The God of Hebrews, the God of the Old Testament

a reply to: whereislogic
Thw writer's only purpose in talking about Melchizedek is to find ways in which Christ resembles him.
The only purpose of mentioning the apparent absence of death is to find therein a resemblance to Christ.
The only purpose of mentioning the apparent "no beginning of days" is to find therein a resemblance to Christ. If he did not have that intention, there was no need for him to bring up the point at all.

a reply to: DISRAELI
Which brings us back to...

Like other humans, Melchizedek was born and he died. However, the names of his father and mother are not furnished, his ancestry and posterity are not disclosed, and the Scriptures contain no information about the beginning of his days or the end of his life. Thus, Melchizedek could fittingly foreshadow Jesus Christ, who has an unending priesthood. As Melchizedek had no recorded predecessor or successor in his priesthood, so too Christ was preceded by no high priest similar to himself, and the Bible shows that none will ever succeed him. Furthermore, although Jesus was born in the tribe of Judah and in the kingly line of David, his fleshly ancestry had no bearing on his priesthood, nor was it by virtue of human ancestry that the offices of both priest and king were combined in him. These things were as a result of Jehovah’s own oath to him.
...
The fact remains that Melchizedek’s nationality, genealogy, and offspring are left undisclosed in the Scriptures, and that with good reason, for he could thus typify Jesus Christ, who by Jehovah’s sworn oath “has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.”—Heb 6:20.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Ah, then I guessed right what your motivation and justification for their continued use was.

Actually my motivation was that I have always known those expressions and did not think they needed justifying.

I suspect your people of creating differences in terminology, just as they have historically created differences in doctrine, purely for the sake of being different from everybody else and thereby justifying a claim to unique status.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Which brings us back to...

I think that brings us back to the replies I've already given.

a reply to: DayAfterTomorrow

The God of John's gospel, the God of the Old Testament
The abovementioned thread is the place where I am discussing this theme in relation to John's gospel.
In this thread, I won't be looking at texts outside the Epistle to the Hebrews.
I am definitely not interested in discussing the Tao, and never will be. You have your own threads for that purpose.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Never talked about "needing" justifications. Allthough thinking about it, if one feels inclined to do so, I guess sharing some of them in some situations might help with efficiency regarding what you were arguing for in this thread. Which can also be described as there being no distinction between old and new, no change in the attributes, characteristics and identity of God. Demonstrating further why the terminology "old" is misleading when it's used or applied to half of the bible, when technically all of it was written pretty long ago so all of it could be called "old" in that sense. And the terminologies used in the bible are actually "old covenant" and "new covenant" neither terms would be appropiate to apply to an entire section of the bible since they are subjects discussed all throughout the bible in one continuing consistent message and record of history (in particular how Jehovah God has dealt with His people, His sheep symbolically and which shepherds he has used throughout history to guide and teach them the facts/truths about Him and His way; and which shepherds let him down continuing onwards till this day, those described as "They intend to make my people forget my name").

What was the name of your God again? I didn't quite catch that in this thread....

Matthew 15:7-9

7 You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said:+ 8 ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”+

The "me" in there is referring to Jehovah God. He's the one Isaiah was speaking for at Isaiah 29:13. As I just quoted from an honest bible translation that doesn't replace God's name with the generic title "the LORD" which doesn't identify exactly which lord said that.

a reply to: whereislogic
I think "old" is being used in the sense "former", as distinct from "new and current".
That is the whole message of this letter, that the arrangements of the Mosaic covenant now have "former" status; indeed, this letter is probably the chief source of the distinction.

This was exactly my point at the end of the OP;

The relationship between the two covenants is that the old covenant foreshadows the new.
Thus the sanctuary established by Moses was erected, on God’s instructions, as a copy of the heavenly sanctuary into which Christ would enter (ch8 v5).
Similarly the sacrifices carried out in that sanctuary were symbolic of the death which Christ would experience (ch9).
In confirmation of this, the same sacrifice was also foreshadowed in the words of Psalm 40, “I have come to do thy will, O God” (ch10 v5).
Christ is the reality of God’s work, and the old priests were the imperfect copies which God provided for teaching purposes.

This also settles, by implication, the relative status of the two testaments.
The Old Testament system is a part, but a subordinate part, of the work of God which is made more complete and perfected in Christ.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
For the sake of completeness, we might also notice the Old Testament quotations of the last couple of chapters.
It is “the Lord” who gives discipline (ch12 vv5-6) or provides help (ch13 v6), and these are taken to be statements about the Christian God.

For the sake of honesty and accuracy, let's quote Hebrews 12:5,6 as it was really written down and quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures where God's name Jehovah is recorded and still shown in the oldest Hebrew manuscripts before scribes and translators started replacing it with their language variant for "lord" and then translating it to "the LORD" or "the Lord".

Hebrews 12:5,6:

And you have entirely forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons: “My son, do not belittle the discipline from Jehovah,* nor give up when you are corrected by him; 6 for those whom Jehovah* loves he disciplines, in fact, he scourges* everyone whom he receives as a son.”+

The "you" there might as well apply to anyone who misquotes it and leaves out God's name Jehovah from that quotation and replaces it with "the Lord" or uses bible translations that have done that without adding a caveat about it, or merely mentioning that God's name was used there both by Paul and King Solomon who he was quoting and paraphrasing:

Proverbs 3:11,12

11 My son, do not reject the discipline of Jehovah,+

And do not loathe his reproof,+

12 For those whom Jehovah loves he reproves,+

Just as a father does a son in whom he delights.+

The manuscriptal evidence for God's name in Proverbs is more obvious. But when you pretend that Paul misquoted King Solomon by saying "the Lord" at Hebrews 12:5,6, one is playing a real dishonest game (possibly with oneself, willful ignorance).

As you probably know, my bible quotations are from the New World Translation, but ASV, Darby and YLT all should have Jehovah there in Proverbs yet not in Hebrews, all these translators basically end up providing fuel for those promoting the hidden* argument that Paul was misquoting King Solomon (*: hidden as in a logical follow-through that isn't spelled out by those using these translations that won't mention Jehovah at Hebrews 12:5,6, which include a whole bunch of other translations that also won't use "Jehovah" in Proverbs). You might find "Jehovah" as a footnote in the Divine Name King James Bible. But then they'll still try to conflate that name with the title "lord" by leaving that word (noun, title) in there in those verses when Paul never used the word in those 2 verses and neither does King Solomon. The evidence is clear and unambiguous regarding this so why the continued deception and misleading quotations?

a reply to: whereislogic
Since we're quoting the wording of this Epistle, I should point out that the word written in the text is actually KURIOS. Which is a Greek word meaning "lord".

Again, I don't see the difference in terminology as being very important. It's another one of those "manufactured" differences, isn't it?

a reply to: DISRAELI

I see you're only interested in arguing your position. Never mind, I'll try again another day when you're in a different mood if that day arrives or if I see any hints of it arriving. As I mentioned, the evidence is clear that it was replaced with the Greek word for lord. Both from the bible itself (Proverbs and the Hebrew Scriptures, that which was quoted is clearly shown in the oldest Hebrew manuscripts to be God's name that is rendered reliably as "Jehovah" in English in the same way names like "Jesus" and "Melchizedek" are rendered with vowels and letters from the Roman alphabet) as well as archeological discoveries (the oldest fragments of the Greek translation known as the Septuagint still use God's name, this evidence is always conveniently ignored by those pretending that there is no evidence that God's name was replaced with "Kurios", "Lord" in english; i.e. willful ignorance). There are other lines of evidence from historical research into superstition and records of this behaviour of making people forget about God's name Jehovah and obscuring the subject of God's name Jehovah (including its importance to the subject of salvation or "being saved").

Joel 2:32 (the oldest Hebrew manuscripts clearly showing God's name)

32 And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved;+

For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape,+ just as Jehovah has said,

The survivors whom Jehovah calls.”

Romans 10:13 (again only a couple of translations such as the NW, NWT, DNKJB and some others that aren't very popular will show God's name as "Jehovah" in english translations* , yet, it's still the same quotation, same deception and trickery going on) *: there are other variations in spelling in different languages, allthough I think the DNKJB only comes in English, not sure.

13 For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah* will be saved.”+

Notice God's name Jehovah being mentioned 3 times in one verse in Joël, almost as if it's something important... Approx. 7000 times in the bible entirely, the most frequently mentioned name in the bible. Certain other people who quote a lot from the bible don't seem to use it very often or in a rather confusing manner on the few occasions that they do.

a reply to: whereislogic
In other words, you will be "arguing your position". Why does that become a bad thing when I'm doing it?

a reply to: DISRAELI

I try not to argue too much and just quote what the bible* really says. *: thus also Jehovah God, they are not my words, it is not my message to you. Jehovah is trying to tell you something and wake you up, or anyone else that may read these comments. What I am quoting is His message to humankind, myself included. Allthough in this case, I would have to say I don't qualify as someone who has:

forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons: “My son, do not belittle the discipline from Jehovah, nor give up when you are corrected by him; 6 for those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines, in fact, he scourges everyone whom he receives as a son.”

That would be more appropiate for those who think of or quote these verses from Hebrews 12:5,6 as saying "discipline from the Lord" and "those whom the Lord loves he disciplines" or some variant rendering that doesn't use God's name as Paul and King Solomon both did and both didn't forget by resisting those who:

intend to make [Jehovah's] people forget His name. (Jeremiah 23:27)

Of course I will share some elaborations on why I think, know and have concluded based on the evidence available to me and that I am aware of that these quotations are honestly and accurately rendered in English, unlike certain other quotations and translations that the majority decribed at Matthew 7:13,14 prefers to use as well as both types described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 (both teachers and those who want their ears tickled) and those described in Col.2:8 and a bunch of other places I quoted in this thread and other threads (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Proverbs, Matthew, Mark, both letters to Timothy and many of the other letters from Paul, etc.; it's a recurring theme).

a reply to: whereislogic

Or perhaps the most common, they jump right into it and start presenting their views on theological subjects (especially those related to bible texts and their interpretations of them) as if it's so. As if it's the correct view. Or as if it's an insightful view of the text. As if it's something worth reading and on ATS possibly even giving it a flag and/or star. As if it's worth paying attention to. While...

All of the words you posted from Isaiah are the Son of God judging his host (Manu / Humanity). The condition we are in is from the foundation of the fall of creation into sin, which cannot be blamed on Mankind. When the Lord was immersed into the waters of life (Baptism / born as human), he had to overcome one specific thing--his judgment of mankind alone as a single actor. Why? Our Head (LORD) is the one moving the body. He went against his own Father's words here in Genesis 6:

6 Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans his blood will be shed,
because in his image, Elohim made humans.
7 Be fertile, and increase in number. Spread over the earth, and increase.”

He shed blood of humans, encouraged the shedding of blood and was the one judging himself in the process. This is evident by the fact that he paid the price of this bloodshed just as the verse above states. He then told us NOT to judge, or we would be judge. The questions is, who would we judge? HIM!

If you know this, then you must then go to John 8 and find the identity of each Father listed. Of the two, only one has ever claimed his 'FIRST" Son is Israel. Elohim speaks in the verse above, not Yahweh. Yahweh spoke in Genesis 8. You might say that Yahweh and Elohim are the same, but you would be incorrect. The Father of Adam is identified in Genesis 1, then seen to rest from ALL creation and work in Genesis 2. This is the true Father. Yahweh did not rest, but MADE, FORMED and PLANTED. Never did he create (Bara). He is relative to God, inside creation. The true God rested in his creation (Adam).

He is then identified as the Son of God and Lord of Hosts. Lord is Ishvara in Hinduism. Guardian by the definition of Galatians 3. He proclaimed himself God with none beside (Elohim alone / Yachid). This is the pride of Satan, which Jesus called himself in John 8. By saying HIM, we are referring to this single unity:

Colossians 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Yahweh is ONE! Not many, but one. The entire story is about all of the above Cosmos in one unity, but not God the Father. The Son is the image of God, not God himself. His story is a unity of ever relative and all of the traditions that accompany this story. Unless we consider them all, we cannot know the essence of 'know thyself.' It's the reason he could no longer judge his host. To do this was to further judge himself.

No mystery in this and no fancy interpretation. Just what the words say. Again, it's wrapped up in knowing what is meant by Colossians 1 as the Son God rises above his own creation, overcoming his own fault (Ezekiel 28 / Commerce). By this, he raises us all out of ignorance. You see the Son as something other than yourself. I do not. I do not judge this process, but recognize its necessity to individuate God's image. After this individuation, we will all be transfigured back to the perfect image with full knowledge (LIGHT) of what happened. To judge the work of God is to say the Devil was unnecessary and outside of God. Not true. It's all in the design.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: DayAfterTomorrow

The God of John's gospel, the God of the Old Testament
The abovementioned thread is the place where I am discussing this theme in relation to John's gospel.
In this thread, I won't be looking at texts outside the Epistle to the Hebrews.
I am definitely not interested in discussing the Tao, and never will be. You have your own threads for that purpose.

Look into your heart and ask why this is. Judgment of other nations outside your chosen nation. It's the reason for the cross and his words to NOT judge. It's the reasons for this:

Genesis 9

6 Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans his blood will be shed,
because in his image, Elohim made humans.
7 Be fertile, and increase in number. Spread over the earth, and increase.”

And, it's the reason for this:

12 Elohim said, “This is the sign of the promise I am giving to you and every living being that is with you for generations to come. 13 I will put my rainbow in the clouds to be a sign of my promise to the earth. 14 Whenever I form clouds over the earth, a rainbow will appear in the clouds. 15 Then I will remember my promise to you and every living animal. Never again will water become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember my everlasting promise to every living animal on earth.”

17 So Elohim said to Noah, “This is the sign of the promise I am making to all life on earth.”

This promise was made by Elohim (Father) and not Yahweh. Yahweh selected one color from the Earth to bless, thereby dividing mankind yet again with further bloodshed at his request. From this, he shed blood of humans. If you can't get around this, then you are simply bowing to fear of the Lord. Instead, use perfect love to overcome this fear of the Devil. The Father blessed the WHOLE world. If you could only overcome the judgment, you would then read the TAO and Dhammapada with open eyes to see the Living Waters within them. The Old Testament is poison to the mind, engaging fear of God from one that is not God, but relative to God.

One place for you to get this. Exodus 4-11. In Exodus 4, he told Pharaoh he would kill one child (Moloch). By Exodus 11, this became a lie. He killed them all, but never corrected his statement to Moses about killing one child. If you can't recognize killing as wrong yet, then you have not overcome your fear by wrestling with the Lord. Until you do this, you will not see the beast in his judgment, nor will you stop protecting him with your own.

Love demands more.

a reply to: DayAfterTomorrow
I have told you that I won't be responding beyond the topic of the thread.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The identity of the High Priest is the topic of the thread. If you miss this, you cannot understanding the topic. I am trying to show you what you are missing. Unless you identify him in you, you divide the identity. Wrestle with the lord to know why you should. The point of the entire thing is to overcome his image in your own; his ego from your own and the essence of the fall of mankind by HIS actions. By this, you see the necessity for a higher priest as guardian. Perfect love overcomes fear.

Put another way, the Father of the Son is the Holy Spirit of God. That Spirit cannot fall into sin. For this purpose, the image was made. What must you overcome to find the one beyond the image? The origin of that image, but not before coming through the Son, which is the image of sin and judgment. It's this very thing the Son of Man (Adam) had to overcome as our High Priest. Unless he did this, we have no way to see why we should do as he did (OVERCOME). What did he do? He denied the kingdom on Earth. That kingdom is the Kingdom of David, or his old nature's desire. In the desert temptation, he denied his own accuser. If you see that accuser as somewhere other than his own heart, you miss the point of this verse.

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Paul was telling us how ALL of these rulers, powers, thrones and authorities were in HIM. He overcame himself by fulfilling the requirements of the same rulers, powers, thrones and authorities. If you miss the Hindu narrative of Yama and Manu, you miss the source code for the entire narrative. How? By judging your brothers in other nations as less than Israel.

Judgment of Yahweh is not love. Wrestle with this and your eyes will open, overcoming the fear of self and others. Unless you do, you cannot understand the nature of the High Priest. We all have that same deathless High Priest living within us all. ISHVARA.

Look outside the house to see the home. What do you overcome? Judgment.

originally posted by: DayAfterTomorrow
The identity of the High Priest is the topic of the thread. If you miss this, you cannot understanding the topic.

I wrote the opening post, and the opening post is what defines the topic of any thread.
The topic of this thread is the continuity of the Biblical God as demonstrated by the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Another way to say the same.

Hebrews 9

23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.

YAHWEH and the LORD are the same. John 17

4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Before the world, he was in the presence. As Yahweh, he is the Priest (LORD) of Hosts (Man). Outside this presence, he had to once again enter. How?

Genesis 9

6 Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans his blood will be shed,
because in his image, Elohim made humans.
7 Be fertile, and increase in number. Spread over the earth, and increase.”

Pay the price of bloodshed on his own hands. He is the one leading the sheep into more bloodshed, which is his lesson to learn form the Father.

John 8

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

Taught. The Lord was taught. NOT God. Taught by God. Who is the High Priest? Jesus? Who is HIS High Priest?

His Father, the one that did not die a death. GOD!

YAHWEH IS LORD, not GOD. Yahweh is the image to overcome and wrestle with to see who he is. YOU!

a reply to: DayAfterTomorrow
It would appear as a positive and beneficial thing to me if you quoted more and interpreted less. The same would count for when you are quoting from the bible in English conversations, that the bible quotation you use is not leaving key words like "God" in Hebrew: "Elohim" to obscure the subject of God's name some more since others are pretending that "Elohim" is a name cause it's obvious that "God" is not a name but people might not notice that the same is true when you just use the Hebrew word for "God" (which is "Elohim" in case that wasn't clear yet, or the Arabic word for "God" which is "Allah" for that matter). It would have also been useful to notice that you typed 6 instead of 9 (and perhaps edit the first comment), it's chapter 9, not 6, but no worries, google came to the rescue and I just noticed you corrected yourself in the follow-up commentary (or got the numbers right there which would have been another option for me to figure out what you were quoting exactly).

What was the name of your God again? Who is your main Shepherd if you have one?

Psalms 23:

Jehovah is my Shepherd.

I will lack nothing.

Genesis 9:

Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image He made man. 7 As for you, be fruitful and become many, and increase abundantly on the earth and multiply.”

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I am now establishing my covenant with you and with your offspring after you,
...
17 God repeated to Noah: “This is the sign of the covenant that I establish between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

18 Noah’s sons who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Jaʹpheth. ...
...
26 And he added:

“Praised be Jehovah, the God of Shem,...

There is no God named "Elohim" mentioned in Genesis 9, only the God and Shepherd of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Shem, me and a couple of million people alive today, whose name is Jehovah as humankind is reminded of approx. 7000 times in the bible which you seem to imply to understand it's meaning of and be able to share that meaning with the rest of mankind.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: DayAfterTomorrow
The identity of the High Priest is the topic of the thread. If you miss this, you cannot understanding the topic.

I wrote the opening post, and the opening post is what defines the topic of any thread.
The topic of this thread is the continuity of the Biblical God as demonstrated by the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

A forum is for discussion. The foundation of the discussion is incorrect and only partially defined. I am showing you how to go the next mile to see the High Priest of Jesus. Aleph Lamed (EL), or Strong Shepherd. He rested in Genesis 2. LORD is the Son not resting. He's the Lamb used as the seed. By taking the rib, the blood of the Lamb of God (SON) is divided as a seed in cell division. YOU are the one you lead. GOD is the EL of all Lambs, including Adam as the High Priest of his Host.

If you miss this, you might as well keep circling the wilderness. Instead, sheer the wool from the eyes to see who you are.