LET'S TALK ABOUT THE BOOK OF HEBREWS

[Jim an Apostle]

I can only assume that obedience by faith did indeed bring eternal life

Galatians 3
21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

seems pretty plain to me.
Sorry, No one ever received eternal life by keeping the Law. The law was to point to Christ and it was faith in the coming redeemer that brought resurrection.

2 Corinthians 3
5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

which glory was to be done away

Notice the word glory is in italics. it could and should read which was to be done away referring to that ministration written and engraven in stones.

The law could not bring eternal life to fallen man.

Stay under the school master if you like.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

Jesus was the only one who attained eternal life through keeping the Law! He started from a sinless position though and never violated his accountability! All others have sinned and were born (since Adam) into a sentence of death.

 

[GunnarR]

seems pretty plain to me.
Sorry, No one ever received eternal life by keeping the Law. The law was to point to Christ and it was faith in the coming redeemer that brought resurrection.

So how was Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, etc. counted as righteous, yet these men were before the times of Yeshua (Jesus)? Are you saying that these righteous men did not inherit eternal life?

Hint: These men kept the commands and obeyed the precepts of Yah. If scripture contradicts itself, check yourself and your convictions. The beginning of the Bible should match up all the way through.

 

[PeteR]

Know therefore that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments; but repays those who hate Him to their faces, to destroy them; He will not delay with him who hates Him, He will repay him to his face. Therefore, you shall keep the commandment and the statutes and the judgments which I am commanding you today, to do them. “Then it shall come about, because you listen to these judgments and keep and do them, that the Lord your God will keep with you His covenant and His lovingkindness which He swore to your forefathers. He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock, in the land which He swore to your forefathers to give you. You shall be blessed above all peoples; there will be no male or female barren among you or among your cattle. The Lord will remove from you all sickness; and He will not put on you any of the harmful diseases of Egypt which you have known, but He will lay them on all who hate you.
Deuteronomy 7:9‭-‬15 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/deu.7.9-15.NASB

And,


So the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God for our good always and for our survival, as it is today. It will be righteousness for us if we are careful to observe all this commandment before the Lord our God, just as He commanded us.
Deuteronomy 6:24‭-‬25 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/deu.6.24-25.NASB

And,

He has remembered His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations,
Psalms 105:8 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/psa.105.8.NASB

Has it been 1000 generations yet? Has it?

I choose obedience and trust.

Shabbat Shalom!

 

[FollowingHim]

No one ever received eternal life by keeping the Law

Agreed. Salvation in all forms has always been by grace.

God rescued the Israelites from Egypt, by His grace. They did not deserve it, but He decided they were going to be His people (like it or not), and He rescued them by His grace.
Then, because they had been saved from bondage by grace, He gave them laws to follow as their right response to this salvation. Salvation came first, law came second. They were not rescued from Egypt because they kept the Law - rather, they were given the Law because they had been rescued from Egypt.

The idea that those on the Torah-side of this debate are claiming that people receive eternal life by keeping the Law is a straw man. Nobody is saying that. Everybody is saying salvation is by grace alone.
After salvation, we are expected to follow our Lord, by obeying His commands (Lord means Master, if we're not following His commands then He is not our Lord). Again, everyone agrees on that.

The only disagreement is "what are His commands for us today?". This is a much more narrow question, and we will achieve much greater understanding of the issue if we can focus on it.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Not even remotely true, we get two cryptic mentions of Melchizedek. Vast swaths of the New Testament are directed at the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The word “trinity” doesn’t occur in the Bible but the concepts it was coined to encapsulate are some of the main points of the whole Bible.

Look at my quote again. Per your own statement Melchizedek 2, trinity 0. I didn’t say that there was more info on Melchizedek than on the relationship Christ has with his father.

Beyond that, there is a plethora of Melchizedek passages, but like anything else, a cultural context is helpful when looking for these passages.

For instance, a Melchizedek Priesthood is a Priesthood of the firstborn/head of the household. Do a word search on that and see how much material is available for study.

Also sons of zadok, sons of light, sons of righteousness etc. comparisons with Belial just to get ya started.

Look specifically at Numbers 3,&8 as to the substitution of the Levite’s for the firstborn and thus why the firstfruits were supposed to be given to them instead of the head of household.

 

[PeteR]

For instance, a Melchizedek Priesthood is a Priesthood of the firstborn/head of the household. Do a word search on that and see how much material is available for study.

The problem is God often does not use primogeniture. Jacob, Judah, Moses, Gideon, David, etc...

 

[The Revolting Man]

Look at my quote again. Per your own statement Melchizedek 2, trinity 0. I didn’t say that there was more info on Melchizedek than on the relationship Christ has with his father.

Beyond that, there is a plethora of Melchizedek passages, but like anything else, a cultural context is helpful when looking for these passages.

For instance, a Melchizedek Priesthood is a Priesthood of the firstborn/head of the household. Do a word search on that and see how much material is available for study.

Also sons of zadok, sons of light, sons of righteousness etc. comparisons with Belial just to get ya started.

Look specifically at Numbers 3,&8 as to the substitution of the Levite’s for the firstborn and thus why the firstfruits were supposed to be given to them instead of the head of household.

You just restated your previous position. You completely ignored everything I said and restated that Melchizadek gets mentioned twice with NO DETAIL given in scripture about what that means and that the word “trinity” does not appear in the Bible. And somehow you got that to mean that in fact all of the myriad passages about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost don’t add up to as much information as the two verses about Melchizadek because they don’t contain the word “trinity”?

Melchizadek is an interesting side note that clearly has some significance because it’s in scripture but we can not build any sand castles on so small a foundation.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

You just restated your previous position. You completely ignored everything I said and restated that Melchizadek gets mentioned twice with NO DETAIL given in scripture about what that means and that the word “trinity” does not appear in the Bible. And somehow you got that to mean that in fact all of the myriad passages about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost don’t add up to as much information as the two verses about Melchizadek because they don’t contain the word “trinity”?

Melchizadek is an interesting side note that clearly has some significance because it’s in scripture but we can not build any sand castles on so small a foundation.

NO DETAIL is a blatantly false mischaracterization in the extreme.



My point is that there is an established trinity doctrine throughout most of Christianity. No, I’m not talking about the Godhead or their connection, structure or relationship. Strictly the idea that they 3 are all one singular person.

So, yes you are correct that there is much information available on the Godhead etc. That does nothing to prove a trinity doctrine, and yet a doctrine has been created and propagated on less information than is available for a Melchizedek Priesthood.

So, your assertion that there is not enough information to form a doctrine (if that’s what I was trying to do) is false per the example given of the trinity doctrine.

Your point that the trinity doctrine is founded upon lots of other scripture that discusses the Godhead, is case in point for categorizing Biblical information about a Melchizedek Priesthood. There’s actually a lot of information about a Melchizedek Priesthood, in the New Testament as well as in the Old. And it’s always associated with key words as I mentioned in my last post. Just like the Godhead is associated with words like Jesus, and Christ, and Lord, and God, and Jehovah and YHWH.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The problem is God often does not use primogeniture. Jacob, Judah, Moses, Gideon, David, etc...

This is very true. And they all have their place and reasons for this. Others would be Abel Seth, Abraham and Eleazar.
But these are the exception rather than the norm.

Something else to consider is the “firstborn” had other specific responsibilities for the family besides Priesthood such as kinsman redeemer and avenger.

This is why the statement that Christ was the “only begotten of the father” is both very specific and important. Also why Isaac is listed as the only begotten in Hebrews 11:17.

It’s also why we are a royal priesthood 1 Peter 2:9. In contrast, an Aaronic Priesthood was never a royal priesthood. A Melchizedek is definitively one. Genesis 14:18 & Exodus 19:6

 

[The Revolting Man]

NO DETAIL is a blatantly false mischaracterization in the extreme.



My point is that there is an established trinity doctrine throughout most of Christianity. No, I’m not talking about the Godhead or their connection, structure or relationship. Strictly the idea that they 3 are all one singular person.

So, yes you are correct that there is much information available on the Godhead etc. That does nothing to prove a trinity doctrine, and yet a doctrine has been created and propagated on less information than is available for a Melchizedek Priesthood.

So, your assertion that there is not enough information to form a doctrine (if that’s what I was trying to do) is false per the example given of the trinity doctrine.

Your point that the trinity doctrine is founded upon lots of other scripture that discusses the Godhead, is case in point for categorizing Biblical information about a Melchizedek Priesthood. There’s actually a lot of information about a Melchizedek Priesthood, in the New Testament as well as in the Old. And it’s always associated with key words as I mentioned in my last post. Just like the Godhead is associated with words like Jesus, and Christ, and Lord, and God, and Jehovah and YHWH.

The “Trinity” is just a word used to encapsulate all the teaching about the Godhead. No one, and I mean no one, thinks that the “Trinity” is about anything other than the Godhead. How do you even pretend to separate that in to two different things? It’s the same thing!

And code words do not equate to references. It is impossible to make the claim that the Melchizadek priesthood is better supported than the “Trinity”. There is more information about the “Trinity” in the first section of the first chapter of the Gospel of John than there is about Melchizadek in the whole Bible. I am almost speechless in the face of this fantastical claim.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@The Revolting Man You must have missed the thread on Binitarian views or have a different definition of the Trinity. Trinity or Tri-une doctrine being defined as the three parts/persons identified as God are actually one entity/being. Three in One. Binitarians specifically consider the Godhead to be made up of two parts, not three (the Father and the Son being One). They acknowledge that there is a Holy Spirit, but do not consider him part of the Godhead as I recall. (Not that I subscribe to those views, I bring it up specifically because I believe that they have a point due to the virtually nonexistent support of the Trinity in scripture.) I have personally only found 2 verses in Scripture that support the Three-in-One Doctrine. One in the New Testament and one in the Old. That is enough for me to fall on the Trinitarian side of things.

In contrast, even the word Melchizedek is mentioned 9 times in Hebrews alone, once in Genesis, once in Psalms and its synonym, Adonai-Zedek is mentioned once in Joshua 10.

And yet, Trinity Doctrine has been created from only one of these two verses. 1 John 4:7

John 1 does not support a Trinitarian view, though it does support a Binitarian view. And the only word in that chapter that would even remotely indicate the presence of the Spirit would be classified as a code word, the Greek word, pneuma. Scripture is full of “code” words, like “born again,” or “Messiah” or “Christ,” or the “Light of the World” or the “only begotten of the Father” or kyrios (Lord) or pneuma (breath/Spirit).

The entire Book of Hebrews is all about showcasing a Melchizedek priesthood, because it is a better priesthood and structure for communing individually with our Creator. Unfortunately, over the centuries, men would rather lord it over their brothers in Christ (which a Levitical priesthood is custom tailored for) than to help their brother reign alongside them (which is what a Melchizedek priesthood is custom tailored for). A Melchizedek priesthood is uniquely structured as a patriarchal priesthood while the Levitical supplants the patriarch of the home with the parson in the pulpit or the Rabbi in Moses’ seat.

 

[rockfox]

You may want to read the next three or four verses that clearly demonstrate Paul is talking about commandments and doctrines of....MEN. Yeah... false religious tradition.

Wrong, Paul is talking about things which pointed to Christ...

"16So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a [j]festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17which are a shadow of things to come, but the [k]substance is of Christ."

He was talking about the Old Law, not some nebulous false traditions.

 

[PeteR]

Wrong, Paul is talking about things which pointed to Christ...

"16So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a [j]festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17which are a shadow of things to come, but the [k]substance is of Christ."

He was talking about the Old Law, not some nebulous false traditions.

Please read the whole chapter and note how many times he refers to'beguile', 'doctrines of men', 'false teadirion' worshiping angels etc...the whole chapter is about false traditions and he says, 'don't let them judge you'...

Paul also said 'therefore, let us keep the feast ( Passover) but not with old leaven (tradition/doctrines of Pharisees, or, by today's standards the prwacers)'

Pail kept the Torah, never stopped being a Pharisees and said, 'Imitate me as I imitate Messiah.' Paul kept Torah, Messiah kept Torah... so did Abraham, Moses, David, etc... I'll take their word over all others...

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Please read the whole chapter and note how many times he refers to'beguile', 'doctrines of men', 'false teadirion' worshiping angels etc...the whole chapter is about false traditions and he says, 'don't let them judge you'...

Paul also said 'therefore, let us keep the feast ( Passover) but not with old leaven (tradition/doctrines of Pharisees, or, by today's standards the prwacers)'

Pail kept the Torah, never stopped being a Pharisees and said, 'Imitate me as I imitate Messiah.' Paul kept Torah, Messiah kept Torah... so did Abraham, Moses, David, etc... I'll take their word over all others...

Abraham kept the Law given at Mount Sinai?

 

[GunnarR]

Abraham kept the Law given at Mount Sinai?

The Lord appeared to him and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; stay in the land of which I shall tell you. Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham. I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
Genesis 26:2‭-‬5 NASB

The word for laws at the end of verse 5 is actually Torah.

H8451
Original: תּרה תּורה
Transliteration: tôrâh tôrâh
Phonetic: to-raw'

 

[The Revolting Man]

@The Revolting Man You must have missed the thread on Binitarian views or have a different definition of the Trinity. Trinity or Tri-une doctrine being defined as the three parts/persons identified as God are actually one entity/being. Three in One. Binitarians specifically consider the Godhead to be made up of two parts, not three (the Father and the Son being One). They acknowledge that there is a Holy Spirit, but do not consider him part of the Godhead as I recall. (Not that I subscribe to those views, I bring it up specifically because I believe that they have a point due to the virtually nonexistent support of the Trinity in scripture.) I have personally only found 2 verses in Scripture that support the Three-in-One Doctrine. One in the New Testament and one in the Old. That is enough for me to fall on the Trinitarian side of things.

In contrast, even the word Melchizedek is mentioned 9 times in Hebrews alone, once in Genesis, once in Psalms and its synonym, Adonai-Zedek is mentioned once in Joshua 10.

And yet, Trinity Doctrine has been created from only one of these two verses. 1 John 4:7

John 1 does not support a Trinitarian view, though it does support a Binitarian view. And the only word in that chapter that would even remotely indicate the presence of the Spirit would be classified as a code word, the Greek word, pneuma. Scripture is full of “code” words, like “born again,” or “Messiah” or “Christ,” or the “Light of the World” or the “only begotten of the Father” or kyrios (Lord) or pneuma (breath/Spirit).

The entire Book of Hebrews is all about showcasing a Melchizedek priesthood, because it is a better priesthood and structure for communing individually with our Creator. Unfortunately, over the centuries, men would rather lord it over their brothers in Christ (which a Levitical priesthood is custom tailored for) than to help their brother reign alongside them (which is what a Melchizedek priesthood is custom tailored for). A Melchizedek priesthood is uniquely structured as a patriarchal priesthood while the Levitical supplants the patriarch of the home with the parson in the pulpit or the Rabbi in Moses’ seat.

I did not miss the binitarian thread. It just didn’t convince me. But let’s get more accurate, you’re saying that there is more information in scripture about the Melchizadek priesthood than there is about the Holy Spirit being a distinct individual in the God-head. That’s moving the goal posts pretty far but even so, you still have to make some nebulous statements like “Melchizadek’s name is mentioned nine times” as if that means anything at all. How many times is the Holy Spirit mentioned? I am sure it is more than nine times. The point is not that there isn’t a Melchizadek priesthood. It’s that it isn’t more prevelant than the “Trinity”.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

The Lord appeared to him and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; stay in the land of which I shall tell you. Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham. I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
Genesis 26:2‭-‬5 NASB

The word for laws at the end of verse 5 is actually Torah.

H8451
Original: תּרה תּורה
Transliteration: tôrâh tôrâh
Phonetic: to-raw'

Do you deem that to be the same law that was given at Sinai? If so, when was it given to Abraham?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Do you deem that to be the same law that was given at Sinai? If so, when was it given to Abraham?

I would claim it was prophetic. God was telling what would happen. Many of my Torah brethren would tell you that the “Mosaic Law” did exist in oral form prior to Sinai. I disagree but that conversation gets a little thick very quick.

 

[rockfox]

Please read the whole chapter and note how many times he refers to'beguile', 'doctrines of men', 'false teadirion' worshiping angels etc...the whole chapter is about false traditions and he says, 'don't let them judge you'...

He was speaking about "which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." False traditions are false, they wouldn't point to Christ. Your contention makes no sense. The context has a great many allusions to the Old Law; circumcision, not touching, not eating certain foods, sabbath keeping, etc.

Paul also said 'therefore, let us keep the feast ( Passover) but not with old leaven (tradition/doctrines of Pharisees, or, by today's standards the prwacers)'

You yank that out of context...

Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7Therefore [d]purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed [e]for us. 8Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

In the first place, the part you left out says Christ is our Passover, not some lamb or festival. In the second place the whole thing is a metaphor ('bread of sincerity and truth') and if it is referring to literal feast it's to the Lord's Supper when we do eat His body.

But ya, since you keep passover I'd see why you can't admit that Paul commanded not to judge others concerning keeping a feast.