I'm curious if you have studied the front of the book (specifically Deuteronomy) as deeply as you studied the book of Hebrews? Taking the whole context of scripture with you when you read the apostolic writings helps to avoid misunderstandings.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
I'm curious if you have studied the front of the book (specifically Deuteronomy) as deeply as you studied the book of Hebrews? Taking the whole context of scripture with you when you read the apostolic writings helps to avoid misunderstandings.
Is there another Text that you base your beliefs upon?
I’m just saying that there’s a lot of people that are unaware or unconcerned that the popular text has been doctored to promote a very specific perspective. To what degree, I don’t fully know yet, but virtually everything I’ve found dealing with Melchizedek has issues, the virgin birth, and several chronological issues. And I’m just getting started in my examination.
As to the eating clean, obviously I follow a different set of dietary restrictions as I am not Torah Observant and have different views on Shabbat as well. For Biblical reasons. Not your reasons, but reasons nonetheless.
speaking of Hebrews . . .
Hebrews 8:7
7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
I get the feeling that this whole broad topic is a bit of a sideline - there are certainly differences, and I agree with you that the Masoretic text has been altered. However, there are a few places where the LXX is suspect also - the ages in the genealogies of men in Noah's line prior to the flood don't work well in the LXX, as there Methusaleh appears to live through the flood. These edits too don't look like copying mistakes, but are systematic (Augustine discussed the differences in detail and speculated a lot as to the possible reasons for these changes) - it just so happens that in this particular case the Masoretic makes more logical sense. So there are problems in both directions (though I, like you, increasingly prefer the LXX because it has been preserved by the church so is less likely to have been doctored in a way that would be against Christ).
But having said that, this is somewhat off-topic, and is becoming "which OT text should we use" rather than "what does Hebrews teach". Most of the Torah is essentially the same in both texts, so this is irrelevant to the topic at hand - the question is whether it is applicable, not precisely what the detail of it is. A small number of details may be relevant to the question at hand, but the overall issue is separate.
Those italics get you every time.
@Pacman is right.... the italics are added by the translators. The problem, as the next verse points out, is not with 'it' but with 'them.' The problem was not the perfect Torah but the priesthood and the people.
Buncha racist anti-Italicans around here....
Yeah, italics is like a virus the translators had...
I guess it was lethal, cause they’s all dead.
Just trying to wrap my head around this. Do you mean the verse should be better understood "For if that first people had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second people"? As in, the first people have been rejected and a second people adopted in their place?
In context:
Verse 6 is talking about a "better covenant", verse 8 about a "new covenant". This is why the translators assume that verse 7 is talking about a covenant. I'm not saying they're necessarily correct, but it does seem very logical to take the word "first" as talking about the first covenant and "second" as referring to the covenant mentioned in verses 6 and 8.Hebrews 8:6-8 said:
But if this is talking about "first people" and "second people", that's a very interesting alternative reading with implications that are even stronger I would have thought. It's not a reading I would have expected either of you to be promoting @PeteR and @Pacman!
NO!
Priesthood is likely the correct fit!!
I was going from memory. There is another option there, maybe high priest?.. there are two contextual options that make way more sense than 'covenant.'.. priest or priesthood being the best.
That's what the whole book is about, a better High Priest.
Priesthood is likely the correct fit!!
I was going from memory. There is another option there, maybe high priest?.. there are two contextual options that make way more sense than 'covenant.'.. priest or priesthood being the best.
That's what the whole book is about, a better High Priest.
C
Cap
Guest
Which now gets to which High Priest are we to follow, the Levitical or the Melchizedek, which is the second or better. And which was established before the old religious system established by Moses.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hebrews 7
11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Hebrews 7
18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. 20And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
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
22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. 20And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
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
22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Recall, 8:4 says that the Levitical priesthood was still operating lawfully. It is the earthly/physical representative of the heavenly... Exodus tells us that the Tabernacle was made after a pattern he saw on the mountain. Ezekiel 40ff tells of a future earthly Temple wherein the fat and blood will be offered by Levites under the watchcare of the Prince.
Contrary to 1800 years of errant Christian doctrine, the New (technically renewed) Covenant is not yet in place. We see shadows and pieces, but it is not in place yet. Not possible. Pieces aren't all there yet. Period.
Contrary to 1800 years of errant Christian doctrine, the New (technically renewed) Covenant is not yet in place. We see shadows and pieces, but it is not in place yet. Not possible. Pieces aren't all there yet. Period.
What does the phrase “kainos diatheke” in verse 8, mean?
Uh... @Jim an Apostle , all that you quote is not about the removal of the whole Law, but about a change in a specific part of the Law regarding the High Priest. TheTorah still stands. Forever. It is the measure of righteousness.
119:44 So shall I keep H8104 thy Torak H8451 continually H8548 for ever H5769 and ever H5703.
45 And I will walk H1980 at liberty H7342: for I seek H1875 thy precepts H6490. note
Either, the author of that verse was a lying shortsighted ignoramus, or God's Word is true. Liberty/freedom come from walking in God's Law. Forgiveness, when we sin, comes through our better High Priest.
119:44 So shall I keep H8104 thy Torak H8451 continually H8548 for ever H5769 and ever H5703.
45 And I will walk H1980 at liberty H7342: for I seek H1875 thy precepts H6490. note
Either, the author of that verse was a lying shortsighted ignoramus, or God's Word is true. Liberty/freedom come from walking in God's Law. Forgiveness, when we sin, comes through our better High Priest.
The author cites the new covenant from Jeremiah 31. Doesn't prove the covenant was the problem but the people who rebelled. And, hello, the renewal is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah! Not...anybody else.
Last edited:
C
Cap
Guest
I think you are taking 8:4 out of context. If the new high priest were here on earth He could not be a high priest based on the rules governing the physical order being replaced.
So you are saying that the death and ressurection had no effect?