Priests

[ananda]

Were there any prescribed sin offerings for ordinary (not High) priests in Torah?

 

[Lulav]

Are you speaking of the Levites not of Aaron's line?

 

[ananda]

Are you speaking of the Levites not of Aaron's line?

No ... I'm thinking of the actual Aaronic/Zadokian priests.

 

[Lulav]

This may help you.

The sin-offering proper is a sacrifice consisting of either a beast or a fowl and offered on the altar to atone for a sin committed unwittingly. The rules concerning the sin-offering are as follows:

If the anointed priest or the whole congregation commits a sin through ignorance, the sin-offering is a young bullock without blemish.
Should the ruler so sin, his offering is a male kid without blemish.

But when a private individual sins, his offering must be either a female kid or a female lamb without blemish, or, if he is too poor to provide one of these, a turtle-dove.

Sin Offering JE

 

[ananda]

Was the "anointed priest" the High Priest?

 

[Lulav]

Was the "anointed priest" the High Priest?

Hmm, not sure, these are the 4 classifications for a sin offering

(a) priest (Leviticus 4:3)........ If the priest that is anointed 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 L-RD for a sin offering.

(b) whole congregation (Leviticus 4:13)...... And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance , and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the L-RD concerning things which should not be done , and are guilty........

(c) a ruler (Leviticus 4:22). ..... When a ruler hath sinned , and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the L-RD his God concerning things which should not be done , and is guilty......

(d) common people (Leviticus 4:27)...... And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the L-RD concerning things which ought not to be done , and be guilty......


The 3rd one, 'ruler' is also called 'prince' or 'Nasi' which is like the president, that kind of ruler. It could be said of Moses. So the Levites would have to fall under A or B I would think.
http://preachersfiles.com/levitical-offerings-types-of-christ/#sthash.qryV5SeZ.dpuf

 

[Thomas L Cossette]

Hello Lulav

If they could not afford two doves or pigeons a tenth ephah of fine flour could be offered. Lev.5:11 So much for the erroneous statement without the shedding of blood there is no forgiven of sin.

 

[Lulav]

Hello Lulav

If they could not afford two doves or pigeons a tenth ephah of fine flour could be offered. Lev.5:11 So much for the erroneous statement without the shedding of blood there is no forgiven of sin.

Right, on both counts.

 

[ananda]

Thanks everyone.

I read Lev 4, and apparently, to many commentators, Lev 4:3 is referring to the High Priest ("priest that is anointed"). If that is so, there is no section in Lev 4 that specifically refers to non-High (ordinary) priests.

And ... if that is the case ... it made me start wondering as to what those implications were for the priesthood of all faithful believers today.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Yes the Aaronite regular priests (non-high priests) did perform sacrifices.

(There are no "Levite priests" you could say. The Aaronites were the priests and from them came also the high priest.)

 

[Lulav]

Thanks everyone.

I read Lev 4, and apparently, to many commentators, Lev 4:3 is referring to the High Priest ("priest that is anointed"). If that is so, there is no section in Lev 4 that specifically refers to non-High (ordinary) priests.

And ... if that is the case ... it made me start wondering as to what those implications were for the priesthood of all faithful believers today.

I should think they would have to fall into one of those 4. In the case of the Priest vs the ruler, I think the high Priest was considered the ruler before they wanted a human king. The reason I say that is because the High Priest represented all the people and was the mediator between them and G-d. So if the Priest are 'A' then the High Priest could legitimately be 'B'.

 

[Thomas L Cossette]

I agree the high priest was the ruler to him the judges answered and the people to the judges.

 

[Yahudim]

I'd give you a one and one. You are correct in the first statement. However, the Temple system of sacrifice never conveyed full pardon, only a temporary covering. I wasn't until all power and authority was conferred on His Anointed that sins could be permanently forgiven. Otherwise, there would be no need of a Messiah. I mean, why was He the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world?

Hello Lulav

If they could not afford two doves or pigeons a tenth ephah of fine flour could be offered. Lev.5:11 So much for the erroneous statement without the shedding of blood there is no forgiven of sin.

 

[Thomas L Cossette]

tamlidim

Lets begin with your statement actually a quote; about the lamb slain before the foundations of the world. The only time blood is absolutely require is in the case of murder and that is to cleanse the land. Not it forgive sin. Jonathan Maccabee murdered the High Priest (Onias IV) and took his office for himself that is what the Lamb being slain is about, that Lamb redeemed the office of the High Priest that is why he is the redeemer. There is no sacrifice that can be made for first degree murder...read your Torah. So that is why he was slain not to forgive sin, but to redeem the office and know he is that high priest. Now the Power to Judge and or forgive is His and he will as the Torah that he gave to Moses says. Their will be no interpretation lost. for it is his administrated by Him.

Secondly The idea of sin only covering temporarily as an annual was invented by the Pharisees. Every year new sins were made so another sacrifice was needed for forgiveness of those sins... once forgiven they are forgiven ... Read your Torah.

Let every word be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses see if you can find this temporary stuff any where in the Torah or the Prophets.

Look at Heb.10:5,6,7 and look at what it was quoting Ps.40:6-7 anyone that can so badly misquote scripture by deleting then adding will be judged and I would not want you to follow that path. Josephus also wrote the book of Hebrews. You might want to read Jeremiah 31:31 again, but don't stop reading there read it till that prophecy is completed and you will see the Leviticus priesthood will never not be. the Sun and Moon will cease before a Son of Aaron stops ministering before me.... Ah I have him now you saying.....I tell you the truth, even as Samuel replaced Eli through adoption and was high priest to anoint David king, even so Joseph an Essene of the house of Zadock took Yeshua as his son. Thus making him of the root of David through his mother (root means by the umbilical cord) and Levite as Judges chapter 19 says.
Thus fulfilling both requirements to be Messiah according to the Law and the Prophets.

 

[Thomas L Cossette]

tamlidim

Lets begin with your statement actually a quote; about the lamb slain before the foundations of the world. The only time blood is absolutely require is in the case of murder and that is to cleanse the land. Not it forgive sin. Jonathan Maccabee murdered the High Priest (Onias IV) and took his office for himself that is what the Lamb being slain is about, that Lamb redeemed the office of the High Priest that is why he is the redeemer. There is no sacrifice that can be made for first degree murder...read your Torah. So that is why he was slain not to forgive sin, but to redeem the office and now he is that high priest. Now the Power to Judge and or forgive is His and he will as the Torah that he gave to Moses says. Their will be no interpretation lost. for it is his administrated by Him.

Secondly The idea of sin only covering temporarily as an annual was invented by the Pharisees. Every year new sins were made so another sacrifice was needed for forgiveness of those sins... once forgiven they are forgiven ... Read your Torah.

Let every word be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses, see if you can find this temporary stuff any where in the Torah or the Prophets.

Look at Heb.10:5,6,7 and look at what it was quoting Ps.40:6-7 anyone that can so badly misquote scripture by deleting then adding will be judged, and I would not want you to follow that path. Josephus also wrote the book of Hebrews. You might want to read Jeremiah 31:31 again, but don't stop reading there read it till that prophecy is completed and you will see the Leviticus priesthood will never not be. the Sun and Moon will cease before a Son of Aaron stops ministering before me.... Ah I have him now, you saying.....I tell you the truth, even as Samuel replaced Eli through adoption and was high priest to anoint David king, even so Joseph an Essene of the house of Zadock took Yeshua as his son. Thus making him of the root of David through his mother (root means by the umbilical cord) and Levite through his adoption by Joseph, as Judges chapter 19 says.
Thus fulfilling both requirements to be Messiah according to the Law and the Prophets.

 

[Yahudim]

My Dear Brother Thomas,

The name is Phillip. My account name is talmidim. It is a Hebrew word. Properly I would be a talmid; a student or a disciple. When I signed up in 2004, the name talmid was taken, so I chose the plural form as a 'tip of the hat' to all my brothers and sister that are His followers. I have no idea what tamlidim means, but I presume you were addressing me.

Yes I quoted scripture. No one I know would miss the point that it a scriptural quote. But thanks for pointing that out to me, the person quoting scripture.

You state your suppositions as if they were a foregone conclusion, but you do little to validate the conclusions you draw or the factual or historical claims you make. Perhaps it is the medium. A forum requires that proofs be spelled out and properly ordered, otherwise they just sound empty, like so many false promises.

I've been here a long time. So have many other members. We have seen many people come and make many claims regarding scripture, doctrine, history and the like. Some of them have well researched alternatives to established doctrine; things that are worthy of our time and efforts. But most have not done their homework and present poorly arrived at suppositions. You tell us fantastical conclusions, stated as facts; like Luke's supposed relation to Theophilus and Josephus or Joseph's relationship to the Essenes. But in the end, you give us very little to go on.

Please understand, I am not saying that you are wrong and I am right. But you are so certain of your position. You write with such conviction. So I have to ask, did you just wake up one day and know all this stuff to be true? Perhaps it took a few minutes or hours or days or years for you to make all of the connections you now hold as valid and true. So what makes you think that a single post and the admonishment to 'read your Torah' (as if I didn't) is going to convince me of anything? You are going to have to lay out your proofs and connect the dots to your conclusions before anyone but the conspiracy theorists are going to take you seriously.

It would be much easier if you had come and said, I believe this and this is why. But instead, you come stating your conclusions as facts and implying that we are both unread and beneath you. Not going to get far like that. But I wish you well.

In His Love,
Phillip

 

[Thomas L Cossette]

Philip

When I said "read your Torah" I was specifically talking of; their is no sacrifice that can be made for first degree murder.

Yeshua said he that believes in me as the Law and the prophets wrote out of their bellies will flow rivers of living water. Since this is what he said this is what I do. And have done so for the last 14 or so year. Compiled with that; that even the Matthew genealogy is in question as many of the so called Hebrew Matthew's do not have his genealogy in them, that brings in to question why... so instead of building on tradition.... build doctrine on compiled evidence in the oldest version of Matthew, Yeshua never said "this is the blood of the New testament". what he said according to all pre 325 A.D. versions was "this is the blood of the covenant." That is a game changer in perception when one deliberates its impact.

William Comfort and David Barrett have compiled a book titled, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts. you will need a Greek interlinear to reference it. but you may find it worth your while. Most of the text in that book come from Oxyrhynhus Egypt it is dated circa 250 A.D. non gnostic. It is the oldest know copy of Matthew and it reads different. than the standard Matthew most transliterate from.

In this oldest version Mary is not mentioned in verse 16, what happens when Mary is added as newer versions do it changes the meaning of the word (aner) to (Husband), with Mary not being in the text as the oldest version (aner) means man.

So the way the oldest translation reads is as follows; And Jacob begat Joseph the man to whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. this also is a game changer.

Since a child can not be born to a man only a woman this would mean that this Joseph is Mary's father not her husband. And she like wise marries a man name Joseph who brings her and the child to Egypt.

Thus bringing us to verse 15 of chapter 2 This is an Essene prophecy referring to the line of Onias being called out of Egypt to Qumran. the Jonathan, Onias events are strikingly similar to the Herod Joseph/Jesus events. that is undeniable to anyone that does the research.

Using a ponderous of evidence the fact that the Essene inhabited regions is where Yeshua recruits his disciples and where his ministry begins. Add to that ponderous of evidence nearly every scholar now concedes John the Baptist was an Essene and baptized at the nearest fresh running water to the Qumran community. the conclusion is clear Yeshua was an Essene. Add to that ponderous of evidence whenever the authorities in Jerusalem were as the saying goes "hot on his tail" it is in Essene inhabited areas Yeshua retreats to for sanctuary. Nazareth was an Essene community The Essenes were hated by both the Pharisees and Sadducees thus the statement "can anything good come out of Nazareth." Add to that the close customs, and lexicon Yehsua uses are Essene leads the ponderous of evidence Yeshua was raised Essene since Joseph picked a Essene town to raise him in.

So Philip when you do....., do your home work, what I say is not so fantastical.

We can get into Josephus Luke Acts and Hebrews another time and soon this post has enough in its own right. But suffice to say. "In Sundried times" as found in the opening statement in Hebrews is lifted directly from Josephus work Antiquities. (just another of the many strange coincidence that always link up. Again no one but the Pharisees believed in temporary forgiveness of sin. I would tell you to search the scriptures... but I don't want to offend you, that was not my intention. I don't play games about the things of Yahweh God these I sanctify as holy.

 

[Yahudim]

Thank you Thomas. At long last, you have provided enough information to START investigating your assertions. For this I an grateful. If I have learned anything, it is not to shut my mind or heart to new things. Torah, the rest of scripture, and scriptural history is too deep and complex for that.

Expect it to take some time for me to reply in depth. However, you may expect questions sooner rather than later. Shavua tov!

 

[sevengreenbeans]

Yes the Aaronite regular priests (non-high priests) did perform sacrifices.

(There are no "Levite priests" you could say. The Aaronites were the priests and from them came also the high priest.)

According to the Torah, after leaving Egypt, this is the description:

Levites = Merarites, Gershonites, and Kohathites, all of whom have duties, specific to their clan, to carry out regarding the Tabernacle.

High Priest = Aaron, an individual chosen from out of the Kohathite family, whose direct descendants are in line for the office of the High Priest, according to birth, oldest male in the lineage serves after the death of the High Priest.

Leader = Moses (Kohath/Levi) and Joshua (Ephraim/Joseph)

 

[Hoshiyya]

According to the Torah, after leaving Egypt, this is the description:

Levites = Merarites, Gershonites, and Kohathites, all of whom have duties, specific to their clan, to carry out regarding the Tabernacle.

High Priest = Aaron, an individual chosen from out of the Kohathite family, whose direct descendants are in line for the office of the High Priest, according to birth, oldest male in the lineage serves after the death of the High Priest.

Yes, the Levites were not priests. The Aaronites were priests, such as Nadab and Abihu (who were eventually killed due to offering unclean fire) and Ithamar etc and from the Aaronites came also the High Priests.
The regular Levites did non-priestly things.

The interrelation of priesthood to Moses' leadership, the Sanhedrin/70 elders, the eventual Davidic kingdom, the Shoftim, and so on, is beyond the scope of mine or anyone's ability to delineate here, but suffice to say the high priest had essentially no political power until the time of the Maccabees or so.