Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

John The Baptist, The Last Aaronic High Priest
The Reason For My Faith ^ | 3/20/21 | Chuck Ness

Posted on 03/20/2021 9:06:36 AM PDT by OneVike

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: OneVike

Judaism was the bastardized faith created during the quiet years by the Pharisees.

>On John the Baptist being the last of the line of Aaron, very well researched and thought out. Which I will look more into. I thank you for what you’ve posted.

And, yes, I agree on the difference between “Hebraism” and “Judaism.” I think the author of the book of “Hebrews,” with all that is taught there, would agree with what you have here.

I do wonder, however, why you haven’t said more about the “bastardized faith by the Pharisees.” Surely you must know that beimg bastardized. it has also been “paganized?”

I refer to the “Babylonian” Talmud, and Kabbalah, the latter an occultic brew of pagan mysticism and magic, conjured up by the Pharisees after the fall of Jerusalem, 70AD. Now being passed off under the name of “Judaism.”

Which neither John the Baptist, nor Jesus, taught.


21 posted on 03/20/2021 3:40:59 PM PDT by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MurphsLaw

Well the law was to prove how we needed Christ. However, in the 2nd temple period, the Pharisees added things for the purpose of their greed and control, that were never given by Moses.

As I stated, Jesus chastised them for it.

Mind you, God told us NOT to change what He ordained. The Pharisees did a lot more than just change it, they created whole new laws God never imposed.

Now when Christ came, He was God incarnate and He fulfilled the laws we could not. Jesus was the perfect lamb who never ever broke any of the comandments. Thus the reason His sacrifice was sufficient for our sins, IF, we accept and believe in Him as our Lord and Savior.


22 posted on 03/20/2021 4:16:46 PM PDT by OneVike (Just another Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

Because my focus was to show that John was the Last True High Priest.

More can be said about the way the bastardized faith by the Pharisees.

But doing it here would have distracted from my subject matter.

Maybe I will do a commentary on it sometime, because I do agree with you.


23 posted on 03/20/2021 4:19:58 PM PDT by OneVike (Just another Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

OH, and if I do, I would also probably tie in how the Roman Catholic Church parallels with Judaism in the way they twisted things.

Basically, the Roman Catholic Church recreated the Sanhedrin and the Priesthood, only they did it for Christianity.

I would start a huge argument though, and that is something I must truly pray over so I can do it truthfully and in a delicate way.

Who knows. If the Holy Spirit leads me I will.

Mind you, I did not set out to write what I wrote. I started with a short post of a thought on FaceBook, and as I was finalizing it, it ballooned into what I posted here.

That happens to me a lot. A simple comment I write will turn into a 5 page commentary that I write when the Holy Spirit leads me.


24 posted on 03/20/2021 4:25:40 PM PDT by OneVike (Just another Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MurphsLaw

I also want to add, that in all that some tribes changed, and even Moses allowance for divorce, they were not condoned by God.

True, men always created grey areas where God uses black and white with no middle grey area.

We are constantly looking for loopholes, but try as we may, or do as we do, there are none.

Thus the reason Jesus told His disciples that man cannot, which proved we needed a perfect forever Sacrifice as the mediator..

However, Jesus wants us to live with our errors by asking for forgiveness, and trying harder to be right. Instead of creating grey areas to justify our weaknesses.


25 posted on 03/20/2021 4:32:32 PM PDT by OneVike (Just another Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
So we appreciate application of the Law is always fluid over the ages and whims of men..... . But how do we read Matthew then ? Is divorce a grave sin against God (sans sexual immorality)?
Christ said Moses “reasoned” That it was Ok...but this is not how it was in the beginning....

Does the “beginning” then no longer matter? Is it changeable?

Christ could then have said “ Moses was wrong, I’m changing it back” ... You see the catch-22, yes?
26 posted on 03/20/2021 6:57:19 PM PDT by MurphsLaw (“But now if you have a purse, take it.. and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.“)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MurphsLaw

God is against divorce, what Christ did was die for the sins. We repent, and gain forgiveness. However, Gods searches the heart, and while divorce is wrong, and even Christians get divorced, God sees the reason in the heart.

Christ said only for sexual sin can one justify divorce, but if one cheats, the other one better not be the type who led them to it.

If we are to forgive another 70 x 7, then where is the forgiveness for the sin.

If then one keeps sinning, then we learn it is OK to put one away in divorce if they are not saved. Since continual willing sin proves one is not one with Christ.

This even God says to do so is OK, since God’s commandment under Moses said death was the penalty for one who commits harlotry. Remember the woman caught in adultery? Christ also said let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Remember, all of God’s punishments were the max you can give, under Christ it is forgiveness to the max. So while divorce is wrong, if a Christians divorces their spouse for adultery, then they are as guilty for not forgiving them.

You then will say, but who can be iso forgiving for such a violation of ones marriage vow? To which Jesus said, man cannot, thus we need Christ. Yet as I said, if you are truly in Christ, then why would you not forgive instead of divorce?


27 posted on 03/20/2021 9:56:18 PM PDT by OneVike (Just another Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
I would say that you hold a very liberal understanding of Matt 19- all of the verses. When we marry on the altar, we are indeed becoming one flesh... not mere sentimentality.... but truly spiritually one flesh. The greek word actually means a "new organism" created... whereby after marriage- divorce is then like cutting up this new body in the eyes of God.

Many Christians accept modern no-fault mutual divorce... but it goes against scripture. He that cant stay married for life... ought not get married - and avoid breaking a promise made to God. Moses had no authority to redefine what marriage was to be. Christ redefined sacramentally what marriage should be once again. Once we get to decide what is right- Once we are the ones to decide- anything is possible agsinst God.
28 posted on 03/21/2021 1:46:03 PM PDT by MurphsLaw (“But now if you have a purse, take it.. and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.“)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MurphsLaw
Murph,

I do believe I said one should forgive, and up to 70 x 7 as Jesus said. Read it again.

Remember, all of God’s punishments were the max you can give, under Christ it is forgiveness to the max. So while divorce is wrong, if a Christians divorces their spouse for adultery, then they are as guilty for not forgiving them.

However, I really do not think I have a liberal view on it. No where did I justify a divorced Christian to remarry. Remember, these laws are for Christians, not unbelievers. If you are a non believer your going to hell for not accepting Christ. So for non believer, let us save their souls before forcing them to live like a Christian.

So, unless you are telling me that God erroneously allowed Paul's teachings to be part of the Scriptural, then you are wrong about what you accuse me of.

To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) and that the husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11 )

I went on to say, which I repeat, which is consistent in all my stances on the subject,

Again I repeat what my comment was,

If we are to forgive another 70 x 7, then where is the forgiveness for the sin........... if you are truly in Christ, then why would you not forgive instead of divorce?

I know my comment was kind of jumbled, because I did so on my phone in my van just before heading into Church. However read it again and you will see I am consistent in all the teachings of Christ, God, and Paul's.

You can apologize any time brother.
29 posted on 03/21/2021 4:47:54 PM PDT by OneVike (Just another Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sasportas; OneVike

Tye Babylonian Talmud was the written down Oral Torah of the Pharisees.

Rabbinical Judaism is the reimagined Pharisees sect of 2nd temple Judaism.
Christianity is the other surviving sect of 2nd temple Judaism


30 posted on 04/24/2021 11:25:36 PM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

Clement of Alexandria taught that the bestowal of the six blessings necessitated the end of biblical Judaism within the seventy weeks (9:24). He referred to the Temple’s destruction in the language of Daniel’s weeks. He wrote, “Vespasian rose to the supreme power and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place” (STO, XXI, 142–143).

Origen (185–254 A.D.) was a student of Clement of Alexandria. It seems quite certain that he agreed with his teacher that the terminus ad quem of the seventieth week was the destruction of the Temple. “The weeks of years up to the time of Christ the leader that Daniel the prophet predicted were fulfilled” (TPR, IV:1:5).


31 posted on 04/24/2021 11:31:52 PM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

Jesus is the successor to Melchuzedek who brought wine and bread to Abraham. Similarly Jesus in the Euch6gives us eternal life giving bread and wine.


32 posted on 04/24/2021 11:54:26 PM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

If you want to know more about John the Baptist mission read about the Mandaens. They are the continuation of John’s disciples who did not follow christ


33 posted on 04/24/2021 11:55:44 PM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh; edwinland; OneVike

It is translated as “salvation is from the Jews “.

car le salut vient des Juifs

porque la salvación viene[a] de los judíos

Vos adoratis quod nescitis: nos adoramus quod scimus, quia salus ex Judaeis est

Ihr betet an, was ihr nicht kennt; wir beten an, was wir kennen, denn das Heil kommt aus den Juden.

क्योंकि उद्धार यहूदियों में से ही है

कारण यहूदी लोकांकडूनच तारण येते.

, bo zbawienie pochodzi od Żydów

In 16th century English it meant the same as in today’s English saying “salvation comes from the jews”

Also note that “the Jews” in Jesus’s time were multiple sects. One of these were the Jesus movement which became Christianity

And the most prominent other sect was the Pharisees who became rabbinical Judaism after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD


34 posted on 04/25/2021 3:37:56 AM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson