Why was the Priesthood Changed?

[ralliann]

I agree. And circumcision of the flesh was never about salvation of the soul. Doesn't mean it had never been commanded.
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Genesis 17:10-14

Has he called it unclean for me? No. I have eaten pork and I am perfectly healthy. It was never about health, but about seperation. It makes no sense that Paul preached to gentiles had been raised without the law, but never rebuked them about pork consumption (Paul was a Jew).

So you keep on insisting that God did not mean what He said in Genesis 9:3, but made a mistake? Fine. By the way, in Matthew 25:31-46, is Christ preaching to literal animals? Don't think so.

Yep,"as the green herb". When green herbs were given none were unclean, and were never made unclean under the law either. Clean and unclean were with regards to sacrifices at that time.

 

[LW97Nils]

Yep,"as the green herb". When green herbs were given none were unclean, and were never made unclean under the law either. Clean and unclean were with regards to sacrifices at that time.

Amen brother.

 

[Studyman]

I agree. And circumcision of the flesh was never about salvation of the soul. Doesn't mean it had never been commanded.
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Genesis 17:10-14

I was Circumcised as a baby. Paul said this was beneficial to me if I am lawful. But not if I am not lawful. Just as with Abraham in the verse you quoted. The Physical act was a sign of the Spiritual act. And it was important to God given how many times HE spoke of it in the Bible.

And Paul did say, "We are the circumcision". But you are using this scripture as justification for disobeying God's Laws. Rejecting many of His Judgments and Commandments. My point is that I don't believe God had this written so men could use it as an excuse to "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

God had a good reason for His Instruction. I advocate learning what that reason is, as opposed to simply rejecting them, or using popular religious theories about them as justification for disobedience.

Has he called it unclean for me?

Paul said it was written "for your sake no doubt". You may not believe him, or that the Holy scriptures are profitable to the Body of Christ, including both Jew and Gentile, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Scriptures are full of all those men who considered themselves God's Children but reject His instruction in righteousness. They fell in the wilderness. The Spirit of Christ inspired Paul to teach the Body of Christ, over 14 years after Jesus ascended, "Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted."

So you aren't the first to be convinced by another voice that God's Word is not for you. Eve was convinced of the same exact thing.

No. I have eaten pork and I am perfectly healthy. It was never about health, but about seperation.

Jesus said disobedience, disrespect and dishonor for God and His instructions, AKA "Sin", comes from within, nbot from without.

It makes no sense that Paul preached to gentiles had been raised without the law, but never rebuked them about pork consumption (Paul was a Jew).

If they were eating Pork or maggots or snails he would have told them to abstain. But they weren't. They were eating Blood and things strangled, which are also against the instructions of the same God.

Acts 15: 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: In your religion, this is the same God Caleb and Abraham and Rehab turned to, Yes?

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.


Paul told them to "Abstain" from this behavior. Why? Because eating Blood wasn't healthy? No! There is no evidence of that. It wasn't the Blood that defiled them, it was their lust to disobey, which comes from the heart, that Paul instructed them to "Rule over". Just as HE instructed Cain. So why did Paul teach Gentiles to "Abstain" from Blood?

Lev. 3: 16 And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savour: all the fat is the LORD'S. 17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

Lev. 7: 26 Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings. 27 Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

So it was about "Yielding themselves" servants to obey God, not transgression.

Rom. 6: 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

But not you right? You still haven't "yielded yourself" servant to God, and have not become a servant to God's Righteousness, but servants to your own judgments.

Of course, this verse can't be used to justify a popular religious lifestyle of "rejecting the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Nevertheless, Paul does teach against manmade religious traditions.

So you keep on insisting that God did not mean what He said in Genesis 9:3, but made a mistake? Fine.

No, that is your words not mine. Nice try there, but dishonesty is also against the Christ of the Bible's teaching. God didn't make a mistake and you can find no evidence anywhere in my posts suggesting otherwise. You make a mistake, in my view, when you use the Commandment of Circumcision, to justify your rejection of God's Judgment which go against the lusts of your flesh. I am saying that God did not Inspire Gen 7 so that men could use it to justify disobedience. He had a purpose, but not for the purpose you are using it for.

By the way, in Matthew 25:31-46, is Christ preaching to literal animals? Don't think so.

He was comparing sheep and goats, both clean Biblically. He didn't compare Sheep to Swine here. There is a reason for that as well.

Matt. 7: 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So in Matt. 25, in your religion, are these Goats or Sheep?

 

[Studyman]

If we are under the Mosaic Law, doing righteousness impossible, for it would mean we would always sin. Christ freed us from sin.

Sin is Transgression of God's Law. Jesus freed us from sin, not God's Law that defined it. This is why HE said "Go and Sin no more"? Is HE also lying to me by telling me to do impossible things?

Can a child walk when he is born? Does he not fall, and cry, yet he doesn't look back, but moves forward towards that goal. And if he "Patiently Continues" in trying to walk, guess what. He does what was impossible just a short year or so ago.

Here is what Paul teaches.

Ph. 3: 12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, Like the child does, always moving forward, never dwelling on the fact that he fell the day before, or earlier that day. But he keep moving towards the goal of walking. 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

God has given us everything we need to obey Him and follow the instructions of His Son.

Matt. 5: 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

You are free to go around implying the God and Jesus are lying to men, telling them to do things impossible to do if you want, but I've learned not to listen to all those other voices in the garden God placed me in.

Gen. 6: 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Gen. 26: 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

2 Kings 18: 3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.

4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. 5 He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. 6 For he clave to the LORD, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses.

Luke 1: 5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

At what point does a man consider that when their religious philosophy contradicts the Scriptures, it might by his philosophy that is in error, and not the scriptures? When does Jesus or Paul warn about what is written in scriptures? Never, they always warn about the philosophies of men, and religious traditions of men.

Matt. 24: 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Col. 2: 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

My hope is that you might "come out" of this world's religions and religious philosophies and consider what is actually written. At some point the door to do so will close.

 

[Valletta]

What's your point and how does it apply to the point of my post, which is, according to the Christ of the Bible and His Father, a woman joined to a husband, or a man joined to his God, has obligations toward each other. And the party that rejects or refuses these obligations toward each other can be "put away" and given a writ of divorcement.

Jer. 3: 8 (Brenton) And I saw that (for all the sins of which she was convicted, wherein the house of Israel committed adultery, and I put her away, and gave into her hands a bill of divorcement,) yet faithless Juda feared not, but went and herself also committed fornication. 9 And her fornication was nothing accounted of; and she committed adultery with wood and stone. 10 And for all these things faithless Juda turned not to me with all her heart, but falsely.

Jer. 3: 8 (CLV) And I see when (for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery) I have sent her away, and I give the bill of her divorce unto her, that treacherous Judah her sister has not feared, and goes and commits fornication--she also." 9 And it has come to pass, from the vileness of her fornication, that the land is defiled, and she commits fornication with stone and with wood."

The argument being made was that the Christ of the Bible, and His Father disagreed with each other in this matter, and the Christ was correcting His Father in Matt. 5. I find this popular doctrine promoted by "many" who come in His Name, to be false, if a man considers what the Holy scriptures actually teach.

I'm not sure how your post addresses this issue.

I never heard of the notion that Christ and His Father disagreed, do you have a citation for that story? A sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved.

 

[Studyman]

I never heard of the notion that Christ and His Father disagreed, do you have a citation for that story?

They didn't, but a lot of this world's religious sects and franchises promote the philosophy that they did. I was addressing one such philosophy regarding marriage.

A sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved.

I'm not Catholic, so I don't believe in Catholic Sacraments. The word doesn't exist in the Holy scriptures.

 

[Valletta]

They didn't, but a lot of this world's religious sects and franchises promote the philosophy that they did. I was addressing one such philosophy regarding marriage.



I'm not Catholic, so I don't believe in Catholic Sacraments. The word doesn't exist in the Holy scriptures.

Then think of it in terms of an oath, that sacred oath of marriage cannot be broken. That is the meaning in Holy Scripture. Adultery cannot break that sacred oath.

 

[ralliann]

Then think of it in terms of an oath, that sacred oath of marriage cannot be broken. That is the meaning in Holy Scripture. Adultery cannot break that sacred oath.

Exactly why the priesthood is changed. It was without an oath.

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

 

[Studyman]

Then think of it in terms of an oath, that sacred oath of marriage cannot be broken. That is the meaning in Holy Scripture. Adultery cannot break that sacred oath.

Well that would be a great religious business marketing strategy to get folks to donate and fill the seats. God can't break His sacred oath to me, but I can commit adultery, reject His Sabbaths and create my own, create my own high days and judgments, while rejecting Gods in violation of the same oath and am still bound by the oath. I don't believe that is what the Jesus of the Bible was promoting.

Jer. 3: 7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

 

[Studyman]

Exactly why the priesthood is changed. It was without an oath.

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

The "Priesthood" was established by an Oath. But the Priests corrupted the Covenant of Levi, and many of the "priests" became priests without an oath. As it is written.

Mal. 2: 5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name. 6 The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. 7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. 8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. 9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

Hebrews speaks to this as well.

Heb. 8: 7: For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, (Priests who corrupted the Covenant of Levi) he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Enter; "The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:"

 

[ralliann]

The "Priesthood" was established by an Oath.

No it was not. Hebrews makes that clear.

But the Priests corrupted the Covenant of Levi, and many of the "priests" became priests without an oath. As it is written.

Mal. 2: 5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name. 6 The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. 7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. 8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. 9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

Amazing that Israel does the same, yet God must keep his promises to them?
Here is the prophesy to the sons of Levi
Mal 3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.

Hebrews speaks to this as well.

Heb. 8: 7: For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, (Priests who corrupted the Covenant of Levi) he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Enter; "The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:"

Their inheritance is the priesthood, yet you allow that to be taken away, but Israel installed non levites for priests, and altars to the idol's they made to rival the worship at Jerusalem, so they would not return to the davidic kings. Yet , God cannot break his promise to them? Malichi tells you of his cleansing of the Levites. John the baptist washed them for repentance to prepare the way for Christs baptism of fire. This MALICHI SAYS HE WOULD REFINE THEM WITH FIRE. Yet you say not so?
It was the Pharisees that refused John, not the people. Christs disciples continued that baptism as disciples of Christ. Yet you keep the promises made to the rulers of Israel which rejected John?

 

[Valletta]

Well that would be a great religious business marketing strategy to get folks to donate and fill the seats. God can't break His sacred oath to me, but I can commit adultery, reject His Sabbaths and create my own, create my own high days and judgments, while rejecting Gods in violation of the same oath and am still bound by the oath. I don't believe that is what the Jesus of the Bible was promoting.

Jer. 3: 7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Of course people can always sin, we have free will to break any of God's commandments. It doesn't mean a commandment goes away when we break it and we don't have to obey it in the future. Jesus is saying that now there is no breaking of the sacred marriage bond.

 

[Studyman]

No it was not. Hebrews makes that clear.
No it was not. Hebrews makes that clear.

Amazing that Israel does the same, yet God must keep his promises to them?

Here is the prophesy to the sons of Levi
Mal 3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.
Their inheritance is the priesthood, yet you allow that to be taken away, but Israel installed non levites for priests, and altars to the idol's they made to rival the worship at Jerusalem, so they would not return to the davidic kings. Yet , God cannot break his promise to them?

Malichi tells you of his cleansing of the Levites. John the baptist washed them for repentance to prepare the way for Christs baptism of fire.
This MALICHI SAYS HE WOULD REFINE THEM WITH FIRE. Yet you say not so?
It was the Pharisees that refused John, not the people. Christs disciples continued that baptism as disciples of Christ. Yet you keep the promises made to the rulers of Israel which rejected John?

Yes, It was the Priesthood which was made by an Oath. But those Priests who corrupted it, were made without an oath.

(For those priests were made without an oath; but this (The Christ) 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

 

[Studyman]

Of course people can always sin, we have free will to break any of God's commandments. It doesn't mean a commandment goes away when we break it and we don't have to obey it in the future. Jesus is saying that now there is no breaking of the sacred marriage bond.

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, "saving for the cause of fornication," causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

I disagree, based on the actual Words of the Christ.

 

[Valletta]

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, "saving for the cause of fornication," causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

I disagree, based on the actual Words of the Christ.

If that was a proper translation into English I would agree with you.

 

[LW97Nils]

Sin is Transgression of God's Law. Jesus freed us from sin, not God's Law that defined it. This is why HE said "Go and Sin no more"? Is HE also lying to me by telling me to do impossible things?

Can a child walk when he is born? Does he not fall, and cry, yet he doesn't look back, but moves forward towards that goal. And if he "Patiently Continues" in trying to walk, guess what. He does what was impossible just a short year or so ago.

Here is what Paul teaches.

Ph. 3: 12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, Like the child does, always moving forward, never dwelling on the fact that he fell the day before, or earlier that day. But he keep moving towards the goal of walking. 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

God has given us everything we need to obey Him and follow the instructions of His Son.

Matt. 5: 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

You are free to go around implying the God and Jesus are lying to men, telling them to do things impossible to do if you want, but I've learned not to listen to all those other voices in the garden God placed me in.

Gen. 6: 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Gen. 26: 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

2 Kings 18: 3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.

4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. 5 He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. 6 For he clave to the LORD, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses.

Luke 1: 5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

At what point does a man consider that when their religious philosophy contradicts the Scriptures, it might by his philosophy that is in error, and not the scriptures? When does Jesus or Paul warn about what is written in scriptures? Never, they always warn about the philosophies of men, and religious traditions of men.

Matt. 24: 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Col. 2: 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

My hope is that you might "come out" of this world's religions and religious philosophies and consider what is actually written. At some point the door to do so will close.

Are you really Torah then? Do you still sacrifice goats?

 

[Studyman]

Are you really Torah then? Do you still sacrifice goats?

No, "I'm not Torah", I'm Studyman. Jesus was the Word of God "Torah", who became Flesh.

Do you know what the purpose was for the command to the common man to Sacrificing Goats in front of a Levite Priest was, as described in the Torah? Why would a man who believes in God, still sacrifice goats, after the Prophesied Lamb of God has already come?

Or was this question just an insulting, dishonest attempt to distract away from actually addressing the Scriptures I posted, and the questions I posed? Be honest now, it's not too late.

 

[Studyman]

If that was a proper translation into English I would agree with you.

Ex. 20: 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Is this also a bad translation?

 

[Valletta]

Ex. 20: 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Is this also a bad translation?

Ex. 20: 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Is this also a bad translation?

What is a sin is far different than the claim that the particular sin of adultery allows one to get divorced and remarry. While it may be the wishes of some, the latter goes against the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Studyman]

What is a sin is far different than the claim that the particular sin of adultery allows one to get divorced and remarry. While it may be the wishes of some, the latter goes against the teachings of Jesus.

Jer. 3: 8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.