Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Religious Pron - Mesopotamia 6 - Babylon
General Boards - Religion & Philosophy
add New Topic
Replies: 15
| visibility 1

Religious Pron - Mesopotamia 6 - Babylon


Sep 8, 2022, 12:40 PM
Reply

…..



Ok, Strange, I’m not gonna put words in your mouth. And besides, this isn’t even about you, Doc, It's about Melchizedek.
…..





The strange, strange, story of Melchizedek


…..
Who doesn’t feel their loins stir when the topic turns to the Jewish priesthood? Don’t be embarrassed, it’s completely natural. It’s a very exiting subject, and probably worthy of its own post down the line.






…..





…..
The short version of Jewish High Priest history is that the first one, Aaron, was Moses’s brother. And since Aaron, almost every single High Priest followed Aaron’s direct line of succession, through the House of Levi.



…..





…..
That’s excepting the occasional royal coup or assassination attempt, during which the High Priest was sometimes picked up through a brother’s line. All the usual Game of Thrones human stuff. It was a lineage that would make the British Monarchy proud, dating from about 1250 BCE to 70 AD. So a long, long, time.



…..





…..
Because of the succession requirements, Jewish High Priests were expected to marry. And sometimes, to even have a wife-in-waiting on the side. Purely as an emergency backup.







They also had a subordinate priest who stood at their right hand and served as their own personal back-up, in case for whatever reason they were unable to perform their own priestly duties. It was a well-organized, well-run, highly-ordered system for over 1000 years. Controlled and driven by the Law.



…..





…..
And then there’s Melchizedek.



…..





…..
Melchizedek is the ultimate outlier. The mystery man. The great unknown. He’s an Agatha Christie type mystery. Heck, he might even be a Banacek level mystery. And if you’ve ever tried to solve an episode of Banacek, you know what I mean.




…..





…..
If you remember where we left off on our previous tangents, Abram had just saved his nephew Lot in a daring commando raid, and a very unusual thing happened after that fight.



…..





…..
The King of Sodom showed up to thank Abram for saving Sodom (for the time being). The all of a sudden, out of the blue, this guy Melchizedek shows up to the party with wine and bread.

Fortunately, an artist was on hand to preserve the moment...






Gen 14:
18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 
19 and he blessed Abram, saying,“Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.
20 And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
…..





…..
Now those three verses may not seem like much, but holy cow are they whoppers.



…..





…..
Remember, this is 400+ years before the Exodus and Moses and his brother Aaron and Joshua and the fight to reclaim the Promised Land, and all that stuff.
And 400+ years before the very first High Priest, Aaron, was called to duty.

Exodus 27:21 “Aaron and his sons are to keep the lamps burning before the Lord from evening till morning. This is to be a lasting ordinance among the Israelites for the generations to come.”


Aaron, hard at work


…..




…..
So who the f is this mysterious Melchizedek? A priest of God Most High? Let’s take a closer look…

Gen 14:18 says he is the king of Salem, a small town just north of Jerusalem. Fair enough. At the time, Jerusalem was barely even a town., It was known as Jebus, and was occupied by the Jebusites.




…..





…..
But the Bible says Melchizedek was a priest of God Most High.
Wait. What? Now hold on one minute.

There is a church, with a High Priest, in Canaan, 400 years before Moses?
Before the Hebrews even go to Egypt, with the Pharaoh’s blessing, to ride out a famine?
Before they even multiplied into the 12 Tribes?
Oh the questions…


What else do we know about Melchizedek’s church?
How widespread is it?
Who attends it?
How long has it been there?
Why isn’t Abram a part of this church?
Why is God making promises of nationhood to Abram, and not his own High Priest, Melchizedek?

Questions after questions after questions…




…..




…..
But then it gets even stranger. Melchizedek blesses Abram, and Abram pays Melchizedek tithes. WHAT?
Now, in the world of blessings, the greater always blesses the lesser.

That is, Constantine the Great might bless someone, but NOBODY blesses Constantine, ya know? At least no mortal man.
So the fact that Abram accepts Melchizedek’s blessing shows that he is of lesser stature than the man God himself is making covenants with, Abram. Whoa.

So again, who is this guy? It only gets stranger, and we’ll return to this mystery after the meat of the poast, coming up now….


Who are you? And why are people trying to give you lambs, and boys?


…..










++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++








…...
We got into all this Melchizedek stuff talking about the downfall of Ur III, Abram’s home. And sticking with ABaCAB, the next nation in line is Babylon.






Sumeria

Akkadia-Gutia-Ur III
Ba-bylon
C
A
B



…..




…..
This is not the bad Babylon, the “W-h-o-r-e of Babylon” in the Bible and all that, but the very first Babylon. There were about 4 Babylonian empires in all, and even more depending on who you ask.



…..





If you’ll remember, Babylon was a bit odd in that it wasn’t a part of the Sumerian-Akkadian tradition. It was founded by Amorite nomads – the very cousins of early Hebrews themselves.

Shulgi of Ur III even built at wall to try and keep the nomads out. But he failed, and Babylon was born.



Shulgi’s Palace at Ur


…..




…..
And his wall.


…..





…..
The original Babylon was so small that the first 4 rulers didn’t even declare themselves kings. How rinky-dink of a town do you have to be that someone won’t even declare themselves king? Someone is always willing to jump on that opportunity.



…..





…..
But the 6th ruler, well, he was a king, named Hammurabi. You might have heard of him. Hammurabi took a backwater ‘burg and made an empire from it. The power of one man. And in his lifetime, he took over all of Mesopotamia. Sort of a mini Alexander the Great.


Hammurabi, with his signature pet lion


…..




…..
But today, Hammurabi’s most remembered for his Code of Laws. They weren’t the first, that probably goes to Ur-Nammu, but they were different.
And that’s part of why we remember them.



Hammurabi’s Code. In stylish black. Basalt is the new mud.





Ur-Nammu’s earlier laws



…..





…..
Just like Moses 600ish years later, Hammurabi got his laws from god, too. In this case, the God of Justice, Shamash.
He’s the guy on the left with the rays coming off his wings. Looks like the fishing is good up in the mountains where he lives. Look at that stream!



…..





…..
Prior to Hammurabi, laws focused mainly on reparations to the person that was wronged. But Hammurabi’s code focused on punishment. Ouch. Physical pain for wrongdoing. Eye for an eye stuff.

And that’s a shift in thought about what criminal justice means. I guess more crowded cities means more crime, and thus harsher punishments. Here’s a few examples.


- If a man accuses another man and charges him with homicide, but cannot bring proof against him, his accuser shall be killed.

- If a man breaks into a house, they shall kill him and hang his body in front of that very breach.

- If a person should blind the eye of another person, they shall blind his eye.



There were even bad contractors back then, if you can believe it. But as usual, they got off easy.

- If a builder constructs a house for a man but does not make it conform to specifications so that a wall then buckles, that builder shall make that wall sound using his own silver.







…..





…..
Hammurabi even made it to the US Supreme Court, as a world representative of law, justice, and order. Here he is, second from the left, on a frieze between the Egyptian god Ptah and Moses, two other famous law givers. Nice job Hammy!



…..




…..
Hammurabi’ empire was relatively short lived. When he died, so did the engine behind his empire, and his sons slowly saw Babylon decline back to pip-squeak status. But Babylon would come back later, in a big way. King Hezekiah made the mistake of showing Babylonian ambassadors all his wealth in Jerusalem. Oops.


It’s in 2 Kings 20:12. And 200 years later, guess who shows up on his doorstep with an army looking for that same wealth?




…..





…..
This first rendition of Babylon met its fate to outsiders. Just as Ur III was destroyed by Elam (which allowed Babylon to expand in the first place), Babylon was in turn destroyed by the Hittites from the west, in Turkey.



…..





…..
But just like the Elamites, who were perfectly happy in Persia and didn’t care to stay in Mesopotamia, the Hittites were perfectly happy in Turkey and didn’t want to live in the Mesopotamian mosh-pit either. Smart move.



…..





…..
So they went home and left the ruins of Babylon and its empire top their neighbors, the Cassites. And that’s where we’ll pick up ABaCAB next time.


Neo-Cassites, circa 1968


…..






++++++++++++++++++++









…..
At the top of the post I said this Melchizedek stuff was gonna get even stranger. So, here we go.

Melchizedek makes another brief appearance in Psalm 110, and a longer one in Hebrew 7. Here, we learn even more amazing details about this guy.



…..





…..
Hebrews 7 is an attempt by Paul, perhaps, to explain why all the old Jewish Law is out and Jesus is in. He uses Melchizedek, the mystery man, as sort of a benchmark. The ideal king-priest. And so we learn a lot more about Melchizedek along the way.

The first thing we learn is that Melchizedek is eternal. Maybe not quite a god, but certainly sharing some immortal characteristics, and even resembling Jesus in the process.


Hebrews 7:3 “Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.”



…..





…..
Next, the author of Hebrews makes an argument that the whole of Jewish priesthood is irrelevant, because Melchizedek was a priest before Aaron (or even Levi) was even born. It’s a pretty good point if you are basing your legitimacy on lineage alone.

“10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.”



…..






…..
And then comes the final argument. Jesus is a priest just like Melchizedek, but outside of the Levi line, and superior to it. This gives us a clue as to who the audience for Hebrews was. Probably, early Jews who were close to converting to Christianity, but just couldn’t get over the idea of not having a High Priest around anymore.

It’s a bit ironic to cast Jesus in the mold of a priest, since he had a thing or two against the Jewish priesthood, but here it is:

“26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people.” He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.”



17 For it is declared: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”



Jesus, as a High Priest forever like Melchizedek, and not just a humble carpenter? For some, yep.


…..





…..
But after all that, we STILL don’t know who this eternal, parent-less, Son of God-like guy is. And we may never. But here’s what a few others think…



One idea is that he is a post-Babylonian exile insertion into the texts to validate tithes. There was a real debate after the exile over who the “real” Jews were. The ones coming home, or the ones who were left behind. And what better way to generate tithes than to say “Hey, even Abram paid tithes to the Jewish Priesthood, aka Melchizedek, so you should too!



…..





…..
In Judaism, Melchizedek is all over the place. As many opinions as rabbis. In the Second Book of Enoch (which didn’t make it into the Bible) Melchizedek was born of a virgin, from the wife of one of Noah’s brothers. He was born as an adult priest (ouch), and survived the flood by hanging out with God in the Garden of Eden.



…..






…..
In some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Melchizedek is viewed AS a god, and referred to as El, or Elohim, which was the generic name for god since the Sumerians.
The name Isra-El itself means “struggles with God”, which is from Gen 32:22 where Jacob wrestles with an angel and says he has seen the face of God.



…..





…..
To the Christian Gnostics, Melchizedek WAS Jesus. Or an earlier incarnation of him, who would go on to sacrifice himself for our sins. To other early groups, he was simply a precursor to Jesus, a model priest that Jesus would be on the same “order” as. Again, as many interpretations as people interpreting him. Here he is in an Eastern Orthodox church in Romania. Dude gets around.


…..





…..
So the bottom line is that whether it’s the OT Melchizedek, or the NT Melchizedek, no one really knows that much about him. He’s just a mystery, in all his incarnations.




Nobody knows. And so what he was, or is, brings us right back around to faith, yet again.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Good stuff, wasn’t familiar with Melchizedek


Sep 8, 2022, 7:48 PM
Reply

His coaching brother Gene Chizedek on the other hand

Thanks

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-cu85tiger.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Isaac Asimov


Re: Good stuff, wasn’t familiar with Melchizedek


Sep 8, 2022, 9:16 PM
Reply

Rumor is his distant cousin was famous crooner Mel C'Tourme



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'm tying to reason through your question...


Sep 9, 2022, 9:45 AM
Reply

regarding the relationship between Melchizedek and Abram without including God in that relationship is a challenge. Abram saved Salem, for the King of Salem, and paid tithes to that King. That reads as if Abram was the lesser since he submitted and served rather than mastering and ordering.

What part did I miss? Fordtunate Son

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I'm tying to reason through your question...


Sep 9, 2022, 10:40 AM
Reply

Yes, I think you've got it right. I read that as Abram paying tithes to Melchi. Which is interesting on many levels.

1) Abram is THE patriarch of the Jews. The guy who is literally "on a mission from God" to populate the area like grains of sand on a beach. Yet he is paying tithes to a High Priest. High Priest is also in the Jewish tradition. So what is this church Melchi is High Priest of? And who are Melchi's congregation, if not Jews themselves? And if there are jews in Canaan already, why are they not tasked with populating the area like grains of sand?



2) At this point, Abram doesn't even know God's name as Yahweh, or Lord. As God says in Exodus 6:3.

"3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself fully known to them."

Yet Abram takes blessings from Melchi's "God Most High" - “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth" from Melchi.

So either Abram secretly knows "Lord" is "God Most High", and just doesn't say anything, or Abram is taking blessings from "God Most High" while getting directives from "Lord". That is, two gods, or perhaps two interpretations of one god.

Neither of those makes sense. More mystery.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Aaron and the Levites ministered (served) the flesh by


Sep 9, 2022, 2:12 PM
Reply

keeping the Tabernacle in tact, transporting it, sacrificing to God and representing the flesh of Israel before God and God before the people. That order could do nothing to save a soul but continue to execute the orders of their office. The purpose of their office was so remind people that God is one God, He made promises to them and He is faithful to keep those promises including the promise He made to Abram to create a great nation of people and from his seed would all nations be blessed.

Secular folks think, "Hey, they kept the law and those sacrifices provided God and excuse to ignore their sin. God just needed to see blood to negate their actions.' Not so, for the blood of oxen and lambs was never sufficient to wash away their sin, so said the Psalmist. It was a continual reminder to Israel that sin was just as common to them as to anyone else even though they were chosen as God's people. So as with Christians today. None claims to be able to work out his own righteousness by his actions.

Because they kept Mosaic Law God blessed their flesh by making them a great nation but any blessing of His Spirit came through personal prayer, meditation and service to God through their hearts. Just like today. One can be saved and appear dead as a door nail when he forsakes his spirit and yields constantly to his flesh. Do not ask me how I know.

One can attend church, pay tithes, work to help others including widows and orphans, visit the sick and imprisoned, teach SS class, direct disciple training, declare the Word of God to individuals or ever stand in a pulpit and preach in Jesus resurrected and be lost if he has never communed with God through faith and submission to accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

One can not work his way to God's favor/heaven by obeying any law. That requires a spiritual event not a decision of the flesh as was obedience to Mosaic Law. Melchizedek was a priest of The Spirit of God. At least the forerunner of Jesus who finalized our salvation. Salvation is the gift of God not the reward for obeying a bunch of rules and regulations.

It's impossible to have good understanding of the spirit when one thinks with a carnal mind. I do not intend to be insensitive or cruel or appear to be either. It's just that we are all adults here and the truth may bother all of us at one time or another. It offends me more than I would like.

Spirit vs flesh. That's what Abram and Mel came down to. The flesh of Abe submitted to God's Spirit in Mel. Therefor, Mel blessed Abe calling him the/a believer and servant of the Most High God.

That's a common practice today "God bless you, have a blessed day..." However, unlike Abram we are quite knowledgeable of God. If someone called Abe an ignorant rube in light of how little he knew about God they would not be inaccurate. I suspect Abram thought much more about that blessing that we can conceive. It must have been astounding to find someone else who knew his God, served his God and was willing on behalf of God to bless him on behalf of God. A ticker tape parade wouldn't have been more inviting and appreciated, I think.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Aaron and the Levites ministered (served) the flesh by


Sep 9, 2022, 3:00 PM
Reply

That's a great answer 88, but for me it still leaves questions. I very much like the distinction between flesh and soul you made.

I'll have to do more research on the Jewish concept of the soul. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is true that sacrifice for them was acknowledged as a continuing process.

That is, they viewed it literally as a daily event to scrub the soul of the sins of disobedience against the Law, essentially. Like one might take a bath, every single day, knowing you will just get dirty again tomorrow, without fail. Over and over and over.

What I don't know is THEIR distinction between physical sin and spiritual sin. That is, how they viewed the eternal "washing", and if it covered flesh, or soul, or both.



But let's say for discussion's sake that Mel is offering spiritual blessing in his famous meeting with Abram, in line with modern Christianity.


This meeting is still 400 years before the Moses and the Law even exist. If Mel is offering spiritual salvation beyond the ability of the Law, then why even bother delivering the Law through Moses at all? What is its purpose if you already have Christian, or Christian-like salvation available to you through Mel?

Why bother with 1000 more years of Jewish history, directed and guided by God himself as he led his people through the Wilderness, etc, if Abe could have just joined the Church of Melchizedek on the spot and proceed from there?

And what of Mel's congregation? Does that mean some portion of Canaan had Christian-ish salvation available for their soul before Abe was even called down from Ur? Then why call him down? And why provide his kin (through Moses) with an inferior form of temporary salvation?

It's just all very baffling.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You know the Christian's C&P response to your question...


Sep 12, 2022, 9:45 AM
Reply

"This meeting is still 400 years before the Moses and the Law even exist. If Mel is offering spiritual salvation beyond the ability of the Law, then why even bother delivering the Law through Moses at all? What is its purpose if you already have Christian, or Christian-like salvation available to you through Mel?"

The Law was our Schoolmaster, teaching us that salvation can not come by the law. What did Israel get when it believed and acknowledged One God, sacrificed animals to Him, and obeyed His Law to the uttermost? Cities well defended for safety, crops aplenty and great flocks for food and the favor of God. Continue that list and you will perhaps realize all that was salvation of the flesh.

Only their belief in the promised Messiah saved their souls. I fear your reading of what they believe is from the writings of those who were blinded, by God, to the truth of their salvation.

What was King David seeing when he wrote the 22nd chapter of Psalms? None can deny it was a more perfect picture of Jesus hanging on the cross than even the Gospels altogether.

"23 Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard."

Israel should praise God for (because) He never despised nor did He abhor The Affliction of The Afflicted...

How do the Jewish deal with the simplicity and absoluteness of those verses? That was the salvation for King David's soul. That's why He worshiped and served. You look back and see David as a conquering King, which he was but more than that to Christians, he was a testimony to Jesus for he saw his Christ in the future so far off and he saw Christ on the cross.

God came in the flesh and died for our sins, you and me, as our spiritual sacrifice. The flesh can only be saved for a season for all men die. Man's soul is eternal. We exist after this life either by entering life in the presence of God or by entering death which is the absence of God.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: You know the Christian's C&P response to your question...


Sep 12, 2022, 1:07 PM
Reply

Hi 88

Psalm 22 is a great example of the ambiguity in texts we were discussing earlier. There’s just not that much specific information to tie it down to one meaning. I’ll pick a few verses to show you what I mean.

Naturally, the Jews will read it one way, and Christians another, and perhaps various sects of both religions yet other ways. Three of the more common interpretations are the coming of Christ, the plight of the nation of Israel under David in 1000ish BCE, and even the saving of the Jews in Babylon in the Book of Esther, around 500 BCE.

I’ll kind of jump around with some random thoughts since I’m a little short on time today to go fully line-by-line. But let’s start at the top.


1 “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? “


Naturally, Christians will see this as foreshadowing the words of Jesus on the cross. And while it is true that he chose these as his final words in 30ish AD, they also had meaning in 1000 or even 500 BCE.

That is, the words apply to all three interpretation – they’re not just meaningless words waiting to be given meaning in 30 AD. David WAS under duress in 1000 BCE, as was Esther in 500 BCE, as was Christ in 30ish BCE. Three people, all asking “where is God in my time of need?”


3 “Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the one Israel praises.”

I think this particular verse lends itself more to a Jewish interpretation, only because Israel never accepted Jesus. So if it’s David or Esther talking about the nation of Israel, that seems to make sense. But if it’s David predicting or foreshadowing Christ, I think it doesn’t quite make as much sense. Israel didn't praise Jesus.


6 “But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by everyone, despised by the people.”
7 “All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads.”

I think these verses also feel more Jewish, only because of Isaiah 41:14:

“Do not be afraid, you worm Jacob, little Israel, do not fear, for I myself will help you,” declares the Lord”

Verses 6 and 7 could be Jesus speaking, but I can’t see him calling himself a worm. And of course, through the Trinity, he is God himself so I’m not sure why he would be asking himself why he forsook himself in the first place. But if the worm is Israel, or the King of Israel, that seems to fit the text better.


8 Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.

I’ll throw verse 8 into the same pot, based on Isaiah 49:1, where God specifically calls Israel by the same “womb” language, and promises to use Israel militarily, to display his splendor:

1“Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the Lord called me; from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow and concealed me in his quiver.
3 He said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”


Verses 12-21 use a lot of colorful animal imagery to drive home the point of duress. Surrounded by threats, whether the speaker is Jesus in a hostile city, or Esther in a hostile moment, or Israel in a hostile region, the message is the same. Imminent danger.


I do think the imagery of verses 16-18 add a lot of credence to the Christian interpretation:

16 Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce[e] my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.



But verse 19 only adds to the ambiguity again:

But you, Lord, do not be far from me. You are my strength; come quickly to help me.

Since Jesus IS the Lord, why is he calling to the Lord?



The big turn in Psalm 22 comes at about verse 22, where the narrator switches from calling for God’s help, to praising his glory, presumably because he did help.

24 “he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.”



Verses 27 and 28 scream Jewish to me again, though. Anytime the text is about God is controlling nations, and not saving souls, that say Jewish, not Christian, to me. The Jewish interpretation of God is about covenants, land, and nation-building. The Christian interpretation of God is about soul saving, faith, and eternal salvation.

27and all the families of the nations will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations.


So I think Psalm 22 can be read in several ways, and each viewpoint, Christian, Jewish David, or Jewish Esther all have strong cases for that interpretation. Once again, it comes down to faith, and who can say God doesn’t come to some people one way and other people another way?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: You know the Christian's C&P response to your question...


Sep 13, 2022, 10:37 AM
Reply

Hey, Fordtunate Son,

I do not think David was saying that but that he was seeing Jesus on the cross and reporting what he saw. Sometimes I miss transitions causing me to think the writers jumped to another subject. Now when I suspect I missed a transition I examine the passages more closely and prayerfully.

I now read this chapter as if David had used quotation marks before and after this entire chapter quoting Christ on the cross. So it's not a prayer it is a new article to me. That's probably why I never had a question like your following question.

"3 “Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the one Israel praises.”

I think this particular verse lends itself more to a Jewish interpretation, only because Israel never accepted Jesus. So if it’s David or Esther talking about the nation of Israel, that seems to make sense. But if it’s David predicting or foreshadowing Christ, I think it doesn’t quite make as much sense. Israel didn't praise Jesus."

When read as a prophesy, in light of Jesus being the Son of God who came to pay for the sin of all man, the confusion dissipates into clarity. Thus, my believe that it is the most accurate collection of the event of the cross. More complete than either Gospels which we all consider perspective reports from witnesses of the event.

Note the true transition revealed with the word 'But,' throughout the first portion of that and imagine the mind of Jesus as He suffered the confusion, ravages, sufferings and pains of crucifixion.

Like you said, Faith.




2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: You know the Christian's C&P response to your question...


Sep 13, 2022, 12:18 PM
Reply

Good stuff, 88!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Religious Pron - Mesopotamia 6 - Babylon


Sep 8, 2023, 10:27 AM
Reply

I think the key is to take the passages as intended: the OT references as literal, and the Hebrews passage as metaphorical (where he’s explicitly referred to as symbolic).

Melchizedek was a priest who performed sacrifices just as an Aaronic priest would. Sacrifices to God predated Moses by millennia, starting with Genesis 3 and 4. He seems like a relatively minor figure, I would say included in God’s word for the express purpose of providing the type of Christ illustrated in Hebrews.

Don’t take some of those confusing things in Hebrews literally, that’s the key. He didn’t literally have no parents. Rather, his parents aren’t mentioned and are irrelevant, as his priesthood wasn’t determined by his parental lineage. Its not that his priesthood didn’t have a beginning, it’s that the beginning is not defined in Scripture as Aaron’s was. It’s symbolic of an eternal priesthood, not literally one.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Religious Pron - Mesopotamia 6 - Babylon


Sep 14, 2022, 6:28 PM
Reply

Good read.

The thing I noticed about the Bible when I actually started reading it for myself is how simplistic it is and how much is read into it.

2024 purple level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Religious Pron - Mesopotamia 6 - Babylon


Sep 15, 2022, 1:49 AM
Reply

I'd say focused more than simplistic, but the messages of the two testaments, old and new, are very clear. Obey for the OT, and believe for the NT. Those messages are repeated 1000 times over in the texts.

But the bulk of the Bible is a history story, very specific to the time, place, and people who wrote about it. You can read chapter after chapter of Judges, Samuel, Kings or Chronicles, for instance, and the only insight you get into God is "All this happened because Saul, or David, or whomever, did not obey the Lord."

You learn all about these guys battles, wives, affairs, coups, assassinations, murders, victories, losses, etc. But in relation to God it's obey for the carrot, or don't obey for the stick.

The Bible may be prophetic as well, for both Jews and Christians, though that is a matter of faith and not history, necessarily.

But at a bare minimum the Bible is a history of various people's relationship with God, through time. How they interpreted him and how they interacted with him. As are all religions, really.


Because of the specificity of some of the Biblical texts though, a lot of stuff is not exactly clear unless you know the details of the time. For instance, Samson was not just a guy with long hair:

"5 You will become pregnant and have a son whose head is never to be touched by a razor because the boy is to be a Nazirite, dedicated to God from the womb."


Now, unless you know that a Nazirite was a super-religious sect akin to Medieval monks, say, you'd miss a lot of what that one sentence means. A Nazirite could declare his "super piety" for a 30-day period, or for his entire life. He could eat NOTHING with grapes in it, at all. Though he could eat other fruit and even other alcoholic beverages. But most importantly, he could never shave or cut his hair. So Samson wasn't just a guy with flowing locks, he was a Judge in the most religious Jewish sect possible. Dedicated for life, in his case.

Similarly, it's hard to overstate how radical Jesus's message was unless you know the Jewish sacrifice system. That is, a sin offering was not the same as a burnt offering, or a firstfruit offering, or a freewill offering. There were LOTS of types of sacrifices and offerings. So when Jesus said he would die for our sins, the Jews would have said, "Yeah, but what about all of our other sacrificial offerings? The sin offering is just one offering. What about our holiday offerings? Our seasonal offerings? Our voluntary offerings?

And the sacrifice "system" was also food for the Levites. Some sacrificial food God ate, and some food the priests ate. They kept 12 fresh cakes on hand for God 24/7 in the tabernacle. What would become of the priestly meals, or God's meals, if the sacrifice/offering system ended?

And there were rules and rules and rules on how to sacrifice...certain animals, certain times, certain knives for cutting. TONS of rules. Like Leviticus 23:14

“‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour (about 3 lbs) for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering."

Olive oil goes on OTHER types of offerings, etc.

So "fulfilling the Law" was not just a singular thing of replacing a singular sacrifice. It was akin to saying "I'm replacing the whole tax code, or I'm replacing the entire US legal system. A huge, huge change, with lots and lots of earthly implications far beyond the eternal ones.

And on top of all that, you always have to consider who is telling the story. A good deal of the Bible is filtered through Judah, because they lasted longest (till the Babylonians got them) so their version of the story is the LAST of what we hear. And they never have ANYTHING good to say about the northern state of Israel. So you have to read between the lines an awful lot...they're telling me this, but why, and what aren't they telling me? Politics, politics, politics.

Like the story of the Assyrians sieging Jerusalem with King Hezekiah. The Assyrian version says "they paid us money and we let them live, and then we went home." The Jewish (Judah) version says "We paid them money and then completely destroyed the Assyrian army." Now, the Assyrians don't say anything about losing an army. They just got their tribute and went home, according to them. And the bottom line is, both sides agree Assyria got the loot. So who is fudging, and who is not?

It's all so fascinating and fun to sort through. The greatest story ever told, by a long shot.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Religious Pron - Mesopotamia 6 - Babylon


Sep 15, 2022, 9:00 AM
Reply

There’s just not a lot of detail.

Jesus went here and said this, then he went here…

That’s how a lot of the gospels read.

An autobiography on Michael Jordan is gonna be so much more detailed and personal.

We barely know anything about Jesus if you think about it, or really any of the characters of the Bible compared to famous people now a days.

You’d think we get a little more information about the guy who was supposedly the son of god. Just my thought.

The birth accounts basically just tell a story surrounding Jesus’ birth to try and prove a few prophecies true. If they knew about his birth you’d think they knew a little more about his upbringing.

We get the birth account, one story about him going to the temple as a boy, and then 20 or so years later he’s going around claiming to be the son of god.

2024 purple level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Religious Pron - Mesopotamia 6 - Babylon


Sep 15, 2022, 11:23 AM
Reply

All true. That's what I mean when I say "focused." The Bible is intended to tell a story of obedience and faith, and that's what it does.

It's like you don't go to church explicitly to learn history, though you may pick some up along the way. You go to church to learn religion. A way to understand, and interface, with God.

And you are right that the details are scant. And what I hope to show along the way here is how the very thoughts we have today are all developments from those very scant details.

For instance, you won't find the word "Trinity" anywhere in the Bible. Or "purgatory." The way we currently conceive of heaven, hell, sin, creation, life, death, the soul, even good and evil, are all developmental. That's why I say "why you think what you think."

Your current view of existence itself has a history that can be traced back 5000 years, to the earliest writings known to man. And a LOT of ideas fell by the wayside along the way, for a variety of reasons.

The Puritans once banned Christmas as sacrilege:



Their logic was that EVERY day given from God is holy. None more so than any other, or else you dilute the holiness of one day for another. That feels like pretty sound reasoning to me, but that idea, like so many others, didn't make it.




To quote Monty Python "Everyday is Christmas in Heaven"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kntQNeSge5s


And Christmas itself didn't even exist till the date was selected:

"The first recorded Christmas celebration was in Rome on December 25, AD 336. In the 3rd century, the date of the nativity was the subject of great interest. Around AD 200, Clement of Alexandria wrote:

There are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the 28th year of Augustus, and in the 25th day of [the Egyptian month] Pachon [May 20] ... Further, others say that He was born on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi [April 20 or 21].

All history. With one common thread. Everyone, around the world, across all time, in every culture, trying to understand the mystery they see around them.


Even King David got it. Who can say who is right or wrong?

2 Samuel 16:

5 As King David approached Bahurim, a man from the same clan as Saul’s family came out from there. His name was Shimei son of Gera, and he cursed as he came out. 6 He pelted David and all the king’s officials with stones, though all the troops and the special guard were on David’s right and left. 7 As he cursed, Shimei said, “Get out, get out, you murderer, you scoundrel! 8 The Lord has repaid you for all the blood you shed in the household of Saul, in whose place you have reigned. The Lord has given the kingdom into the hands of your son Absalom. You have come to ruin because you are a murderer!”

9 Then Abishai son of Zeruiah said to the king, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and cut off his head.”



10 But the king said, “What does this have to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah? If he is cursing because the Lord said to him, ‘Curse David,’ who can ask, ‘Why do you do this?’”

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 15
| visibility 1
General Boards - Religion & Philosophy
add New Topic