Priests

Thomas L Cossette said:

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.

Click to expand...

If a lower payment is accepted, this does not mean the higher debt is no longer required.

sevengreenbeans said:

David demanded the priest give him something to eat...whatever was under his hand, or anything else he had to eat.



Yeshua did say David sinned. He said it was unlawful for David to eat showbread which was meant instead for priests. There are some problems with this situation involving David.

Ahimelech was not the High Priest, but rather his father Abiathar. Dealing with the showbread was the job of the High Priest. Abiathar and Ahimelech were descendants of Eli. Eli was not eligible to be High Priest in the first place, according to the Torah. (Not during his lifetime, anyway. Ithamar's descendants have always been "eligible" for High Priest, but only after Eleazar's descendants had died out or after there were no more eligible males available from Eleazar's lineage. Eli would have been priest and servant to the descendants of Eleazar, Phinehas, Abishua, etc.) So, because it was the descendants of Eli handling the "showbread", the whole situation becomes questionable.




There are MANY instances in which David went against the Torah.




I believe the ephod of the High Priest was indeed made of all linen, since it is forbidden to mix wool and linen. This topic has already been exhausted elsewhere in MJ threads showing where words have been added to the text and don't exist in the original text, etc. Linen can be dyed. However, you are right, this ephod may not have been of the High Priest's garments. David was exposing himself in public. This is not holy.

2Samuel 6:20 Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself today in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!


I don't see where it was the L-RD who made Michal barren.


2Samuel 6:22 And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which you have spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.
23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

Click to expand...

Did all those who wandered in the wilderness eat manna or holy bread? Did only the priests eat manna?

mercy1061 said:

Did all those who wandered in the wilderness eat manna or holy bread? Did only the priests eat manna?

Click to expand...

Are you saying that manna and showbread are one and the same?

If so, why?

sevengreenbeans said:

Are you saying that manna and showbread are one and the same?

If so, why?

Click to expand...

If manna is holy bread, and any son of Abraham could eat it, what makes the showbread any different? The showbread was sacred or limited to the priest because the crowd rejected the manna in the wilderness. Of course some of that manna was preserved in the ark of the covenant by the priests. Many use this example to avoid obeying the law, they say "David disobeyed the law, it must be ok for me".

sevengreenbeans said:

It's my position that verses (like those you've quoted above from the book of Isaiah) are in direct opposition to the words spoken by the prophet Moshe. We are told in the Torah, that anyone bringing a message contrary to that spoken by Moses shall not be listened to, for he is a false prophet.

YHWH and Moses state in the Torah that no one can "become" a Levite.

Does YHWH contradict Himself?

Or is it fact that the Law shall not pass away as long as there is Heaven and Earth?

Click to expand...

The prophet Moses was never seen as the FINAL stop for where the Lord would develop things, as that'd be akin to saying he was greater than Abraham (or Noah prior to that) - as the Lord guiding the prophets for what was to come in the future at the Lord's command is not the same as saying God was ignoring Moses. It was the Lord who commanded and who has all ability to develop further as He sees fit - in the same way it was when seeing how things progressed from Seth to Noah to Abraham and all the way into Moses' day. The Lord never said that all forms of priests could only be found in the Levite model - nor was the Torah ever limited to that concept (as it was not just the first 5 books but also the entirety of God's work in his people) when seeing the Writings/Prophets in their actions. Thus, the real question isn't "Does YHWH contradict Himself?" but rather "Does one understand contradiction in the same manner that YHWH does or know the dynamic of Change he already made with regards to the Law?" -

This extends beyond what occurred in the OT....specifically when realizing that others greater than Moses would arise and Yeshua paralleled the life of Moses in many respects. For we understand that the purpose of Yeshua's life and work was to fulfill both the Law (the books of Moses) and the Prophets (other Old Testament books) - and He did not destroy the Old Testament. However, when the Lord said “I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets,” it's logically consistent with the culture of the OT that he did not mean that each specific law would stay exactly the same. Rather, he meant that the purpose and message of the Law and the Prophets remain exactly the same. ..for the Law and the Prophets pointed to him and were intended from the beginning to be fulfilled by him in every dynamic necessary. At the end of the day, it is Yeshua as the Son of God who has more authority than Moses had (Hebrews 3:1-6) - and Yeshua is the standard by which Moses is judged. Whereas Moses wrote many chapters about the tabernacle and the “place” in which God put his name, we see where Yeshua noted that place did not matter (John 4:20-24).

And we understand where Moses even prophesied that the Messiah would come - one with authority as He had it - as seen in Deuteronomy 18:15: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him." And we can also see the same promise in the Lord's Own words from Deuteronomy 18:18: "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.". This was fulfilled in the person of Yeshua. For when he performed the miracle of feeding the 5000 in John 6, the crowd said "Surely this the Prophet who is to come into the world" (John 6:14). Additionally, when he spoke to the multitiudes at the Feast of Tabernacles, some of the people exclaimed, "Surely this man is the Prophet" (John 7:40).. Moreover, when the Jews questioned the legitimacy of Christ, the Lord noted directly that they really did not understand Moses' words (as they continually accused him of breaking the Law or Sabbath - not knowing the difference between fulfilling something and "breaking" as they saw it), as seen when he said " 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”" (John 5:46).

As it concerns what the Prophet Isaiah noted in Isaiah 66:21

Isaiah 66:21

And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD.

Click to expand...

, Isaiah was not a false prophet for what he noted when it came to saying others would be made into Levites BY THe Lord's command. That would be akin to saying the Master of the house has no right to change his policy as he sees fit - and that's not what the Lord ever indicated he supported. Policy changing is not the same as policy passing away - it will always be in the memory of events on what occurred...and recorded for reference in showing how things built up. Nonetheless, the fact that it occurred isn't the same as saying that all practices would be exactly as it in the future - nor does it mean that differing practices are the same as saying that the Law is gone. The Lord would be perfectly within his rights to ensure that certain Gentiles be made into priests for spiritual worship, enjoying the direct access to God which was formerly enjoyed by the ministers of the temple alone ( 1 Peter 2:9 , Revelation 1:6 ).

I have a problem with the history of the LDS church because of this same reason. You see, their policies have changed, as well, according to each Prophet/President of the organization (whoever heads it up at the time). This "prophet" allegedly speaks for the Almighty on earth. It is amazing, when one studies the history of LDS, how far the L-rd has come. He's a progressive G-d. It's a good thing He's no longer racist, for example.

It is my personal opinion, however, that these "prophets" are speaking on behalf of their organization for the sole purpose of the survival of their organization.

My opinion of those Biblical "prophets", who change the commands of the Almighty, is that they are much like what I've described above.

sevengreenbeans said:

I have a problem with the history of the LDS church because of this same reason. You see, their policies have changed, as well, according to each Prophet/President of the organization (whoever heads it up at the time). This "prophet" allegedly speaks for the Almighty on earth. It is amazing, when one studies the history of LDS, how far the L-rd has come. He's a progressive G-d. It's a good thing He's no longer racist, for example.

It is my personal opinion, however, that these "prophets" are speaking on behalf of their organization for the sole purpose of the survival of their organization.

My opinion of those Biblical "prophets", who change the commands of the Almighty, is that they are much like what I've described above.

Click to expand...

LDS are on another level entirely, seeing that they didn't even start with Genesis the right way and assuming GOD was somehow always man in the beginning before evolving. Nonetheless, the level and way they go about changes is RADICALLY different from the ways that changes occurred within the Scriptures. To argue that all prophets leading to further developments (consistent with God's Character) within the OT are akin to Mormons would be the same as saying all of the OT is no different than Barbarian religions because of where God ordered Holy War on others. Birds have wings but that doesn't mean that all airplanes are birds because of similarity - and in the same way, there were changes within the OT and the NT but that does not mean it is equivalent to the massive changes in things like Mormonism.

Noah in no way was fully in agreement with the practices of Moses - nor did Moses fully go with all things the Patriarchs did in their era. There were differences - but to jump from there and say it's the same as all wild religions that take change without basis would not be dealing with the OT text on its own terms.