Jesus is Israel ! <_< you know.
His mother is and his Father is the Holy Spirit ! God the Father. B)
:lol: <_< beat that.How Say You Jesus Is A Jew?
- Thread starter Ekul7291
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
His mother is and his Father is the Holy Spirit ! God the Father. B)
:lol: <_< beat that.What a crazy thread!
It appears he was trying to disprove Christ's lineage back to David, which is given in Mary's in Luke 3. Mary was a descendent of David who was a descendent of Judah, which is where the title of 'Jew' first originated. So even minus the idea of Mary's husband Joseph (who was NOT a Gentile), concerning Joseph adopting Jesus, that doesn't work either, because Joseph claimed He was his own son as Luke 3 says was 'supposed'. Others didn't know yet about Mary's impregnation by The Holy Spirit, so the Jews did not suspect.
Luke 3:23
23 And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
(KJV)
Heli was actually the lineage of Mary, not Joseph.
Matt 1:16
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
(KJV)
Jacob was the father of Joseph (Mary's husband).
It appears he was trying to disprove Christ's lineage back to David, which is given in Mary's in Luke 3. Mary was a descendent of David who was a descendent of Judah, which is where the title of 'Jew' first originated. So even minus the idea of Mary's husband Joseph (who was NOT a Gentile), concerning Joseph adopting Jesus, that doesn't work either, because Joseph claimed He was his own son as Luke 3 says was 'supposed'. Others didn't know yet about Mary's impregnation by The Holy Spirit, so the Jews did not suspect.
Luke 3:23
23 And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
(KJV)
Heli was actually the lineage of Mary, not Joseph.
Matt 1:16
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
(KJV)
Jacob was the father of Joseph (Mary's husband).
Hi veteran, :)
The following is the origin of my statement. It is taken from the section on Credentials of True Messiah, here by Dr Phil Goble.
'In the Brit Chadasha birth narratives and genealogies of our Moshiach
we learn that the Word who was with G-d and was G-d was
only the adoptive son of Yosef (Joseph), the descendant of David.
However, Joseph acknowledged that the child was not a "mamzer"
(illegitimate son) but a son "whom G-d provided" supernaturally.
[97] [98] [99] Therefore, Joseph adopted him and consequently
conferred upon the child the legal rights of his son and his
firstborn heir, for the right of succession was established
according to whether the father is willing to recognize anyone as
his son (see Baba Bathra 8:6). So according to Jewish oral law, Yeshua
was a descendant of David.
But more than that, he was the premundane
Word who in times past had come to Moses and the
prophets, threatening death for sin but promising life for
obedient faith. Then the Death-conquering Word of G-d finally
and mercifully took on himself what he threatened and manifested
what he promised: life from death. He came like Jonah, who gave
us a picture of Death swallowing and then vomiting up a prophet
as a sign of the death and resurrection of the Prophet Messiah.
Summation
What have we said then? The Moshiach is described in the
Jewish Bible, the Tanakh. The cohesive and portentous name in
the Tanakh, the name that weaves together all the Davidic kohen/king
prophetic threads pointing to the Moshiach, is Yeshua. Therefore,
this is the name of the Moshiach foretold by the Holy Jewish
Scriptures, the Hebrew Tanakh. "What's in a name?" a rabbi might
ask, as if to trivialize the entire presentation of this material.
In the past, rabbis have tried to evade the force of Scripture
by focusing attention elsewhere, using innuendo and hysteria or
natural Jewish xenophobia to try to sinisterize and snuff out the
Moshiach's Jewish Movement. Failing this, a rabbi might say,
"Whoever believes that a man on two feet was G-d is not a Jew.
You've taken a man and turned him into an accursed human idol.
You are no longer Jewish." The answer is: Jewish people are
commanded in the Jewish Bible to worship G-d through his Word, which
is the only way to G-d. The Bais Hamikdash (Temple) was where the Word
tabernacled in blood covenant and worship with his people, where
G-d tabernacled as "G-d-with-us." Moshiach Yeshua predicted that
the Temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed, but the temple of his
body, although torn down by men, would be raised up forever by
the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
What's in a name? The Torah says, "Then to the place the L-rd your G-d will
choose as a dwelling for his Name, there you are to bring everything I
command you...."[100] The expression "dwelling for his Name" is another
way of saying "dwelling for himself." As the sacred name of G-d
reflects his character and mystery, so G-d's image, his Word enfleshed,
the Moshiach, reflected the sacred name. [101] [102]
Who is like the G-d of Yeshurun who rides "on the clouds of his
majesty?" [33] Only his personal Word, the Moshiach, the "Son
of Man coming with the clouds of heaven." [13] The true remnant
Israel of G-d knows his name [103].'
The following is the origin of my statement. It is taken from the section on Credentials of True Messiah, here by Dr Phil Goble.
'In the Brit Chadasha birth narratives and genealogies of our Moshiach
we learn that the Word who was with G-d and was G-d was
only the adoptive son of Yosef (Joseph), the descendant of David.
However, Joseph acknowledged that the child was not a "mamzer"
(illegitimate son) but a son "whom G-d provided" supernaturally.
[97] [98] [99] Therefore, Joseph adopted him and consequently
conferred upon the child the legal rights of his son and his
firstborn heir, for the right of succession was established
according to whether the father is willing to recognize anyone as
his son (see Baba Bathra 8:6). So according to Jewish oral law, Yeshua
was a descendant of David.
But more than that, he was the premundane
Word who in times past had come to Moses and the
prophets, threatening death for sin but promising life for
obedient faith. Then the Death-conquering Word of G-d finally
and mercifully took on himself what he threatened and manifested
what he promised: life from death. He came like Jonah, who gave
us a picture of Death swallowing and then vomiting up a prophet
as a sign of the death and resurrection of the Prophet Messiah.
Summation
What have we said then? The Moshiach is described in the
Jewish Bible, the Tanakh. The cohesive and portentous name in
the Tanakh, the name that weaves together all the Davidic kohen/king
prophetic threads pointing to the Moshiach, is Yeshua. Therefore,
this is the name of the Moshiach foretold by the Holy Jewish
Scriptures, the Hebrew Tanakh. "What's in a name?" a rabbi might
ask, as if to trivialize the entire presentation of this material.
In the past, rabbis have tried to evade the force of Scripture
by focusing attention elsewhere, using innuendo and hysteria or
natural Jewish xenophobia to try to sinisterize and snuff out the
Moshiach's Jewish Movement. Failing this, a rabbi might say,
"Whoever believes that a man on two feet was G-d is not a Jew.
You've taken a man and turned him into an accursed human idol.
You are no longer Jewish." The answer is: Jewish people are
commanded in the Jewish Bible to worship G-d through his Word, which
is the only way to G-d. The Bais Hamikdash (Temple) was where the Word
tabernacled in blood covenant and worship with his people, where
G-d tabernacled as "G-d-with-us." Moshiach Yeshua predicted that
the Temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed, but the temple of his
body, although torn down by men, would be raised up forever by
the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
What's in a name? The Torah says, "Then to the place the L-rd your G-d will
choose as a dwelling for his Name, there you are to bring everything I
command you...."[100] The expression "dwelling for his Name" is another
way of saying "dwelling for himself." As the sacred name of G-d
reflects his character and mystery, so G-d's image, his Word enfleshed,
the Moshiach, reflected the sacred name. [101] [102]
Who is like the G-d of Yeshurun who rides "on the clouds of his
majesty?" [33] Only his personal Word, the Moshiach, the "Son
of Man coming with the clouds of heaven." [13] The true remnant
Israel of G-d knows his name [103].'
Yes. When do you think the othodox Jews first learned about the idea of Christ's miraculous birth? that His flesh did not come from Joseph's seed?
Once the orthodox 'unbelieving' Jews learned about that, that's probably when their attempt to discredit Jesus as being rightful heir to David's throne began among them in order to deny Him. I've had conversations with some rabbi that believe our Lord Jesus has to have descended through Joseph's lineage that goes back to Solomon in order to be rightful heir of David.
Yet the difference is with Mary's lineage from Heli, going back to David's son Nathan. Mary's lineage includes a link to both the Judah/David line and the Levite priest line. Thus King-Priest.
But doesn't Hebrews state Christ is NOT a Priest in the Aaronic line (that runs through David) but rather an eternal priest in the order of Melchizedek?
Hi biggandyy,
You're right. His Priestly role, though, is re-inforced by John the Baptist's descent from Levi and the fact the Mary was Elisabeth's cousin. If you think about it, that may have more to do with His role as 'that Prophet' (and being accepted as such), than as our great High Priest.
Hi veteran,
I thought that Joseph is somehow related to Mary's family, by adoption (also)? That would legitmise his descent from David, and show that the unbelieving Jews are being mischevious in their apparent concern for Joseph's ancestry.
You're right. His Priestly role, though, is re-inforced by John the Baptist's descent from Levi and the fact the Mary was Elisabeth's cousin. If you think about it, that may have more to do with His role as 'that Prophet' (and being accepted as such), than as our great High Priest.
Hi veteran,
I thought that Joseph is somehow related to Mary's family, by adoption (also)? That would legitmise his descent from David, and show that the unbelieving Jews are being mischevious in their apparent concern for Joseph's ancestry.
Yes. And that of course is the real Priest line, an Eternal Priest line. I believe the Melchisedec that met Abraham was Christ in OT times, as Heb.7 points to that. Notice the title "king of righteousness" is actually what the name Melchisedec means.
Yet looking at Luke 3 with Mary's lineage, lineage from both Levi and the Pharez/David line is there.
So looks like our Heavenly Father's got it covered any way one goes. Orthodox Jews will still do a come-back with saying that Jesus had to be a flesh descendent from Joseph's line in Matt.1 to be rightful heir to David's throne, pointing back to Solomon. God made the requirement that the tribe of Judah would be rightful heirs of the sceptre throne rule, which is where David descended from, and also Mary. The only difference is that Mary descended from Judah through David's son Nathan, and not Solomon.
Matt 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Matt 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas (Judah) and his brethren;
Gen 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah...
Matt 21:9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Luke 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Mat 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
Deu 17:15 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 set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
Luke 2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
Matt 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas (Judah) and his brethren;
Gen 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah...
Matt 21:9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Luke 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Mat 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
Deu 17:15 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 set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
Luke 2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
Wrong! That title is what Pilate himself came up with and put on our Lord's cross to mock the Jews who had Him crucified. Jesus NEVER agreed with that title.
Christ Jesus is King of all the earth, King of kings, and Lord of lords.
I don't know if this answer will help, but I'll give it a shot. Mary was 1/2 Levite and 1/2 Judahite. This is how Yeshua is able to be both High Priest and King. Her cousin Elizabeth was a full blooded Levite, the Levite high priests were only allowed to marry one of their tribal (Levi) members according to Leviticus 21:10-14. Regular priests could marry from any of the tribes according to Ezekiel 44:22. Now the scriptures do not say Zacharias was a high priest, but the Orthodox study Bible claims he was. Elizabeth wasn't necessarily Mary's cousin because the Greek word for cousin is "syggenēs" which means: of the same kin, akin to, related by blood or in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman. It is thought that Elizabeth might be Mary's aunt who would be Mary's mother's sister. The genealogy given in Luke's account is thought to be that of Mary and not Joseph. If so, Mary's father descended from Nathan, who was one of David's sons according to 2 Samuel 5:14. The reason Joseph's line is given is to show that he could not possibly be Yeshua's father due to Jeconiah/Coniah in the Hebrew, Jechonias in the Greek, being one of Joseph's descendants who God declared would never have any seed that would sit upon the throne of David as stated in Jeremiah 22:28-30. So Jesus would be a Judahite through Mary's father who descended from Nathan.
As for Matthew 22:41-46 Yeshua is asking the Pharisees what and who they think the Messiah is. They respond with "the Son of David". They were partially right, but they failed to see that Yeshua was so much more than the Son of David, never realizing he was also the Son of God. Here is a link that can explain it better than I can. http://www.fpcjackso...7-9/matt51b.htm
As for Matthew 22:41-46 Yeshua is asking the Pharisees what and who they think the Messiah is. They respond with "the Son of David". They were partially right, but they failed to see that Yeshua was so much more than the Son of David, never realizing he was also the Son of God. Here is a link that can explain it better than I can. http://www.fpcjackso...7-9/matt51b.htm
But that still does not prove Christ Jesus was any so-called "king of the Jews", which actually was a slur by Pilate.
John 18:33-34
33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto Him, "Art thou the King of the Jews?"
34 Jesus answered him, "Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of Me?"
(KJV)
Did you come up with that idea on your own Pilate, or did someone say that about Me, our Lord Jesus is asking Pilate.
The title of Jew originated from the sole tribe of Judah. According to God's Word, Judah made up only ONE tribe of Israel. So how could Christ be king of the Jews? He could never be, because He is King over ALL Israel, and over ALL the earth (meaning over all Gentiles too).
Furthermore, the false religious traditions of the Pharisees and corruptions within the priesthood at that time overtook the usage of that title 'Jew'. To be a Jew in that time was more than just being born of the tribe of Judah. It also included the tribes of Benjamin and Levi, and some small remnants of the other tribes that joined with Judah when God first split Israel after Solomon. Their usage of the title meant especially one upholding their false talmud traditions that came out of their Babylon captivity (Babylonian Talmud). The Pharisees then used the title of Jew to represent THEIR religious traditions specifically, even though their system was corrupt and causing God's people to become enslaved. And thus our Lord Jesus rebuked them and their false religious tradition they added to the law without God's permission.
John 19:2-3
2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on His head, and they put on Him a purple robe,
3 And said, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and they smote Him with their hands.
(KJV)
Pilate evidently had his Roman soldiers in on that game of wrongly applying the title of "King of the Jews" on Christ Jesus. It was obviously to mock the religious Jews who wanted our Lord Jesus killed, since Pilate knew Jesus was innocent.
John 19:21-22
21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, "Write not, 'The King of the Jews'; but that He said, 'I am King of the Jews'."
22 Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written."
(KJV)
The chief priests didn't want that title applied to our Lord Jesus, for they knew it meant that our Lord Jesus is 'their' king. Their king is not our Lord Jesus, but Satan instead. That's who those chief priests were following, the Devil himself. In John 8 our Lord Jesus pointed that out to them too.
What the priests, scribes, and Pharisees were angry at Jesus for is because our Lord Jesus claimed to be God The Christ. Those false Jews claimed God as their king alright, but followed the Devil. So their claim was false.
John 18:33-34
33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto Him, "Art thou the King of the Jews?"
34 Jesus answered him, "Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of Me?"
(KJV)
Did you come up with that idea on your own Pilate, or did someone say that about Me, our Lord Jesus is asking Pilate.
The title of Jew originated from the sole tribe of Judah. According to God's Word, Judah made up only ONE tribe of Israel. So how could Christ be king of the Jews? He could never be, because He is King over ALL Israel, and over ALL the earth (meaning over all Gentiles too).
Furthermore, the false religious traditions of the Pharisees and corruptions within the priesthood at that time overtook the usage of that title 'Jew'. To be a Jew in that time was more than just being born of the tribe of Judah. It also included the tribes of Benjamin and Levi, and some small remnants of the other tribes that joined with Judah when God first split Israel after Solomon. Their usage of the title meant especially one upholding their false talmud traditions that came out of their Babylon captivity (Babylonian Talmud). The Pharisees then used the title of Jew to represent THEIR religious traditions specifically, even though their system was corrupt and causing God's people to become enslaved. And thus our Lord Jesus rebuked them and their false religious tradition they added to the law without God's permission.
John 19:2-3
2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on His head, and they put on Him a purple robe,
3 And said, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and they smote Him with their hands.
(KJV)
Pilate evidently had his Roman soldiers in on that game of wrongly applying the title of "King of the Jews" on Christ Jesus. It was obviously to mock the religious Jews who wanted our Lord Jesus killed, since Pilate knew Jesus was innocent.
John 19:21-22
21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, "Write not, 'The King of the Jews'; but that He said, 'I am King of the Jews'."
22 Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written."
(KJV)
The chief priests didn't want that title applied to our Lord Jesus, for they knew it meant that our Lord Jesus is 'their' king. Their king is not our Lord Jesus, but Satan instead. That's who those chief priests were following, the Devil himself. In John 8 our Lord Jesus pointed that out to them too.
What the priests, scribes, and Pharisees were angry at Jesus for is because our Lord Jesus claimed to be God The Christ. Those false Jews claimed God as their king alright, but followed the Devil. So their claim was false.
To Elle,
The problem with this reasoning is, that Yeshua's Father is God, and the book of Hebrews tells us specifically that it was not Jesus Levite connections which qualified Him as the High Priest of our salvation, but rather the prophecy (Psalm 110) that He was of the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertains to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there arises another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifies, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]:
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
The problem with this reasoning is, that Yeshua's Father is God, and the book of Hebrews tells us specifically that it was not Jesus Levite connections which qualified Him as the High Priest of our salvation, but rather the prophecy (Psalm 110) that He was of the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertains to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there arises another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifies, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]:
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Hi Dragonfly,
You said:
"The problem with this reasoning is, that Yeshua's Father is God, and the book of Hebrews tells us specifically that it was not Jesus Levite connections which qualified Him as the High Priest of our salvation, but rather the prophecy (Psalm 110) that He was of the order of Melchizedek."
I am familiar with those passages, but the problem is the same can be said of Yeshua's Judahite connection as well. Melchizedek was not only a priest, but a king. Here is what Strong's has to say in regard to Melchizedek: Melchizedek = "my king is Sedek"
1) king of Salem (Salem means peace and most Jewish commentators affirm that Salem is the same as Jerusalem) and priest of the Most High God to whom Abram paid tithe after the battle he fought to free Lot; 'the order of Melchizedek' the order of the priesthood to which Christ belongs.
I think what was meant by those passages is (BTW, the prophecy does not say OF the order of Melchizedek, but rather AFTER the order of Melchizedek) that LIKE/IN SAME MANNER as Melchizedek, Yeshua would also be both priest and king. Melchizedek brought forth both bread and wine, as did Yeshua. God is no doubt Yeshua's Father, but David was also Yeshua's earthly father, albeit several times removed. Yeshua is The King of New JeruSALEM and the Priest of the most high God. David and the Levitical High Priest are only earthly types of something much greater. I have not done much research into this claim, but some claim that Melchizedek was no ordinary human as we are.
Hi Veteran,
I'm not sure if your last post which came immediately after mine was in response to mine, but if it was, you said:
"But that still does not prove Christ Jesus was any so-called "king of the Jews", which actually was a slur by Pilate."
I was responding to Eku'sl question of "How Say You Jesus Is a Jew?" I was not even referencing what Pilate said, just showing how Yeshua was a Judahite (Jew), which was what the question was asking. Anyhow, Yeshua is their King along with everything else that lives upon this planet, whether they like it or not. The Jews said they had only one king and their king was Caesar. Caesar is a type for Satan. Yeshua exposed the Pharisees many times saying things like "you are of your father the devil..." , "brood of vipers", and "the tares are the children of the wicked" who were sowed by the devil. It can only be understood when one realizes that these Pharisees were not literal, bloodline descendants of the 12 tribes, namely Judah, but are impostors. That is why Yeshua exposed them again in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. They pretend to be something they are not. These impostors are Cain's descendants, of which Canaan's descendants married into, of which Esau married into as well as Judah (the man, not tribe). They infiltrated the tribe as scribes and later after John Hyrcanus defeated the Edomites, he gave them the option to be killed or become proselytes. These Edomites later usurped the power of the true priests and placed themselves in the positions of priests. That is why Pilate taunted them by saying Yeshua was King of the Jews, he began to realize who they really were and so it was written and is truth, regardless of their claim that Caesar is their king. Research "Who Are The Edomites" and decide for yourself. Keep in mind, many of these who are aware of the truth make the unfounded claim that Satan and Eve had literal sex and that Cain was the offspring of this union, that is a lie. Cain is a spiritual seed as were the Pharisees.
BTW Veteran, I just now read your whole comment. I did not do so before, because I was only responding to the first line in your comment. It appears you are aware of the truth all ready, but might not realize who these Pharisees really are. Also, I want you to know I was not being confrontational in the first part of my comment. Unfortunately it is hard to relay over a forum that this is the case. Just wanted to let you know. :)
You said:
"The problem with this reasoning is, that Yeshua's Father is God, and the book of Hebrews tells us specifically that it was not Jesus Levite connections which qualified Him as the High Priest of our salvation, but rather the prophecy (Psalm 110) that He was of the order of Melchizedek."
I am familiar with those passages, but the problem is the same can be said of Yeshua's Judahite connection as well. Melchizedek was not only a priest, but a king. Here is what Strong's has to say in regard to Melchizedek: Melchizedek = "my king is Sedek"
1) king of Salem (Salem means peace and most Jewish commentators affirm that Salem is the same as Jerusalem) and priest of the Most High God to whom Abram paid tithe after the battle he fought to free Lot; 'the order of Melchizedek' the order of the priesthood to which Christ belongs.
I think what was meant by those passages is (BTW, the prophecy does not say OF the order of Melchizedek, but rather AFTER the order of Melchizedek) that LIKE/IN SAME MANNER as Melchizedek, Yeshua would also be both priest and king. Melchizedek brought forth both bread and wine, as did Yeshua. God is no doubt Yeshua's Father, but David was also Yeshua's earthly father, albeit several times removed. Yeshua is The King of New JeruSALEM and the Priest of the most high God. David and the Levitical High Priest are only earthly types of something much greater. I have not done much research into this claim, but some claim that Melchizedek was no ordinary human as we are.
Hi Veteran,
I'm not sure if your last post which came immediately after mine was in response to mine, but if it was, you said:
"But that still does not prove Christ Jesus was any so-called "king of the Jews", which actually was a slur by Pilate."
I was responding to Eku'sl question of "How Say You Jesus Is a Jew?" I was not even referencing what Pilate said, just showing how Yeshua was a Judahite (Jew), which was what the question was asking. Anyhow, Yeshua is their King along with everything else that lives upon this planet, whether they like it or not. The Jews said they had only one king and their king was Caesar. Caesar is a type for Satan. Yeshua exposed the Pharisees many times saying things like "you are of your father the devil..." , "brood of vipers", and "the tares are the children of the wicked" who were sowed by the devil. It can only be understood when one realizes that these Pharisees were not literal, bloodline descendants of the 12 tribes, namely Judah, but are impostors. That is why Yeshua exposed them again in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. They pretend to be something they are not. These impostors are Cain's descendants, of which Canaan's descendants married into, of which Esau married into as well as Judah (the man, not tribe). They infiltrated the tribe as scribes and later after John Hyrcanus defeated the Edomites, he gave them the option to be killed or become proselytes. These Edomites later usurped the power of the true priests and placed themselves in the positions of priests. That is why Pilate taunted them by saying Yeshua was King of the Jews, he began to realize who they really were and so it was written and is truth, regardless of their claim that Caesar is their king. Research "Who Are The Edomites" and decide for yourself. Keep in mind, many of these who are aware of the truth make the unfounded claim that Satan and Eve had literal sex and that Cain was the offspring of this union, that is a lie. Cain is a spiritual seed as were the Pharisees.
BTW Veteran, I just now read your whole comment. I did not do so before, because I was only responding to the first line in your comment. It appears you are aware of the truth all ready, but might not realize who these Pharisees really are. Also, I want you to know I was not being confrontational in the first part of my comment. Unfortunately it is hard to relay over a forum that this is the case. Just wanted to let you know. :)
No problems. I was just trying to make the point of how a title like "king of the Jews" was actually intended as a slur, and not actually an official title of our Lord Jesus Christ.
As for the Melchisedec matter, I believe 100% that Melchisedec who met Abraham was our Lord Jesus Christ back in the Old Testament times. Christ is Who Hebrews 7 is ultimately referencing when speaking about Melchisedec. I know a lot of the Jews have a difficult time with that point, instead thinking that Melchisedec (king of righteousness) was some flesh king of Salem in Abraham's day, and not Christ. But a lot of Jews also have the problem with understanding how God The Saviour, The Christ could be born of woman in the flesh and die on the cross.
Veteran said:
"No problems. I was just trying to make the point of how a title like "king of the Jews" was actually intended as a slur, and not actually an official title of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Thanks Veteran and I wholeheartedly agree that it was intended as a slur.
"As for the Melchisedec matter, I believe 100% that Melchisedec who met Abraham was our Lord Jesus Christ back in the Old Testament times. Christ is Who Hebrews 7 is ultimately referencing when speaking about Melchisedec. I know a lot of the Jews have a difficult time with that point, instead thinking that Melchisedec (king of righteousness) was some flesh king of Salem in Abraham's day, and not Christ. But a lot of Jews also have the problem with understanding how God The Saviour, The Christ could be born of woman in the flesh and die on the cross."
I actually believe there is truth to that thought, but I have not done enough studying in this area to say for sure. Everything I do know about Melchizedek certainly confirms what you have said.
"No problems. I was just trying to make the point of how a title like "king of the Jews" was actually intended as a slur, and not actually an official title of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Thanks Veteran and I wholeheartedly agree that it was intended as a slur.
"As for the Melchisedec matter, I believe 100% that Melchisedec who met Abraham was our Lord Jesus Christ back in the Old Testament times. Christ is Who Hebrews 7 is ultimately referencing when speaking about Melchisedec. I know a lot of the Jews have a difficult time with that point, instead thinking that Melchisedec (king of righteousness) was some flesh king of Salem in Abraham's day, and not Christ. But a lot of Jews also have the problem with understanding how God The Saviour, The Christ could be born of woman in the flesh and die on the cross."
I actually believe there is truth to that thought, but I have not done enough studying in this area to say for sure. Everything I do know about Melchizedek certainly confirms what you have said.
-
- [background=rgb(222, 222, 222)]0[/background]
James Forthwright
Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 408
- 11
- 18
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Some profound insights there, Elle! The topic of what constitutes a Jew is full of mystery and intrigue. It all goes back to Genesis 25-27 and the story of the twin brothers Jacob and Esau. From their birth, Jacob was destined to be beloved of God and Esau despised of God. Jacob first swindles his brother of his birthright with the bowl of red pottage (demonstrating how little Esau regarded his birthright) and then with the help of his mother Rebekah, swindles his brother out of his nearly blind father's dying blessing by posing as his brother Esau who went off to kill some venison for Issac.
Now, thousands of years later, it appears that the despised Edomites (descendants of Esau) are posing as Israelites/Jews (Rev. 2:9, Rev. 3:9) and have tragically unwittingly persuaded many Christians to aid them in their elaborate deception the volatile land of Israel.
The plot gets even more convoluted when you consider that most Jews today are of converted Turkish/Ashkenazi stock who have no Abrahamic lineage whatsoever and aren't even from the line of Shem (Semites). (Gen. 10:3)
Fascinating stuff and truly a worthy topic for Bible students to examine in greater detail as the ramifications of these two brothers' lives still impacts us thousands of years later.
Hi James,
You said:
"Some profound insights there, Elle! The topic of what constitutes a Jew is full of mystery and intrigue. It all goes back to Genesis 25-27 and the story of the twin brothers Jacob and Esau. From their birth, Jacob was destined to be beloved of God and Esau despised of God. Jacob first swindles his brother of his birthright with the bowl of red pottage (demonstrating how little Esau regarded his birthright) and then with the help of his mother Rebekah, swindles his brother out of his nearly blind father's dying blessing by posing as his brother Esau who went off to kill some venison for Issac.
Now, thousands of years later, it appears that the despised Edomites (descendants of Esau) are posing as Israelites/Jews (Rev. 2:9,Rev. 3:9) and have tragically unwittingly persuaded many Christians to aid them in their elaborate deception the volatile land of Israel.
The plot gets even more convoluted when you consider that most Jews today are of converted Turkish/Ashkenazi stock who have no Abrahamic lineage whatsoever and aren't even from the line of Shem (Semites). (Gen. 10:3)
Fascinating stuff and truly a worthy topic for Bible students to examine in greater detail as the ramifications of these two brothers' lives still impacts us thousands of years later."
Amen to that. The only part I might disagree with you on is the part about Rebekah being a swindler. I use to think that way until I saw someone explaining to someone else on a message board that Rebekah did not swindle. Instead, she knew and understood when God told her that 2 nations were in her womb and that the elder would serve the younger. Rebekah knew that the firstborn inheritance had to go to Jacob and not Esau. Issac wanted it to go to Esau, but that could not happen.
James Forthwright
Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 408
- 11
- 18
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Thanks for the insightful reply. I see your point and agree that Rebekah was more attuned with God's prophetic plan than her husband, Issac.
Similar threads
