ECT There must also be a change of the law, Heb 7:12

[Interplanner]

Hebrews tells us that the new covenant was already in existence. As far as human time, history and progression go, it seems to be after, but in fact was already there.

It first says this by showing that the type of priest that the 'King of Righteousness' (Christ) was was operating before the law ever was given, 7:11+. It has nothing to do with Aaron, and nothing to do with ancestry. It was already there, not just many generations earlier, but eternally. Ps 110 is quoted to show that; it is a priesthood that is forever.

That eternal priesthood is why the shadow/copy priesthood and law had to give way to the eternal at some point in history. That point was after Christ accomplished what he came to do as the sacrifice of the new priesthood.

"Where there is a change of priesthood, there must be a change of law" should not be read as though the change was an afterthought, but rather as a return to the real after the training stage of the old covenant. It always was the one meant to be shared with all nations.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Made up

 

[DAN P]

Hebrews tells us that the new covenant was already in existence. As far as human time, history and progression go, it seems to be after, but in fact was already there.

It first says this by showing that the type of priest that the 'King of Righteousness' (Christ) was was operating before the law ever was given, 7:11+. It has nothing to do with Aaron, and nothing to do with ancestry. It was already there, not just many generations earlier, but eternally. Ps 110 is quoted to show that; it is a priesthood that is forever.

That eternal priesthood is why the shadow/copy priesthood and law had to give way to the eternal at some point in history. That point was after Christ accomplished what he came to do as the sacrifice of the new priesthood.

"Where there is a change of priesthood, there must be a change of law" should not be read as though the change was an afterthought, but rather as a return to the real after the training stage of the old covenant. It always was the one meant to be shared with all nations.

Hi and the Old Covenant is a LAW and the New Covenant is a Law made to Israel in Heb 8:8 !!

Are you a Jew ??

Only if you want a VAIL on your Heart as 2 Cor 3:15 so how are Jews being saved today , by verse 16 ??

You never seem to answer my questions , are they to tough for you ??

Guess , I need to find SOFT BALLS FOR YOU ??

dan p

 

[daqq]

Hebrews tells us that the new covenant was already in existence. As far as human time, history and progression go, it seems to be after, but in fact was already there.

It first says this by showing that the type of priest that the 'King of Righteousness' (Christ) was was operating before the law ever was given, 7:11+. It has nothing to do with Aaron, and nothing to do with ancestry. It was already there, not just many generations earlier, but eternally. Ps 110 is quoted to show that; it is a priesthood that is forever.

That eternal priesthood is why the shadow/copy priesthood and law had to give way to the eternal at some point in history. That point was after Christ accomplished what he came to do as the sacrifice of the new priesthood.

"Where there is a change of priesthood, there must be a change of law" should not be read as though the change was an afterthought, but rather as a return to the real after the training stage of the old covenant. It always was the one meant to be shared with all nations.

Nope, the so-called change was not "an afterthought" but was rather well expected by the sages. And it is not "a change" in the sense of alteration, abandonment, or abolishment, but rather a transformation-tanslation of the Torah into the supernal and spiritual, (which it always really was to begin with, (see Mal 3:3-4 for one of several examples)). The same author employs the same words from this passage concerning the transformation and translation of Enoch in Hebrews 11:5.

Hebrews 7:12 W/H
12 μετατιθεμενης γαρ της ιερωσυνης εξ αναγκης και νομου μεταθεσις γινεται

Hebrews 11:5 W/H
5 πιστει ενωχ μετετεθη του μη ιδειν θανατον και ουχ ηυρισκετο διοτι μετεθηκεν αυτον ο θεος προ γαρ της μεταθεσεως μεμαρτυρηται ευαρεστηκεναι τω θεω

Many of the sages spoke and wrote of the transformation of the Torah which was expected to come to pass when Messiah had come to expound the Torah to its full and replete meanings, (and that is precisely what the Messiah did even though unfortunately mainstream Judaism to this day rejects him and his teachings).

 

[Interplanner]

Nope, the so-called change was not "an afterthought" but was rather well expected by the sages. And it is not "a change" in the sense of alteration, abandonment, or abolishment, but rather a transformation-tanslation of the Torah into the supernal and spiritual, (which it always really was to begin with, (see Mal 3:3-4 for one of several examples)). The same author employs the same words from this passage concerning the transformation and translation of Enoch in Hebrews 11:5.

Hebrews 7:12 W/H
12 μετατιθεμενης γαρ της ιερωσυνης εξ αναγκης και νομου μεταθεσις γινεται

Hebrews 11:5 W/H
5 πιστει ενωχ μετετεθη του μη ιδειν θανατον και ουχ ηυρισκετο διοτι μετεθηκεν αυτον ο θεος προ γαρ της μεταθεσεως μεμαρτυρηται ευαρεστηκεναι τω θεω

Many of the sages spoke and wrote of the transformation of the Torah which was expected to come to pass when Messiah had come to expound the Torah to its full and replete meanings, (and that is precisely what the Messiah did even though unfortunately mainstream Judaism to this day rejects him and his teachings).

No to what?

And if you are right what was the friction about?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Hebrews tells us that the new covenant was already in existence. As far as human time, history and progression go, it seems to be after, but in fact was already there.

It first says this by showing that the type of priest that the 'King of Righteousness' (Christ) was was operating before the law ever was given, 7:11+. It has nothing to do with Aaron, and nothing to do with ancestry. It was already there, not just many generations earlier, but eternally. Ps 110 is quoted to show that; it is a priesthood that is forever.

That eternal priesthood is why the shadow/copy priesthood and law had to give way to the eternal at some point in history. That point was after Christ accomplished what he came to do as the sacrifice of the new priesthood.

"Where there is a change of priesthood, there must be a change of law" should not be read as though the change was an afterthought, but rather as a return to the real after the training stage of the old covenant. It always was the one meant to be shared with all nations.

You missed the point of the change in the law. It was to allow all twelve tribes of Israel to be priests.
"And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation...."

 

[Interplanner]

No to what?

And if you are right what was the friction about?

Still waiting for the Daqq on this

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You missed the point of the change in the law. It was to allow all twelve tribes of Israel to be priests.
"And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation...."

:idunno:

 

[Interplanner]

Nope, the so-called change was not "an afterthought" but was rather well expected by the sages. And it is not "a change" in the sense of alteration, abandonment, or abolishment, but rather a transformation-tanslation of the Torah into the supernal and spiritual, (which it always really was to begin with, (see Mal 3:3-4 for one of several examples)). The same author employs the same words from this passage concerning the transformation and translation of Enoch in Hebrews 11:5.

Hebrews 7:12 W/H
12 μετατιθεμενης γαρ της ιερωσυνης εξ αναγκης και νομου μεταθεσις γινεται

Hebrews 11:5 W/H
5 πιστει ενωχ μετετεθη του μη ιδειν θανατον και ουχ ηυρισκετο διοτι μετεθηκεν αυτον ο θεος προ γαρ της μεταθεσεως μεμαρτυρηται ευαρεστηκεναι τω θεω

Many of the sages spoke and wrote of the transformation of the Torah which was expected to come to pass when Messiah had come to expound the Torah to its full and replete meanings, (and that is precisely what the Messiah did even though unfortunately mainstream Judaism to this day rejects him and his teachings).

Sorry but the closest commentary on what happened is 'set aside' in 7:18. And the law was substantially changed, ch 7 says, to the oath, v28. That was God's oath to him that he was priest.

That means that Mal 3 was about another Jerusalem, the one that is above, where righteousness dwells.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Sorry but the closest commentary on what happened is 'set aside' in 7:18. And the law was substantially changed, ch 7 says, to the oath, v28. That was God's oath to him that he was priest.

That means that Mal 3 was about another Jerusalem, the one that is above, where righteousness dwells.

You made that up.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You missed the point of the change in the law. It was to allow all twelve tribes of Israel to be priests.
"And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation...."

:idunno:

 

[Danoh]

Hebrews tells us that the new covenant was already in existence. As far as human time, history and progression go, it seems to be after, but in fact was already there.

It first says this by showing that the type of priest that the 'King of Righteousness' (Christ) was was operating before the law ever was given, 7:11+. It has nothing to do with Aaron, and nothing to do with ancestry. It was already there, not just many generations earlier, but eternally. Ps 110 is quoted to show that; it is a priesthood that is forever.

That eternal priesthood is why the shadow/copy priesthood and law had to give way to the eternal at some point in history. That point was after Christ accomplished what he came to do as the sacrifice of the new priesthood.

"Where there is a change of priesthood, there must be a change of law" should not be read as though the change was an afterthought, but rather as a return to the real after the training stage of the old covenant. It always was the one meant to be shared with all nations.

Absolutely spot on correct - credit where credit is due, Titus 1:13.

But for one aspect of it - the fact that that pertains to that Prophesied aspect within God's Two-Fold Plan and Purpose: Prophecy and Mystery.

Prophecy: That Prophesied aspect of God's Plan and Purpose for the Earth through His Son by the Spirit in a redeemed Nation Israel as His Royal Priesthood over the Nations of this Earth.

Mystery: That aspect of God's Plan and Purpose for the Heavens through His Son by the Spirit in A New Creature: The Body of Christ over those Principalities and Powers in said Heavenly Realm.

It had been Kept Secret by God until He first it revealed to and through a New Apostle: the Apostle Paul.

Your "one size fits all" of that in your opposition of it, out of your obvious ignorance of it, Interplanner, actually serves the Adversary's determined will against the Body's proper understanding of God's Mystery aspect within His Two-Fold Purpose.

1 Corinthians 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Again, IP, credit where credit is due.

Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

But only where said credit is due.

Just as the Apostle Paul more than once pays tribute in Romans thru Philemon, where he finds the witness of an external source is nevertheless true.

Fair is fair - especially because Romans 5:8.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Sorry but the closest commentary on what happened is 'set aside' in 7:18.

Oh.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That means that Mal 3 was about another Jerusalem, the one that is above, where righteousness dwells.

Sorry, but you have no basis for saying this.


Mal 3
4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.