Why did the Christian messiah fail to fulfill the messianic prophecies?

I still can't see the precedents in the Old Testament.The Hindus had the Trimurti. Vishnu is god and Brahama is something like a "holy spirit" IMO, though some reverse the roles.The Zoroastrians had the Spenta Mainyu as one of the 7 angels in the Gathas.

quote:

---

Spenta Mainyu | Zoroastrian deity | Britannica.com

​

Spenta Mainyu | Zoroastrian deity | Britannica

​

Spenta Mainyu, in Zoroastrianism, the Holy Spirit, created by the Wise Lord, Ahura Mazdā, to oppose the Destructive Spirit, Angra Mainyu. Spenta Mainyu is an aspect ...

---

Look at Matthew 2The Magi aren't Jewish priests but are infact Zoroastrian priests.Then from a pre Christian Hindu text. Vishnu incarnated as Krishna (in the womb of a female), and this Avatar became eternal (a type of son though the incarnation was spermless and is the exact same soul as Vishnu), though Hindus never called Krishna a "son" of God as far as I know.The evidence is so strong that the Zoroastrian eschatology was wrapped in (intertestimental) Jewish garb, that it is just unreal.Throw in the Hindu trinitarian concepts (with the Avatars) and you have Christianity.There was even a way to have the Old Testament Jewish prophecies (with animal sacrifices!) "fulfilled" in a way that ended up offering justification for Zoroastrian and Hindu type of new ages and eschatological calendars.Lord's Supper anyone?It "fulfilled Jewish prophecy".Talk about a real life Da Vinci Code.This is a sacred marriage between the Old Testament and the old Zoroastrian faith.

quote:

---

Trimurti, ( Sanskrit: three forms) in Hinduism, triad of the three gods Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. The concept was known at least by the time of Kalidasa’s poem Kumarasambhava (Birth of the War God; c. 4th—5th century ce).

​

trimurti | Definition, Meaning, & Facts | Britannica

---

quote:

---

What Is the Bhagavad-gita? - Krishna

​

krishna.org/what-is-the-bhagavad-gita

​

What Is the Bhagavad-gita?

​

... I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings. ... Lord Krishna, Bhagavad Gita 8.17-19. 35.

---

The Alpha and the Omega of post Christian times was paralleled in a text that definitely dates from before the Christian era.The Bhagavad Gita has Krishna say that he is Vishnu and Brahma and Sheba. The only known "Trinity" of (probable) B.C. times. He was the specific incarnation of Vishnu in the womb of a female.There is a very slight possibility that the specific word or concept of "Trimurti" was influenced by the Trinity of Christianity. It probably was earlier.But the Avatar Krishna (the incarnation of Vishnu) came first. The evidence is very strong at the start of the 21st century and only getting stronger.

On Krishna.On Sacrifices.On revelation.Here is a fundi admitting that there was an incarnation of God (in all his forms) before the time of Jesus, it seems.New Birth or Rebirth?: Jesus Talks with Krishna - Ravi Zacharias - Google Books

quote:

---

New Birth or Rebirth?: Jesus Talks with Krishna
By Ravi Zacharias

​

Subra:You have already acknowledged that you are an incarnation of god. And you mention the preexistence of every soul and the reincarnation of every life.
....
What about the others - Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma?

​

Krishna: I am them I am Vishnu. I am Shiva. I am the heavenly father. I have spun this universe. I am the ruler. I am the supreme god.

​

Subra: You are God incarnate and have come before?
....
Jesus: I wonder, Krishna, if you are the divine one, are the sacrifices demanded in the Vedas offered to you.

​

Krishna: Yes, of course. Various canons of our scripture have given specifics for sacrifices. But these sacrifices are only shadows. I told Arjuna that such sacrifices only led to more sorrow and rebirths. The true sacrifice is god himself. So I am both the one to whom the sacrifice was made and the sacrifice itself.

---

Interesting.I was going to hunt for specific scripture, but this co-author of the famous Kingdom of the Cults book has done a good job of interpreting it (partly anyway).Here were the search terms I typed into googlei am vishun i am brahma krishnaThe Jews had the "I am" or l'tre suprme .So did the Hindus.But theirs was an incarnation type of faith.Before 100 BCE anyway.Then came Jesus the Jew.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I said "Here is a fundi admitting that there was an incarnation of God (in all his forms) before the time of Jesus, it seems." but I meant that he was acknowledging that a non-Christian text of such existed, not that he believed it to be of divine influence.Phat responded.

quote:

---

I know Ravi Zacharias and I know that what you claim that he meant is false. He is contrasting Krishna and Jesus rather than supporting similarities, as you erroneously suggest. In addition, your post is entirely off topic. That is why my altar ego suspended

---

I was assuming that he admitted that the Bhagavad-Gita was pre-Christian (as every relevant historian now admits ).He seems to acknowledge that it is a pre-Christian incarnation of God (in a female womb!), right?Does he acknowledge the "I return to deliver the righteous" part?Doesn't matter because it is there regardless of the presence of willful ignorance.

quote:

---

The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions
John Bowker (ed.)
Oxford University Press (1997)
Oxford Dictionary
p.432
A particular form of manifestation is that of 'incarnation', *avatara. In Bhagavad-Gita 4. 7f, Visnu says, 'Whenever dharma is forgotten, whenever lawlessness prevails, I manifest myself in every age I return to deliver the righteous and to establish dharma.'
....
p.139

​

the date is uncertain, but c. 200 BCE is likely

---

There is the pre-Christian text of a 1st and second coming. The Bhagavad-Gita.Lets look at Hebrews chapter 9 and 10. It seems to (IMO) respond to the Jewish Christians who rejected sacrifice (and consumption of meat) but held views that Jesus had multiple incarnations.Here is the text that the 90s A.D. 1 Clement quoted (Clement didn't quote the specific verses , but his quoting of the book proved it existed in the first century though)

quote:

---

NASB
Hebrews 9
1 Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For there was a tabernacle prepared,
....
7 ...only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.
....
which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, 10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.
....
11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

​

15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
....
24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

​

Hebrews 10:1
For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.

---

The Gospel of John ( written after Hebrews though) took up the theme of Jesus being the rebuilt Temple.Ravi Zacharias clearly saw the pre-Christian Avatar of India as a parallel because he used terms lifted from Hebrews 9-10 to apply to the logic displayed in the Indian sacred texts.I wonder if he considers Hebrews as evidence of Krishna awareness present among 1st century Christians. It should be seen as evidence that Elkesai (100 AD) wasn't the first Jewish Christian Ebionite to hold these views.Regardless, we have to look at the Old Testament verses that possibly point in the direction of a future dispensation where sacrifices are frowned against BUT we also have to ask why the (so-called by Christians) "millennial Temple" Old Testament chapters seem to have sacrifice. Then compare those to New Testament concepts (which may or may not match what modern Christians take from the respective texts).But (here is the problem you seem to have Phat) we must also look at non-Biblical sources for the inspiration.The differences between the pre-Christian Hindu texts and the New Testament are enormous for sure. And that is with or without the avatar/incarnation text I quoted.But we can't ignore the evidence of inspiration when we have a supreme I AM manifesting himself in a females womb, and promising to return again.All in a text that is best dated about 100 B.C. - BEFORE CHRIST.I can't ignore it anyway.It raises questions that should be asked and fairly engaged.

Do we have to invoke the "unknown God" or something to explain the mysterious intrusion into a Jewish frame?Are the Magi of Matthew 2 allowed to be mentioned in any capacity? This is the exact same word as a Zoroastrian. The Koran mentions Magians. Is one not allowed to refer to what every historian knows it means (Zoroastrians). It isnt even debatable.I won't even ask about the Holy Spirit. (honestly, I'll leave that part of the "trinity" out of the discussion for sure)It seems that we need to know the source of something to understand where it is coming from and what exacty it means.GoogleThe first 2 hits

quote:

---

Magians - Ontology of Quranic Concepts from the Quranic Arabic Corpus

​

corpus.quran.com/concept.jsp?id=magians

​

Magians (المجوس) are one of the religious groups mentioned in the Quran. This concept is part of the following classification in the ontology: ...

​

Magi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

Magi - Wikipedia

​

Wikipedia

​

Magi is a term, used since at least the 6th century BCE, to denote followers of Zoroastrianism or ... In this trilingual text, certain rebels have 'magian' as an attribute; in the Old Persian portion as maγu- .... In the Quran (Islamic tradition)[edit].
‎Magi (disambiguation) ‎Biblical Magi ‎Magic (paranormal)

---

This is really getting out of wack when you can't even say the plain meaning of words that the Messiah story uses.A threat to ban somebody for trying to understand one concept (like Avatar) so as to be able to consider why the Messiah of the Old Testament doesn't match the Christos/Messiah in the New Testament.One has to be able to place things properly so one can better understand texts and their usages.I suppose I will avoid mentioning the Zoroastrian origins (and Hindus) but it would be nice if scripture can be quoted by those who maintain that Jesus was some sort of prophetic fulfillment of the Old Testament. Even then, there were vastly different Christian interpretations and views back in the 1st century. Especially among the Jewish Christians.Again, what should I do if Matthew 2 ends up being discussed? (the Herod story with the Magi.) Just airbrush over the Magi part? How? Why? Honestly.

quote:

---

we have to look at the Old Testament verses that possibly point in the direction of a future dispensation where sacrifices are frowned against BUT we also have to ask why the (so-called by Christians) "millennial Temple" Old Testament chapters seem to have sacrifice. Then compare those to New Testament concepts (which may or may not match what modern Christians take from the respective texts).

---

I quoted Hebrews 10-11 in the New Testament. The Gospel of John has already been mentioned.Now, what about the Old Testament and its view on sacrifices?There are lots of sacrificial issues mentioned in a context that does not involve some future eschatological situation.Then there is the eschatological mentioning of sacrificial issues.There is explaining to do.There is quoting to do.Let's see the actual biblical text, then explain how it is in sync with the New Testament. Quote that too.(I'm sure contradictions will be explained as "The Old Testament was written to contradict what would actually happen so that Satan was tricked into expecting something else" like Faith essentially said earlier)I won't mention inter-testamental texts because well it might be a reason for my banning. But those might be relevant too. I don't have any on hand, and frankly it might be against Phat's rules even if I did. I do wonder what the extremely important Book of Enoch actually says when examined closely.

quote:

---

GDR writes:
I think that by now it is quite clear that JC DID fulfill the messianic prophecies, so it should also be quite clear that he WAS the messiah.

​

You have been shown how he defeated the enemy, (evil), and how he rebuilt the temple, not as a building, but in the hearts of those that are followers of His message of loving others as we love ourselves.
ringo writes:
So he built a metaphor, not a temple.
[phat writes]
Yes. The author(s) used a metaphor to teach and/or encourage the reader that we ourselves can be a temple of the Holy Spirit. Granted some of us metaphorically act more as if our body is a liquor store or a candy shop or a casino...but the idea suggests that we can have God dwell in us.

---

"quite clear that JC did fulfill the messianic prophecies."Phat references a wikipedia link for a word definition.That's the evidence. (Is that Daniel verse all he has?)A complete dodge (seems to be his specialty)If he was going to dodge, he could have at least quoted scripture relevant to his complete dodge.While he avoided the main issue, he could have scripture references (with quotes!) for his side-issue.Like Acts 10:28, Peter understands that gentiles are allowed to take part in the Lord's Super without circumcision (Acts 15 showed that the only requirements for salvation were eating Kosher and not fornicating. Gentiles were no longer profane, common, or koinonia) as Acts 10:15 had God showing Peter that gentiles weren't to be considered 4 legged creatures like dogs or, more commonly (called by Jews), pigs.

quote:

---

Acts 15:1
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved

---

Then the decision that gentiles didn't need circumcision, only they needed to eat Kosher (which included the humane rules in the Mishnah that required chickens to be slashed in the throat in a careful way to hit the vein, the Old Testament policy of tearing its head off was outlawed. A Pharisaic "tradition" was incorporated in the New Testament for sure when animals couldn't be strangled. The Mishnah says that strangled animals would retain some blood, as it was impossible to drain it properly and not fornicate. See Acts 15:20-29. King Alfred, in 700 A.D., translated the 10 commandments in English and Acts 15:23-29. It seems to have been a law code he implemented (though there is debate on the issue). Aside from the possible translation of a few verses of John, this was the first ever English translation of scripture.An all time mandatory-minimum set of rules were covered in Acts 15:20-29. (with more rules to be added later such as the "vice lists" attest, and Romans 14-15:1 attests)Acts 16 shows that Jewish Christians still had to be circumcised but it was temporary (only for the times). Acts 21 show that the allowance of gentiles to not have to have the circumcision was a burning issue to both Jews and Jewish Christians, that was difficult to tolerate.From Exodus 12.

quote:

---

Exodus 12:43ff

​

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, These are the regulations for the Passover meal:

​

No foreigner may eat it. 44 Any slave you have bought may eat it after you have circumcised him, 45 but a temporary resident or a hired worker may not eat it.

​

46 It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones. 47 The whole community of Israel must celebrate it.

​

48 A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.

​

50 All the Israelites did just what the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron. 51 And on that very day the Lord brought the Israelites out of Egypt by their divisions.

---

Romans 12

quote:

---

Romans 12:4-5
4For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

---

1 Corinthians 5

quote:

---

1 Cor 5:7
7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batchas you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

---

1 Corinthians chapter 10

quote:

---

1 Cor 10:16-17
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

---

1 Corinthians 11

quote:

---

1 Cor 11:23-26
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me. 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

---

This was the Passover/Lord's Super issue.Hebrews 10-11 had to do with the other sacrifices. The Deuteronomist source says that all the local altars and sacrifices were outlawed (a contradiction with the rest of the Torah), and Jerusalem was the central sanctuary where offerings had to be made.I'm still waiting for the harmonization of the New Testament with the Old Testament.Where was this foretold?Did any details of the Messiah match?Phat refuses to quote the "Millennium Temple" chapters and verses from the Old Testament with their mention of sacrifices.Care to quote from 1 Isaiah or Ezekiel 40-48 Pat?Care to tell us anything or are you just going to make pronouncements and bald assertions?Phat has a Declaration of Independence (from any requirement to back up his claims with scripture quotes)

quote:

---

The author(s) used a metaphor to teach and/or encourage the reader that we ourselves can be a temple of the Holy Spirit

---

Lets see the Old Testament author's text Phat. About the Temple and the sacrifices. Forget the "Holy Spirit part", any quotations from the time of The Prophets (or earlier!) on the "Holy Spirit" will get me banned (will Phat get banned too if he quotes the only pre-200 B.C. references to the Holy Spirit?). Lol.I'm talking about quotes from the Old Testament on the Temple and sacrifices and how they relate to the Messiah and Eschatology.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I want to quote part of Faith's long post just to show the logic. I don't mean to disrespect the entire post by appearing to quote mine from such a very long post, so sorry.Somebody said "There is not a single text in the Tanach that says that the messiah will be God incarnate."Faith responded.

quote:

---

Jeremiah: "The LORD our righteousness" refers to the Messiah; Isaiah: "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace" refers to the Messiah. There's lots more but prophecies of the Messiah in the OT are ambiguous, in order to deceive Satan and insincere people, so you have to be willing to recognize them.

---

She then spent a lot (alot!) of time claiming that Jesus fulfilled the law and didn't end it.I wonder if we can focus on these issues below.I put in "Ezekieal 40-48 sacrifices" into google.But among the other google links, I found many good hits and discussion. It was amazing but almost every hit was about New Testament contradictions with what Fundamentalist Christians say and the chapters in Ezekiel. I actually didn't expect the world to be so much in sync with the issue in a way that is so relevant to my point here.This was a good site for showing the issues.http://www.pauls-post-crucifixion-temple-sa.../...uture.htmlPhat won't address the issues (except for his quoting of the Daniel verses which was really a self-defeating offering if that is ALL Phat has.)Lets address the issues please, and especially with regard to the most relevant Old Testament texts.EDITFor more of the same issues, put into Google this:2 isaiah millennial prophecy sacrificesEdited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

haven't been following this thread and I don't know what you are asking me. Could you make it clearer? There's no point in clicking on the links if I don't know what I'm supposed to find out from them.

---

The point is that one cannot find too many eschatological (or otherwise?) clues that indicate the future will be without animal sacrifice, a literal Temple, and 2 comings of the Messiah. The first 2 are the chief concern, so don't worry about the Messiah part (hard to ignore for people on all sides of the debate admittedly - aside from those who selectively ignore every actual issue relevant to the associated debates)Ezekiel 40-48 and the "millennial" Temple (Jews don't seem to have the 1000 year eschatological scheme of Revelation 20 and its 3000 year cousin in the Zoroastrian religion, so the understand term is not going to be used by Jews - i.e. those Jewish individuals who wrote Old Testament books like Ezekiel) seems to be "messianic" , but is very much full of sacrifices and literal language at that.The Temple seems very literal.This website is the best online source on can find, because it is mostly quotes from the text itself, plus offers great selections of the various views and interpretations.I will start quoting the Ezekiel chapters (selected verses) myself if there isn't an attempt to engage the issue by fundamentalist Christians.

quote:

---

Regarding Daniel 9:17-18:

​

"Now therefore, our God, hear the prayer of Your servant, and his supplications, and for the Lord’s sake cause Your face to shine on Your sanctuary, which is desolate. 18 O my God, incline Your ear and hear; open Your eyes and see our desolations, and the city which is called by Your name; for we do not present our supplications before You because of our righteous deeds, but because of Your great mercies."

​

Despite it all being what we do and not by virtue of a free pass, I interpret the sanctuary to be my heart and soul. I can be a "temple" or a sanctuary through what I do...and I don't need to make a big religious show of it either...but I maintain that it goes hand in hand...I am able to do unto others better if my metaphorical representation of my physical body is a sanctuary of Gods presence rather than a liquor store, a candy shop, an internet porn hub, or a casino. Just sayin....

---

The Bible is full of punishment of sins (often using foreign invasions) coming from God being angry at the people for sinning.A punishing God who removes protection of the capital city.Gee, how original.Ezekiel 35-37 mentions the land and its desolation.Ezekiel 38 mentions the Gog Magog war. (Revelation mentions it and it is interpreted as something yet to happen)Ezekiel 40-48 are the (fundi?) "Christian" interpreted millennial verses, right?

quote:

---

Ezekiel's prophecy about a temple includes details which show it to be actively sacrificing. Scholars have argued up and down about whether Ezekiel's prophecies were fulfilled in Zerubbabel's or Herod's temple or are yet to be fulfilled. Most believe that Herod's temple couldn't have satisfied these prophesies, but at the same time can't see how it might be possible that another temple, following Christ's crucifixion would be necessary.
....
Many Christian theologians have been troubled by the implications of Ezekiel's prophecy, which on the one hand includes several elements which have never been seen in previous temples, whilst including animal sacrifices.
....
However, Expositor's Bible Commentary, a respected recent commentary reaches the very clear conclusion that Ezekiel's Temple is indeed a prophecy for the Millennium.

​

http://www.pauls-post-crucifixion-temple-sa.../...uture.html

---

It is full of animal sacrifice and often is interpreted as after our present time.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What's the point? You think scripture predicts the rebuilding of a literal temple?

---

Let me ask this, then.Where on earth can any Old Testament (or intertestimenal literature) verse be interpreted to be saying that the Messiah and the Temple are the same thing?Is there some "holy trinity" of Messiah, Temple, and Sacrifice that I missed?Is Jerusalem ever said to be the same thing as the Messiah?Yes, I'm referring to the Old Testament. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Faith was asked about the incarnation of God."There is not a single text in the Tanach that says that the messiah will be God incarnate."She responded:

quote:

---

Jeremiah: "The LORD our righteousness" refers to the Messiah; Isaiah: "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace" refers to the Messiah. There's lots more but prophecies of the Messiah in the OT are ambiguous, in order to deceive Satan and insincere people, so you have to be willing to recognize them.

---

Now, there is an interesting issue with Melchizedek. I once attempted to see if there was any evidence that this individual was seen (in B.C. times or the first century) as some sort of avatar (or pre-incarnation of God and/or Christ), but was left unsatisfied with what I found. I'm leaning more on the "no" side.Here is the issue:From wikipedia

quote:

---

In the New Testament, references to Melchizedek appear only in the Epistle to the Hebrews (later 1st century AD), though these are extensive (Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1, 10, 11, 15, 17, 21). Jesus Christ is there identified as a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek quoting from Ps. 110:4.[69]

​

In Heb. 7:3 , Melchizedek is described as an extraordinary person in ways that are unique in the biblical narrative. In Heb. 7:3, Melchizedek is depicted as being "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life"; thus giving him an almost godlike status.
....
The association or identification of Melchizedek with the Messiah predates Christianity, developing in Jewish messianism of the Second Temple period.[citation needed]

​

A collection of early Gnostic scripts dating on or before the 4th century, discovered in 1945 and known as the Nag Hammadi library, contains a tractate pertaining to Melchizedek. Here it is proposed that Melchizedek is Jesus Christ.[70] Melchizedek, as Jesus Christ, lives, preaches, dies and is resurrected, in a gnostic perspective. The Coming of the Son of God Melchizedek speaks of his return to bring peace, supported by the gods, and he is a priest-king who dispenses justice.[71]

​

The association with Christ is made explicit by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Melchizedek the "king of righteousness" and "king of peace" is explicitly associated with the "eternal priesthood" of the Son of God.[72] The Christological interpretation of this Old Testament character being a prefiguration or prototype of the Christ has varied between Christian denominations. The Pelagians saw in Melchizedek merely a man who lived a perfect life.[73]

​

Typological association of Jesus Christ with Old Testament characters occurs frequently in the New Testament; thus, Jesus Christ is also associated with Adam (as the "New Adam") and with Abraham.[74]
Melchizedek - Wikipedia

---

earlier in the wikipedia article

quote:

---

The Second Book of Enoch (also called "Slavonic Enoch") is apparently a Jewish sectarian work of the 1st century AD.[40] The last section of the work, the Exaltation of Melchizedek, tells how Melchizedek was born of a virgin, Sofonim (or Sopanima), the wife of Nir, a brother of Noah. The child came out from his mother after she had died and sat on the bed beside her corpse, already physically developed, clothed, speaking and blessing the Lord, and marked with the badge of priesthood. Forty days later, Melchizedek was taken by the archangel Gabriel (Michael in some manuscripts) to the Garden of Eden and was thus preserved from the Deluge without having to be in Noah's Ark.[41][42]

​

Dead Sea Scrolls[edit]

​

11Q13 (11QMelch) is a fragment (that can be dated to the end of the 2nd or start of the 1st century BC) of a text about Melchizedek found in Cave 11 at Qumran in the Israeli Dead Sea area and which comprises part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In this eschatological text, Melchizedek is seen as a divine being and Hebrew titles as Elohim are applied to him. According to this text Melchizedek will proclaim the "Day of Atonement" and he will atone for the people who are predestined to him. He also will judge the peoples.[43]

​

The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) repeats information from Genesis.

---

Here is the Dead Sea Scroll text.File Not FoundHow does this character get interpreted?I have been at a loss for a long time and really am afraid to reach any conclusions. (I am uncomfortable by my severe lack of comprehensive access and study to everything avaliable in the literature) (same problem I have on the sacrificial issues and 2nd Temple Judaic views)It can be seen as reflective of messianic views (especially since some date the relevant parts of Enoch to B.C. times), but in what way?

Here is what you said.

quote:

---

What's the point? You think scripture predicts the rebuilding of a literal temple? That's certainly what a lot of people are expecting to happen in the very last days, and some Christian ministries give reports on the progress of preparations for its rebuilding. This is based on taking the OT literally as you apparently do, rather than understanding it in the context of the New Testament as Reformation Protestants do.

---

You didn't tell me when you think the Ezekiel text is/was supposed to happen.We need a time frame here.This is why these issues are so difficult.

There is an interesting issue about the law. Jesus said, in Matthew 5:18, the he will not abolish 1 letter of the law.Then Paul said the things he said.Then you have the modern day Christians.Faith said:

quote:

---

[Faith]
Jesus had already taught that the Law is a lot deeper than outward obedience, it's a matter of the dispositions of the heart, that even lusting in the heart is adultery, and hatred in the heart is murder. Is there anyone who could ever claim to never have committed such sins? James says that we are guilty of all the Law if we sin against it even in part. The purpose of the Law, then, according to Paul again, is to bring us to Christ, who alone fulfilled every jot and tittle of the Law and took all the sins on His own body of those who believe in Him, so that He could die in our place, pay for our sins that we are certainly unable to pay for, and set us free from the burden of the Law.

---

The interesting thing is that Acts 15 does maintain some Mosiac Law issues (related to food and fornication)I put "alfred acts 15:23-29" into a google books search so I could find information on his historic translation of the 10 commandments and Acts 15:23-29 for his (typically interpreted as )law code. The issue of the 10 commandments often comes up when questions are asked about the old law.

quote:

---

Alfred the Great and Our Common Law Pamphlet — December 18, 2005
by Rev. Prof. Dr. F.N. Lee (Author)

​

Clearly, then Alfred believed that the Apostles here (at the Synod of Jerusalem or the first General Assembly of the Christian Church) enjoined God's Commandments upon all of the Gentile Christians who had heard it - and who indeed should keep it. For here he recalls that also "the Gentiles...should abstain from pollutions and idols and fornication and from blood [shed]. For Moses has those who preach him in every city from of old, being read out in the meeting-places every weekly sabbath-day." Acts 15:19-21 (cf. Genesis 9:5-6 and Exoduc 20:1-17).

​

King Alfred the Great and Our Common Law - F. N. Lee, Rev. Prof. Dr. F.N. Lee Rev. Prof. F. N. Lee - Google Books

---

They had to weed out the weeds but found fundamentally important issues in the Mosaic Law and the oral law (traditions)to use as a foundation of maintained commandments which would be built upon with vice lists and further sins against conscience (which are sins against Jesus Christ).The fact that the law was still changed creates a contradiction, but the entire law wasn't thrown out.Contradiction?Yes!Abolishment?No.In my opinion.The more honest fundamentalist dictionaries admit that it is just their opinion that these Acts 15:20 laws were ceremonial (also called cultic).Here is one honest one and it is a classic.

quote:

---

Blood (1.) As food, prohibited in Gen. 9:4, where the use of animal food is first allowed. Comp. Deut. 12:23; Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10—14. The injunction to abstain from blood is renewed in the decree of the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:29). It has been held by some, and we think correctly, that this law of prohibition was only ceremonial and temporary; while others regard it as still binding on all. Blood was eaten by the Israelites after the battle of Gilboa (1 Sam. 14:32—34

​

Blood

---

They don't go into much detail.I have a quote (on my zip drive) that comes from an article (in a book) which covers a special conference the World Council of Church's held on the Apostolic Council. The World Council of Church's write it off as not having much of a binding effect when one looks at the rest of the New Testament. They said the decision seemed to be "limited" in its influence.The problem is that there are numerous references to these Acts 15 rules. Revelation 2, 1 Corinthians 8, etc.It seems that these rules get written off simply because Christians today don't follow them. But, history shows us that is was essentially the Catholics (and those in their sphere of influence) who didn't follow these rules. The "Western church" (ie. Roman Catholics) even changed the text to remove all food references in the Acts 15 text. The oldest Acts of the Apostles in-situ manuscripts we have date from 200 A.D. (possibly slightly earlier) and it is the Roman Catholic corruption.The scholars of today know that the later (350 A.D. in-situ texts) are the true representations of the (more) "original" Acts 15 text, and that the oldest texts we have were alterations.All modern Bibles avoid using the text from the archaeological discovery which uncovered the Roman Catholic corruptions. (it was called P75 or P47 or something)But the early Roman Catholics have won the larger battle.Their post 1000 AD "cultic" (or "ceremonial") interpretation has won the day.You don't need to change the text, you just need the power to impose your interpretation on everybody.Is that a lesson for this whole Law issue?

quote:

---

[Faith]
My understanding of the judgment in Acts 15 is that it was intended to require the Gentile believers to obey certain laws that would have greatly offended the Jewish believers if disobeyed. It's an application of the principle that we are not to act in a way that causes our brother to stumble, even if we have every right to ignore the law altogether because it has been fulfilled. It was important that Gentiles not be required to be circumcised so that was the first judgment; but then they did require obedience to some laws for the sake of the conscience of the Jews

---

The issue in Acts 10-15 was circumcision. The lack of circumcision was what "would have greatly offended the Jewish believers". That was the issue. It was the dividing line between a Jew and a profane gentile.(also, understand that "kill" in Acts 10:13 is in Greek so we don't know the Hebrew words used. But in, Hebrew the word was probably a word that meant ritual slaughter (though words are often capable of being interchangeable even in Hebrew). The concept is more important. See Genesis 15:9 for ritually clean animals. It isn't the same thing as animals that can be eaten in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Roe Deer are an example of a "clean" food that can be eaten, but not fit for sacrifice. Scripture interpreted scripture in Acts 10:28. The issue was about being a ritually clean Israelite verses a profane or common Gentile. Very important issue for the Passover. See Exodus 12.)

quote:

---

Acts 10

​

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

​

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

​

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

​

Acts 11

​

1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

​

2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,

​

3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

​

Acts 15

​

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

​

2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

​

3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

​

4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

​

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

---

James gave his decision (reached with the other Apostles) in the text below.

quote:

---

Acts 15
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

​

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
....
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

​

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

---

They weren't to be troubled with the law (with what could be described as "ceremonial" issues) issues but there were basic right/wrong issues that would transfer to sins according to the new covenant. Jews today know that not eating pork and not killing an animal by certain methods is a secular (non-ceremonial) law that is to be followed at all times. Even the famous fundamentalist J Vernom McGhee, during his verse by verse teaching on Leviticus (in his Through The Bible radio show program still aired), started Leviticus 11 by telling how God placed purely secular laws in between the largely ceremonial law teachings of Leviticus. He considered it very clear that these laws were moral and not cultic or ceremonial. The Catholics (and Catholics alone) invented the ceremonial concept for Acts 15 after 1000 A.D.Circumcision was the burning issue. Look at Acts 21. The Temple sacrifices could not happen to somebody who simply accepted the Hebrew God. There had to be circumcision.

quote:

---

Acts 21

​

17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

​

18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

​

19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

​

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

​

21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

​

22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

​

23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

​

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

​

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

​

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

​

27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,

​

28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

​

29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)

​

30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.

---

They did not choose to make the gentiles compromise. The (Christian) Jews were the ones who had to stomach the lack of circumcision.

quote:

---

[Faith]
As one commentator says: "If the decision is that one does not have to be Jewish to be a Christian, it must also be declared that one does not need to forsake the Law of Moses to be a Christian."

---

The dividing line was circumcision. The "covenant cut" was circumcision. The dividing line's (such as national Israel verse the other nations) were erased - hence the new covenant. That is the issue of Moses. No more nationalism and dividing lines. No more "Pledge of Allegiance" circumcision.One (if a fundamentalist) can even make the case that the central Temple was in God's plan to destroy. That would mean that all killing of animals would be done away with. Considering James was a vegetarian, the issue must be considered that he wanted sacrifice to end. Here is a work of his followers.

quote:

---

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (3rd edition
by Bart Ehrman.
p.197
The Gospel of the Ebionites. This Gospel appears to have been a combination of the Synoptic Gospels, a kind of "Gospel harmony" in which the three accounts were merged to form one longer and fuller version of Jesus' life. It was evidently written in Greek and was possibly used among Jewish Christians living in Transjordan. One of its striking features is that it recorded words of Jesus to the effect that Jews no longer needed to participate in animal sacrifices in the Temple. Connected with this abolition of sacrifice was an insistence that Jesus's followers be vegetarian. This insistence led to some interesting alterations of stories found in the Synoptics. Simply by changing one letter, for example, the author modified the diet of John the Baptist; rather than eating "locusts" (Mark 1:6; the Greek word is akrides) he is said to have eaten "pancakes" (egkrides).

---

Faith then says.

quote:

---

[Faith]
So it's not a matter of whether the law was ceremonial or not, but a matter of respect for the conscience of other believers -- in this case the Jewish believers who had been brought up in strict observance of the Law of Moses. When the Jews were later no longer the leaders in the Church it was recognized that there was no longer a need to obey these laws -- because there is no requirement any more to obey any of the laws as the Jews understood it.

---

There isn't any strong evidence to back up this conclusion though.The evidence suggests that the Apostolic Council transferred the fundamentally important moral laws into the New Covenant. Genesis 15 was nationalistic (see quoted text below)and the nationalistic covenant has been made into an anti-nationalistic covenant (see Galatians 3)

quote:

---

Genesis 15
13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

​

14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

​

15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

​

16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
....
18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

​

19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,

​

20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,

​

21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
............................

​

Genesis 17
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

​

8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

​

9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

​

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

​

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

​

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

​

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

​

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
.........................................

​

Galatians 3
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

​

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

​

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
....
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
....
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

​

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

---

This whole Old Covenant verses New Covenant is related to circumcision and national barriers IMO.Faith then adds.

quote:

---

[Faith]
abe: We're "in Christ," (we used to be "in Adam" as all human beings are, but when we give ourselves to Christ we are now "in Him." There's lots of theology wrapped up in that but I guess I should make it brief). Christ obeyed all the Law for us, we are reckoned as righteous (as obedient to the Law) through our faith in Him. (Not that we are to flout the Law in any way of course, which is one way salvation by faith and not by works has been misunderstood -- when we commit sin, which is defined as transgression of the Law, we confess it and forsake it, depending on Jesus for cleansing.) Sinners can't be saved; your sins have to be completely done away with because only the perfectly obedient/righteous can see God. We have no power in ourselves to wipe out our sins; that's what Jesus did for us, and we possess His righteousness through faith in Him.

---

Jews had to deal with the destruction of the Temple with it's attending Exile multiple times.They still follow moral commandments (such as not eating pork).They know it is a sin to fornicate and eat pork (their laws against fornication are in the Mishnah not the Old Testament btw)The Mishnah Torah ("2nd law" which is the oral law or "traditions")wasn't collected during the life of Christ but it did exist (but scattered around and not complete/edited). The Gemara are the Talmudic commentaries on the Mishnah.Everything you just said (in above quoted paragraph) can be compatible with the Jewish and Christian New Testament commandments to not eat pork. They are foundational.