Throne of the high priest

[Aaron01]

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.

Well seeing as the Judaism today doesn't and cannot resemble the Judaism of biblical times I am not really surprised that you are undermining the significance of the high priest.

I've read the Talmud I know the quote, and I also know about how he received divine oracles from God, but apparently you don't think that is very important.

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.

Yes it does, God tells Moses to appoint Joshua as the first judge and Aaron as the first high priest, he also warns the Israelites in 1Samuel about appointing a king but they do it anyway.

[Fenris]

Well seeing as the Judaism today doesn't and cannot resemble the Judaism of biblical times I am not really surprised that you are undermining the significance of the high priest.

It is what it is.

I've read the Talmud I know the quote,

Then why did you say "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."?

and I also know about how he received divine oracles from God, but apparently you don't think that is very important.

Not during the second temple era, and not when he was an ignoramus. Or a Roman toady. Or both, as many sadly were.

Yes it does, God tells Moses to appoint Joshua as the first judge and Aaron as the first high priest, he also warns the Israelites in 1Samuel about appointing a king but they do it anyway.

Doesn't God also discuss kings in Deuteronomy?

[Aaron01]

Then why did you say "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."?

The Talmud is much more positive about the high priest than negative, the Talmud is one source.

Not during the second temple era, and not when he was an ignoramus. Or a Roman toady. Or both, as many sadly were.

According to the New Testament the high priest still received divine oracles from God without the use of the urim and thummim. Something else you might find interesting is that Christ or others often refer to him as the light or the truth or of being perfect, which is what the urim and thummim mean to my understanding. Also according to Josephus and others, the high priests, even the, 'roman toadies,' were forced to conform to the Pharisaical practice regarding the temple functions, because the people didn't much like the Sadducees because they were seen as, 'Roman toadies,' as you say.

Christ also reaffirms the Pharisaical interpretation of the law in Matthew23:2-3, but rebukes the Sadducean interpretation of the law in the previous chapter(Matthew22:9).

Doesn't God also discuss kings in Deuteronomy?

What verses did you have in mind, did he tell the Israelites to establish one in Deuteronomy?

[Fenris]

The Talmud is much more positive about the high priest than negative, the Talmud is one source.

Ah, another Talmudic scholar.

There are more experts on the Talmud here than in my synagogue.

According to the New Testament the high priest still received divine oracles from God without the use of the urim and thummim.

Shrug. That's your source. There's no, as you say, "Jewish sources" for it that I am aware of.

Something else you might find interesting is that Christ or others often refer to him as the light or the truth or of being perfect,

Which is difficult to reconcile with them all being Roman toadies.

which is what the urim and thummim mean to my understanding.

They're understood by religious Jews as being some sort of device used in divination, although what exactly they were is unknown. Whatever they were, they were most likely lost after the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem.

Also according to Josephus and others, the high priests, even the, 'roman toadies,' were forced to conform to the Pharisaical practice regarding the temple functions, because the people didn't much like the Sadducees because they were seen as, 'Roman toadies,' as you say.

Yes on one Sukkot the High Priest was pelted with Esrogim by worshippers for deviating from standard practice.

So, far from "perfect".

Christ also reaffirms the Pharisaical interpretation of the law in Matthew23:2-3, but rebukes the Sadducean interpretation of the law in the previous chapter(Matthew22:9).

Yes he was in outlook close to the Pharisees.

What verses did you have in mind, did he tell the Israelites to establish one in Deuteronomy?

17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein; and shalt say: 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me'; 15 thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother. 16 Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses; forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you: 'Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.' 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. 18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests the Levites. 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them; 20 that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left; to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel.

[Aaron01]

Ah, another Talmudic scholar.

There are more experts on the Talmud here than in my synagogue.

Nope, I've just read some of it because I was interested in how the urim and thummim worked.

Which is difficult to reconcile with them all being Roman toadies.

No Christ or others refer to Christ as the truth or the light or as perfect, not the high priest.

They're understood by religious Jews as being some sort of device used in divination, although what exactly they were is unknown. Whatever they were, they were most likely lost after the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem.

Yes it seems they were lost and there is a bit of confusion on how they were used. Some think they just gave a yes or no answer, and some believe the light from the shekinah along with the menorah illuminated the letters on the high priests breastplate to spell out a more specific answer. The instructions from them regardless of how they were used had to be obeyed by the Israelites. It could have been that the high priest regained his prophetic gift at the incarnation of Christ, but that is another thread.

Also the verses you gave from deuteronomy simply show that God knew they were going to ask for a king, but what is clear from 1Samuel is that God warns them about choosing a king and tells Samuel that they have rejected him(God) because of their request.

1Samuel8:7 and the LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.

[Fenris]

And yet, again, having a king unified the tribes; led to a time of peace and prosperity; caused the temple to be built.

Also remember, no king, no royal line, no Jesus.

[Aaron01]

And yet, again, having a king unified the tribes; led to a time of peace and prosperity; caused the temple to be built.

Also remember, no king, no royal line, no Jesus.

Why couldn't the temple have been built under the judges? The second temple was built without any Jewish king?

Also you're dealing in hypotheticals, it most likely wouldn't have mattered if Israel had chosen a king, Christ would still have come.

This thread has been derailed, the original question has been answered.

[amazzin]

I agree

Thread Closed

Why couldn't the temple have been built under the judges? The second temple was built without any Jewish king?

Also you're dealing in hypotheticals, it most likely wouldn't have mattered if Israel had chosen a king, Christ would still have come.

This thread has been derailed, the original question has been answered.