Throne of the high priest

[Fenris]

I believe it certainly does allude to that.

By your understanding. But the bible doesn't say that.

Isnt God going to restore all mankind under a new covenant ( Jew and Gentile)?

Um, no. Bible doesn't say that either.

We will have a priest forever under the order of Melchizedek.

Only if one understands Psalm 110 as being messianic. But the Psalm itself doesn't say that anyplace either.

Something new...yes , but they are not my ideas.

Picking a bad translation of a verse to "prove" your own personal ideas is making your own religion.

1st century Jews were eyewitnesses to the new covenant and interpreted the OT and wrote accordingly.

Whether they were still Jews after they wrote these things is certainly a subject of discussion.

Jesus was from Judah and was proclaimed as king and Messiah by some Jews.

"King", really?

After he fed the 5000, the crowd, convinced he was the Prophet, planned to take him by force and make him king...but Jesus slipped away.

"Make him king"?

The work of the king went beyond the political expectations of the people. He had priestly functions to perform for a more complete restoration. He would shed his blood for the sins of the world, opening the way to the presence of God as it was in Eden.

Which you still can't support with biblical verses.

This is why we call it the Good news for all mankind.

or not.

[rejoice44]

Neither did the high priest.

The High Priest had to make a cloud of incense so that God could not be seen by him. Once a year this was to happen and God said, Leviticus 16:2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

So I don't understand why you say that.

[Fenris]

So I don't understand why you say that.

Why did Aaron's two sons die? Because they went to a very holy place in an unsanctioned ceremony.

What is this verse saying? "Only go into the holy of holies in a sanctioned ceremony on Yom Kippur".

He's not there to "meet God". "Hey God, how you doing? Family good, uh huh, uh huh, how's the weather where you are...?"

[rejoice44]

Why did Aaron's two sons die? Because they went to a very holy place in an unsanctioned ceremony.

What is this verse saying? "Only go into the holy of holies in a sanctioned ceremony on Yom Kippur".

He's not there to "meet God". "Hey God, how you doing? Family good, uh huh, uh huh, how's the weather where you are...?"

Well he is there to meet God with Israel's atonement each year. I would say that he represents Israel's "mediator with God". Don't know how else you would put it

[Fenris]

I would say that he represents Israel's "mediator with God". Don't know how else you would put it

I would put it that he was carrying out a temple ritual.

[rejoice44]

I would put it that he was carrying out a temple ritual.

For what purpose, if it was not as mediator. Surly you see a purpose in the ritual?

[Fenris]

For what purpose, if it was not as mediator. Surly you see a purpose in the ritual?

Was every priest that ever brought a sacrifice on behalf of someone else's sin a mediator too? Or just carrying out a temple ritual?

[rejoice44]

Was every priest that ever brought a sacrifice on behalf of someone else's sin a mediator too? Or just carrying out a temple ritual?

Anyone who represents someone else is a go between. I would call them a mediator.

[Fenris]

Anyone who represents someone else is a go between. I would call them a mediator.

So nothing special about the high priest, eh?

[rejoice44]

So nothing special about the high priest, eh?

Of course there is, he is God's chosen mediator for Israel, for temporary atonement.

[Fenris]

Of course there is, he is God's chosen mediator for Israel, for temporary atonement.

Didn't you just say that every priest is a mediator?

[Aaron01]

Hmm no.

Really, you're arguing that the high priest did not preside over the Sanhedrin?

The high priest was the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin. This view conflicts with the later Jewish tradition according to which the Pharisaic tannaim (the Zuggim) at the head of the academies presided over the great Sanhedrin also (Ḥag. ii. 2). However, a careful reading of the sources ("Ant." xx. 10; "Contra Ap." ii., § 23; comp. "Ant." iv. 8, § 14; xiv. 9, §§ 3-5 [Hyrcanus II. as president]; xx. 9, § 1 [Ananus]), as well as the fact that in the post-Maccabean period the high priest was looked upon as exercising in all things, political, legal, and sacerdotal, the supreme authority, shows it to be almost certain that the presidency of the Sanhedrin was vested in the high priest (see Isidore Loeb in "R. E. J." 1889, xix. 188-201; Jelski, "Die Innere Einrichtung des Grossen Synhedrions," pp. 22-28, according to whom the "nasi" was the high priest, while the "ab bet din" was a Pharisaic tanna).

I was also going to make the point that during the Maccabean revolt the high priest was considered to fulfill both roles(political and religious) and the article in the encylopedia confirms that.

Ecclus. (Sirach) l. is another evidence of the great reverence in which the high priest was held. The assumption of the princely authority by the Maccabean high priests (the Hasmoneans) was merely the final link in this development, which, beginning with the death of Zerubbabel, was to combine the two ideals, the politico-Messianic and the religio- Levitical, in one office.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...89-high-priest

Not in the second temple era.

Not according to the New Testament when Caiapas prophesied without the use of the Urim and Thummim(John11:49-52).

You have 36 posts and already you are flinging insults?

It was meant as a joke, I'll remember in future that you have no sense of humour.

[Fenris]

Really, you're arguing that the high priest did not preside over the Sanhedrin?

Yes.

The article you quote says "This view conflicts" because the Talmud reports otherwise.

By the end of the second temple era, the Romans were granting the position of high priest to the highest bidder. Is that who was heading the Jewish version of the supreme court? I think not.

I was also going to make the point that during the Maccabean revolt the high priest was considered to fulfill both roles(political and religious) and the article in the encylopedia confirms that.

But this was not their proper role. Again, Genesis 49:1o and elsewhere is very clear: The royal line belongs to Judah, not Levi. That the Hasmoneans ended up fighting each other and eventually inviting the Romans in should be evidence enough that this was not the way things were meant to be.

There is no ideal in Judaism where the priesthood and the royalty are vested in the same person.

Not according to the New Testament when Caiapas prophesied without the use of the Urim and Thummim(John11:49-52).

I'm free to disbelieve that, especially since according to Jews prophecy ended hundreds of years earlier.

It was meant as a joke, I'll remember in future that you have no sense of humour.

Mocking another person is funny?

[Aaron01]

Yes.

The article you quote says "This view conflicts" because the Talmud reports otherwise.

By the end of the second temple era, the Romans were granting the position of high priest to the highest bidder. Is that who was heading the Jewish version of the supreme court? I think not.

But this was not their proper role. Again, Genesis 49:1o and elsewhere is very clear: The royal line belongs to Judah, not Levi. That the Hasmoneans ended up fighting each other and eventually inviting the Romans in should be evidence enough that this was not the way things were meant to be.

There is no ideal in Judaism where the priesthood and the royalty are vested in the same person.

Yes I am aware that the Jewish high priesthood went through some changes, but your opinion that he was simply a temple functionary is to undermine his role within Judaism, according to basically every Jewish source I have read. There was an ideal form of government set up for the Israelites by God, he chose judges to deal in civil matter and priests to take charge of religious matters, but the two worked in tandem because Israel was a theocracy(Deuteronomy16:8-13). This system changed when the Israelites demanded a King and God granted their request(1Samuel8:1-22).

I'm free to disbelieve that, especially since according to Jews prophecy ended hundreds of years earlier.

This is true you are free to disbelieve, but if it is true it shows that God even worked through those high priests whom the Romans influenced the appointment of.

[Fenris]

Yes I am aware that the Jewish high priesthood went through some changes, but your opinion that he was simply a temple functionary is to undermine his role within Judaism, according to basically every Jewish source I have read.

Try the Talmud.

"A bastard (i.e. person born out of wedlock) who is a Torah scholar takes precedence over a High Priest who is an ignoramus"

Nothing magical. Nothing special. Just a guy who carried out functions in the temple. By the end of the second temple era, even less than that- a rich guy who bribed the Romans for an appointment.

There was an ideal form of government set up for the Israelites by God he chose Judges to deal in civil matter and priests to take charge of religious matters

No place does the bible say this was the ideal. Given that Israel achieved it's greatest prosperity under kings, I would say just the opposite.

This is true you are free to disbelieve, but if it is true it shows that God even worked through those high priests whom the Romans influenced the appointment of.

If my grandmother had wheels, she would be a wagon. You know?