecy and knows the history of Elijah. A person who knew both would know that this was not a re-incarnation because God has never re-incarnated a person and never taught through his word that this was a practice of his.
We've heard your bias - but let's recall that my arguments about Adam refute that nonsense. You'll have to show that the Fall can be made sense of without ourselves defined as reincarnations of Adam. And that cannot be done, as already demonstrated.

Which is why so many Jews today are still waiting for Elijah? You are making no sense.
The argument postulated a resistance to reincarnation as seen on this thread.YOU are making zero sense.

The prophecies never said that the Messiah would be David himself, but of his seed. Cut it out already. If there were even the remotest possibility that the Davidic prophecies were talking about re-incarnation, Jesus smashed that idea himself.
I think you completely missed the logic of argument. This makes at least twice in a row.

Because he was the one who came in the spirit of Elijah. Not because he was actual Elijah.
And for what purpose did Jesus call him Elijah? Just to mislead us? All He had to do was say, "John was a type or shadow of Elijah" (or vice versa). Instead He systematically misleads us? Tell you what. You can believe what you want. I'll believe what Jesus actually said.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
Again, Torah was still kept in Babylon, but not parts that required The Temple, that was my point. The Torah was not done away just because there was no Temple. There is no Temple today, yet some Torah can still be kept. Also, the Cohen modal haplotype can be found in current Jewish lineages so Levites know who they are.


You seem to have read little about the law. While in Babylon, they still were able to know who was allowed to offer the sacrifices. They offered the sacrifices. Today, not only is the law of Moses still no longer in effect, they couldn't obey it if they wanted to. It requires high priests who are sons of Aaron and sons of Levi who are allowed to handle the priestly duties.

The old law is impossible to obey today.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
And for what purpose did Jesus call him Elijah? Just to mislead us? All He had to do was say, "John was a type or shadow of Elijah" (or vice versa). Instead He systematically misleads us? Tell you what. You can believe what you want. I'll believe what Jesus actually said.

Only you are misled and you've done that to yourself by putting your pretext into the text. Jesus was letting his disciples know that the prophecy was fulfilled. And he made it clear that the prophecy was figurative when he added "if you can accept it." As in, if you can understand that it wasn't talking about literal Elijah coming back as a re-incarnated being.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Only you are misled and you've done that to yourself by putting your pretext into the text. Jesus was letting his disciples know that the prophecy was fulfilled. And he made it clear that the prophecy was figurative when he added "if you can accept it." As in, if you can understand that it wasn't talking about literal Elijah coming back as a re-incarnated being.
You could make that claim if Jesus had merely said, "John is the fullfillment of the prophecy".

But He didn't do that. He went further. He identified John AS Elijah. Just to mislead us? Sorry, I happen to believe what He said. You can believe whatever you want.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
You could make that claim if Jesus had merely said, "John is the fullfillment of the prophecy".

But He didn't do that. He went further. He identified John AS Elijah. Just to mislead us? Sorry, I happen to believe what He said. You can believe whatever you want.

You are limiting God to only speak in ways that you can accept or else you won't believe it. Jesus there admits that what he's telling them might be hard to understand. You reject thinking for yourself and want God to explicitly explain everything. And then you also claim that you are the first in 2000 years to actually understand the scriptures. Aren't you amazing?
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You are limiting God to only speak in ways that you can accept or else you won't believe it. Jesus there admits that what he's telling them might be hard to understand. You reject thinking for yourself and want God to explicitly explain everything. And then you also claim that you are the first in 2000 years to actually understand the scriptures. Aren't you amazing?
A type or a figure is not hard to understand. Reincarnation is hard to understand because it raises all kinds of doubts and questions about the persistence of identity. Hence Christ's anticipation of resistance, "If you are willing to accept it..."
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
A type or a figure is not hard to understand. Reincarnation is hard to understand because it raises all kinds of doubts and questions about the persistence of identity. Hence Christ's anticipation of resistance, "If you are willing to accept it..."


If reincarnation was something taught in the scriptures, then it would be easy to accept that John was Elijah. Your understanding is in error.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If reincarnation was something taught in the scriptures, then it would be easy to accept that John was Elijah. Your understanding is in error.
That's funny. Nicodemus found it hard to accept that a man must be born again - and yet Jesus affirmed it was implied in the Scriptures!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
That's funny. Nicodemus found it hard to accept that a man must be born again - and yet Jesus affirmed it was implied in the Scriptures!

Which has absolutely nothing to do with reincarnation. And at least Nicodemus was asking the obvious questions which you fail to do.
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?

My version of Covenant Theology accepts no distinctions between OT and NT saints. Thus:
(1) OT and NT saints are all saved under the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal 3).
To make sure I am understanding you better I much to ask you
1. Who are the saints in your theology?
2. Do you acknowledge the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision in the foreskin of the flesh ?
(2) Justification, regeneration, sanctification, and (charismatic) power-in-mission are the same for OT and NT saints.
Until I can know for certain whom you are speaking of as saints it is hard to say much here. I can only ask if think the priests were saints? So not all justification, sanctification are the same, if that be the case.
De 33:8 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;

But let's be honest. Paul's discussion of Israel in Romans 11 is a bit of a bump in the road for Covenant Theology. Given that justification by faith is the only way of salvation, how can Paul claim that:

"And so all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26).
I think Paul is speaking in terms of the salvation we have in the resurrection to eternal life. The salvation in the Gospel to the Jew's was salvation from the curse of those judged by the law, and the coming wrath. John preached an escape from.
This is a problem because Jews are daily dying and going to hell, having not been justified by faith.
This is why I asked you concerning the Abrahamic covenant and being circumcised in the foreskin of the flesh. Jews for the past two thousand years have faithfully kept that covenant.
And yet Paul even refers to the whole nation of Israel as the elect of God (verse 28) !!!!
The Children of promise (heirs) are all with an oath.
Ge 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: Yes, it is without repentance

Heb 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

Same with the priesthood made with an oath
Ps 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Covenant Theology claims to resolve this apparent contradiction by classifying the church as "spiritual Israel". Yet the bump in the road remains, because Romans 11 is clearly speaking nationalistically, not "spiritually". Again, this is what Paul said:
It is speaking of heirs to the promises by an oath.

Holy, Priesthood...
Heb 7:20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
Heb 7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec[/quote]
"And so all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26).
Ga 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
It's a pretty torturous exegesis that reads the Israel of that verse as the church (spiritual Israel). In my next post, I will provide a solution. I will describe a world view that allows for a literal reading of Paul's words.
The whole reason the priesthood can change is because it was a priesthood apart from an oath. Therefore
Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment , but after the power of an endless life.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

And why is it that God is to keep what he says to the inheritance to the Israelites, but the priestly inheritance can easily be dismissed by you?
Jos 18:7 But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the LORD is their inheritance: and Gad, and Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh, have received their inheritance beyond Jordan on the east, which Moses the servant of the LORD gave them.

De 18:2 Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them.
Nu 18:20 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel.

Jos 18:7 But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the LORD is their inheritance: and Gad, and Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh, have received their inheritance beyond Jordan on the east, which Moses the servant of the LORD gave them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
To make sure I am understanding you better I much to ask you
1. Who are the saints in your theology?
2. Do you acknowledge the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision in the foreskin of the flesh ?
I'm a little busy right now. In terms of salvation, I hold basically to Protestant justification by faith alone. And I'm generally in agreement with Covenant Theology (although I repudiate the attempt to make distinctions between OT and NT saints).

Saving faith comes (and remains) by hearing/believing the divine Word (Rom 10:17), which is the voice of God, for "My sheep hear my voice". This is formally known as the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit.

Does that help?
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
I'm a little busy right now. In terms of salvation, I hold basically to Protestant justification by faith alone. And I'm generally in agreement with Covenant Theology (although I repudiate the attempt to make distinctions between OT and NT saints).

Saving faith comes (and remains) by hearing/believing the divine Word (Rom 10:17), which is the voice of God, for "My sheep hear my voice". This is formally known as the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit.

Does that help?
Well no not in the questions I asked for. But to be fair I edited to ask more though. Basically I asked concerning the entire tribe of Levi and their inheritance. It seems Judaism thinks it ok they have it no more, yet they had no inheritance with Israel. Leaving them no inheritance at all. *In this I think a replacement theology exists in rabbinic Judaism
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well no not in the questions I asked for. But to be fair I edited to ask more though. Basically I asked concerning the entire tribe of Levi and their inheritance. It seems Judaism thinks it ok they have it no more, yet they had no inheritance with Israel. Leaving them no inheritance at all. *In this I think a replacement theology exists in rabbinic Judaism
I'm still in a rush, took a quick look, maybe I'm beginning to understand you.

In my comments on covenant, for example post 118, I claim that there is only one Promise/Covenant ultimately, which entails salvation by faith alone. But God can create any number of promises/covenants to manifest and administer that one Promise/Covenant, as long as they don't alter it any form or fashion (as Paul discusses in Galatians 3).

Do you acknowledge the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision in the foreskin of the flesh ?
No. The Abrahamic covenant is that one Covenant of Grace. Circumcision of the flesh is one of those administrative covenants.

Look, the Voice has to give us something to obey as a test of our obedience. Many of the covenants - or least some of their regulations - served that purpose. But even if men disobeyed these regulations, they would still go to heaven, if they had saving faith.

Israel was God's elect (those of the Exodus). Hence the ORIGINAL set of Levites will likely all be saved eventually (if not already) - via reincarnation if needed - by saving faith. All remaining Levites who never believed (i.e. never really met the Lord/Voice) stand condemned.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Israel was God's elect (those of the Exodus).
Nu 16:5 And he spake unto Korah and unto all his company, saying, Even to morrow the LORD will shew who are his, and who is holy; and will cause him to come near unto him: even him whom he hath chosen will he cause to come near unto him.
Hence the ORIGINAL set of Levites will likely all be saved eventually (if not already) - via reincarnation if needed
Two incarnations of Levi?
Heb 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

The one seed which is Christ.
Sinai covenant
The high priest

04899 משׁיח mashiyach maw-shee’-akh
from 04886, Greek 3323 Μεσσιας; n m; [BDB-603b] {See TWOT on 1255 @@ "1255c"}
AV-anointed 37, Messiah 2; 39
1) anointed, anointed one
1a) of the Messiah, Messianic prince
1b) of the king of Israel
1c) of the high priest of Israel
1d) of Cyrus
1e) of the patriarchs as anointed kings

Le 4:3 If the priest that is anointed <04899> do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.
Le 4:5 And the priest that is anointed <04899> shall take of the bullock’s blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation:
Le 4:16 And the priest that is anointed <04899> shall bring of the bullock’s blood to the tabernacle of the congregation:
Le 6:22 And the priest of his sons that is anointed <04899> in his stead shall offer it: it is a statute for ever unto the LORD; it shall be wholly burnt.




 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
To make sure I am understanding you better I much to ask you
1. Who are the saints in your theology?
2. Do you acknowledge the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision in the foreskin of the flesh ?

Until I can know for certain whom you are speaking of as saints it is hard to say much here. I can only ask if think the priests were saints? So not all justification, sanctification are the same, if that be the case.
De 33:8 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;


I think Paul is speaking in terms of the salvation we have in the resurrection to eternal life. The salvation in the Gospel to the Jew's was salvation from the curse of those judged by the law, and the coming wrath. John preached an escape from.

This is why I asked you concerning the Abrahamic covenant and being circumcised in the foreskin of the flesh. Jews for the past two thousand years have faithfully kept that covenant.

The Children of promise (heirs) are all with an oath.
Ge 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: Yes, it is without repentance

Heb 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

Same with the priesthood made with an oath
Ps 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.


It is speaking of heirs to the promises by an oath.

Holy, Priesthood...
Heb 7:20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
Heb 7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

Ga 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The whole reason the priesthood can change is because it was a priesthood apart from an oath. Therefore
Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment , but after the power of an endless life.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

And why is it that God is to keep what he says to the inheritance to the Israelites, but the priestly inheritance can easily be dismissed by you?
Jos 18:7 But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the LORD is their inheritance: and Gad, and Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh, have received their inheritance beyond Jordan on the east, which Moses the servant of the LORD gave them.

De 18:2 Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them.
Nu 18:20 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel.

Jos 18:7 But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the LORD is their inheritance: and Gad, and Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh, have received their inheritance beyond Jordan on the east, which Moses the servant of the LORD gave them.
I'd recommend T.E McComiskey's book: "The Covenants of Promise". That book basically shaped my understanding of the covenants - until then I didn't have any idea how the multiple covenants related to the one Covenant of Grace.

The one Promise/Covenant signifies EVERYTHING granted to us, all possible blessings available to us in this life and the next. THAT is the (Abrahamic) inheritance but it can be summarized as God/Christ Himself because He Himself is the primary blessing given to us AND the Provider of all concomitant blessings.

Those blessing are to be:
(1) Unconditionally enjoyed in the next world.
(2) Largely conditioned upon obedience, in this life.

Christ owns everything, for example the land of Canaan, and hence could proffer it to Israel as one of His promises/covenants - conditional upon obedience. There is also a heavenly Canaan of the next life, which is the more permanent Promised Land.

Conditioned upon obedience doesn't necessarily mean Israel had to obey the law perfectly. Basically God offered Canaan to them because during revivals He is especially bountiful - the Mosaic era and the apostolic era where history's two greatest revivals. Israel didn't have to obey the law perfectly - rather just enough to avoid angering Him so much as to throw them out of the land. Obedience is easier in revival due to the outpourings, hence God doesn't much tolerate disobedience. That's why it was easy to get stoned in those days. Same reason why Ananias and Saphira got struck dead. It's all the same.

Anyway there was an earthly priesthood, but it was a SHADOW (not really a foreshadow) of the spiritual priesthood. Both were in effect at the same time. Just as both earthly circumcision and spiritual circumcision were in effect at the same time.

Not sure if this helps.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Two incarnations of Levi?
No not a second levitical priesthood. Remember I said that any of us Christians might happen to be one of those original Israelites, even though we don't remember living in the days of Moses.
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
No not a second levitical priesthood. Remember I said that any of us Christians might happen to be one of those original Israelites, even though we don't remember living in the days of Moses.
What I am saying is Levi was already in the loins of Abraham when Melchizedek met him. So Levi obviously was born (incarnated) once.....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What I am saying is Levi was already in the loins of Abraham when Melchizedek met him. So Levi obviously was born (incarnated) once.....
Personally I've never been clear on what Hebrews meant by that exactly.
 
Upvote 0