spin

This distinction "authentic scripture" and not is quite arbitrary. Texts were often written over long time periods. Imagine the indications in Isaiah for example: it claims to have been started during the reign of Ahaz, and yet there is text which deals with Cyrus of Persia. That's well over 150 years. Is the Cyrus stuff 'not authentic "Scripture"'?

Just because the Hasmoneans were reponsible for the writing of the Melkizedeq story does that make it 'not authentic "Scripture"'?

Are we interested in matters dictated by faith or what we can get to know about what was?

In that case all you are doing is apologizing, aren't you?

I'm not asking you to dispute the authenticity of those three verses, unless you are claiming that the pentateuch must have been written by Moses, just to put them into historical perspective, ie their relationship with the kings who called themselves the "priests of the God Most High" (Assumption of Moses 6:1).


spin

Sheshbazzar

"...and (if) the Scripture cannot be broken;"
But if Scripture may be broken, portions may be discarded or discredited at will, ie there would remain no valid basis to properly analyze anything written anywhere within the text, not by believers, nor by unbelievers.
If they inserted it into the then known and accepted text on which the priesthood and temple was already established, Yes, it would be not authentic.
A honest and impartial scholar is interested in everything, and without a knowledge of what the Faith was, and is, no one can "know about what was", because the Scriptures did not arise apart from faith, but through faith, the Scriptures.
I do not need to make any claim regarding the authorship of the Pentateuch, regarding its authorship, It says what It says. You say what you say;
I am content to wait and see Who will have the final word, after all that is what the Faith, and the Scripture is about, "what was", and "what shall yet be".

Clivedurdle

Fascinating!

To attempt a summary - Christ's priesthood - nb - NOT Jesus' - is above in some way the classic Hebrew priesthood, has strong links to the Hasmonean priest-king concepts of the second century BC, deforms Judaism in that the Priest is never the sacrifice, and basically feels like a cuckoo landing in Judaism's nest! Jesus is not a priest but his death - but who's death - (Jesus' or Christ's?) - makes him a priest!

If it looks like a myth, quacks like a myth....,

John A. Broussard

For fruits, cf. crusades, religious wars of 16th-17th centuries, Catholic/Protestant brouhaha in Ulster, the Inquisition, Fox's Book of Martyrs, the life of Galileo, the death of Savonarola, the Christianization of South America, Africa and just about anywhere else, etc.

Dharma

How can Christian's justify Christ's virgin birth (i.e. Jesus' father was not Jewish thus not descended from David) and then claim Christ's priesthood as promised in the Psalm about receiving priesthood from Melchezedek (sp?) and the Jewish messiah's descent from King David?

And how can Christianity call itself Abrahamic when Christ says, "before Abraham, I am"?

I really do think Jesus was perhaps an adopted foreigner raised as a Jew and knowing this caused this hatred of him since he was an outsider telling the Jews how to better practice their religion...

Jews generally do not hate their own Rabbis or holy men no matter how renegade they might be, unless they are of unknown lineage, like Jesus.

jakejonesiv

Yes, Jesus was the High Priest, in heaven no less, in Zechariah chapter 3.

Between this Jesus, and the son of Nun, the author of Hebrews didn't know about any recent (to his time) historical Jesus.

Jake Jones

Avatar

I suspect that the OP is asking the question about Jesus's religious status when he was actually alive (if he was), not the many mountains of titles that have been piled on to him since.

Clivedurdle

Thank you! It really feels like two different people have been joined at the key point - the death and resurrection. Which leads to the conclusion that the whole thing is made up as an answer to the problem of death.

spin

If you compaired your body at a distance of twenty years, you'd find basically nothing the same. Does that mean that you are not you?

If you check the bible from Qumran, you'll find many small variations, some large ones. They all circulated at the same time. The existence of books like Sam/Kings and Chronicles you can see that different editions of material exist with quite large differences. Your thoughts simply don't represent the reality.


spin

Sheshbazzar

Yes spin, my thoughts simply don't represent the reality, as you see it.
And your thoughts simply don't represent The Reality as I see It.

So the Qumran documents have some variations, between themselves, and from the latter texts on which on which our present day Bibles are based.
No two Bibles in my collection read identically, even varying in the number of 'books' that are included.
You have a theory and an explanation as to the how and why of these variations, based upon your personal interpretations of the times and the origins of various ideas, as in "El Elyon" was a popular 2c. BCE manner of referring to G-d",
Of course this is a true statement in and of itself, however your presumption that the term "El Elyon" is an anachronism inserted into the text of Genesis 14:18,19,20, is the result of taking on an adversarial position against the claim of the Scripture, and remains nothing more than an unprovable theory.
Certainly the term "El" and variations upon it are extremely ancient, to claim that the form "Elyon" was unknown of until 2c. BCE exceeds the abilities of any living person to now actually 'know'.