storytime

Yes, God acknowledged other gods as valid, because, He commanded the Israelites not to worship the, Yahweh was jealous and would not find guiltless any Israelite who took his name [in vain] and then went "a whoring" after other gods. Blasphemy was the death sentence.

The kingdom of Christ was the priesthood. His priesthood was not the world of Jews, because Judah did not inherit the priesthood as covenanted to the "elect" and "anointed" Levites. Levi was given the priesthood covenant because he feared the Lord and turned many from iniquity. (Malachi)

ohmi

He commanded Israel not to worship them because they are NO gods at all , they are invalid, not valid :-

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:

The kingdom of Christ is not yet established on earth , as he said, it is NOT of THIS earth, but of the new earth... the kingdom exists nowhere on earth yet except within the hearts of the few whom God has chosen to give it to now

Levi are the priesthood of the unproductive old covenant that was ready to vanish away long ago :-

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The new covenant priesthood is of all tribes, some of them Jews but mostly of the House of Israel - Rev 7:3-8

storytime

I would have to suppose that all those other people who worshipped their own gods would claim the validity of their gods just as Israel claimed the validity of her own Yahweh. After all, just because the prophets of Israel declared their own god to be the most high didn't make their claim any more noteworthy than the others. So, Fred the Stump God was just as valid as the invisible Yahweh from the way I see it. But, the Israelites were not allowed to worship Fred the Stump God because Yahweh was jealous of Fred the Stump God.

The Kingdom of Christ was the priesthood. This kingdom was established at Sinai when God separated the Levites unto himself. When the NT speaks of "ye have been made a kingdom of priests on the earth", this is identifying the priesthood of Christ. How the priesthood came to Moses and Aaron was from earlier designated tradition. Melchizedek is the leading priest who was without father and mother, beginning or end, as this explained his position in comparison to Jacob[father] and Israel[mother]. Jacob and Israel had a beginning at Sinai. So the priesthood is seen as without or outside that domain. The priesthood went to Moses and Aaron and established in covenant with Levi forever. And this priesthood as "the mouth of God" gave the law, meaning interpretation of the law on matters the Israelites brought before the priests. And there was a High Priest who judgment on matters was final.

The first covenant was that of circumcision. When that covenant failed to deliver obedience, the second covenant of law was instituted for civil and moral behavior making for a better covenant. And, the law of Moses which came 450 years after circumcision did not make void that covenant with Abraham. Both stood and still stand as the two witnesses in identity of Israelites as sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And herein lies the blessing to those who observe these two covenants. "I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee." Anyone refusing to undergo circumcision would be "cut off" from the people of Abraham, "cursed", because they had broken the covenant. (Genesis) The ritual itself invokes a loyalty to the house of Abraham while cutting off the flesh of the cursed people who refused to comply with direct order from God. Uncircumcised people could not be part of the House of Abraham, and therefore not considered as "a people[person]" of God.

storytime

Omhi

There are three essential things that Jesus did not invalidate in his priesthood ministry.

1. Circumcision
2. Law of Moses
3. Sacrifice of animals

Iasion

Oh,
you can't actually follow the thread without my help?

OK then -
We were discussing the Pastorals, remember?

They were forged.
The writer of these letters deliberately lied.
He bore false witness.

How does a book forged by a liar have 'authority' ?
Hmmm?


Iasion

Didymus

And that particular "history" has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Do you really think that anybody here gives a rat's ass about your tired, boring feud with Orthodox Christians? One set of unfounded, self-serving doctrines is no better than the next. Surely there's a "trash the Orthodox" forum somewhere on the Internet. That would be the place for this sort of message.

Ddms

Didymus

Moderator -

This thread has turned into a tiresome exegetical dispute. It doesn't belong in IIDB.

Ddms

ohmi

My contribution to this thread is about history and biblical criticism, and thus is in EXACTLY the right place ...

storytime

What date would you give for the beginning of the new religion called Christianity?

spamandham

Apologetics and history are not the same thing.