Who appointed Jesus to the Priesthood?

[Elijah John]

Who, (besides the unknown author of Hebrews), appointed Jesus "Priest"? Some defenders of Pauline Christianity point to this role to support the validity of his atoning "blood sacrifice".

But who appointed him to this role? Where was this done?

Isn't the unknown author of the book of Hebrews simply offering his/her own theological interpretation of Jesus role in his own martyrdom?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 45 by William]

Where do you suppose Occultists got the Tetragrammaton? It seems even they know the name of God is sacred. But I have to admit, not sure if they use the Name reverently, or abuse it. I suppose it depends on who's invoking the Name, and their motivations.

[William]

[Replying to post 50 by Elijah John]

Elijah John: Where do you suppose Occultists got the Tetragrammaton?

William: Probably from the same source as everyone else.

Elijah John: It seems even they know the name of God is sacred.

William: It is a geometric symbol.

Elijah John: But I have to admit, not sure if they use the Name reverently, or abuse it.

William: Ain't that the theme throughout the story.

Elijah John: I suppose it depends on who's invoking the Name, and their motivations.

William: That too is the theme.

One thing seems certain, the Symbol is far more associated with Occultism than it is with the religions of Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

Perhaps it is the hidden branch in which The Lord also gets things done.

Interesting also the symbol occurs naturally enough, so can be said to be the likely source as to where folk got it from.

Perhaps it is evidence that The Lord Creator of this Reality Simulation left Its mark as a sign and a hint...

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 51 by William]

Not sure what you mean by the "symbol". The pentagram? The Tetragrammaton is not really a symbol, it is the consonants for the name of God. Literally, the "four letters" in Greek.

Yes, it is ironic that some Occultists seem to value the name of God more so than Christians or Muslims. Jews still value the Name, though they are reluctant to pronounce it, and would rather use the terms "Hashem" (the Name) or "Adonai", (My Lord) as substitutes where the Tetragrammaton occurs in the texts.

Unfortunately, most Christians seem to consider "Jesus" the name of God now.

[polonius]

Tam posted:

You asked for evidence (from the synoptics); you received evidence (from the synoptics); that evidence (from the synoptics) conflicts with your preferred interpretation - and you must acknowledge that it makes no sense for a Christian not to listen to Christ, as God told us to do - so now the authors of the synoptics just made it up?

RESPONSE: The "synoptics" were written 40 to 65 years after Jesus' death by non-witnesses who were trying to start a new belief system. They contain many contradictions and errors as you would expect in the writings of non-witnesses to events.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 48 by tam]

The Synoptics are a more reliable account of the historical Jesus, though not completely reliable.

How do you know this? How do you know which parts are reliable and which parts are not?

Have you noticed that everything you disagree with are the parts that you deem to be unreliable?

The Epistles have very little to do with the historical Jesus.

"Historical Jesus" is just one more "Jesus" for you to add to your other thread. He is not the true person. He is pieced together with what (some) people think is "most likely", and he can take on any characteristic a person prefers. "Historical Jesus" is a made up person.

The "risen Christ" is not reliable, at least not when he spoke though John the Revelator.

Revelation 22.7

The risen Christ speaking many, many centuries ago.

Behold, I come quickly

Still waiting. Even if he arrived today for his 2nd Advent, that would not be "quickly" or "soon", unless you want to play games with words.

He DOES come quickly, EJ.

He waits for the Father to tell Him when it is time TO come, and He comes quickly.

ταχύ tachý, takh-oo'; neuter singular of G5036 (as adverb); shortly, i.e. without delay, soon, or (by surprise) suddenly, or (by implication, of ease) readily:—lightly, quickly.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 5035&t=KJV


Here is another example of the exact same word being used:

Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, G5035 and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.



Looking at the meaning of words (especially when they are translated from another language) is not playing games with words.


He does come quickly; even suddenly (by surprise):

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.



Peace again to you, and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Difflugia]

How do you know this? How do you know which parts are reliable and which parts are not?

Have you noticed that everything you disagree with are the parts that you deem to be unreliable?

The Gospels don't even agree with each other reliably. Even if we assume that the miracles could be real, at most only one of the Gospels can possibly be reliable.

[William]

Elijah John: Not sure what you mean by the "symbol". The pentagram?

William: Yes - that is what I was referring to...my bad

Elijah John: The Tetragrammaton is not really a symbol, it is the consonants for the name of God. Literally, the "four letters" in Greek.

William: Well there we go...letters together or on there own, are symbols which represent sounds...so I was not mistaken that The Tetragrammaton is a symbol, just mistaken as to what symbol it was.

Obviously the symbols represent sounds, so in that it is pointing to 'the sound of the name' of a God.

Elijah John: Yes, it is ironic that some Occultists seem to value the name of God more so than Christians or Muslims. Jews still value the Name,

William: That is far too sweeping and tends to lean towards the One True Scotsman fallacy...

Elijah John: though they are reluctant to pronounce it, and would rather use the terms "Hashem" (the Name) or "Adonai", (My Lord) as substitutes where the Tetragrammaton occurs in the texts.

William: I wonder if the reluctance is due to because it cannot be pronounced the way it is written, more than anything else...

Elijah John: Unfortunately, most Christians seem to consider "Jesus" the name of God now.

William: Considering how many names this Creator has, I doubt that it is something worth arguing about, or would ultimately matter to said Creator.

Some folk like to be able to pronounce the name of the Creator when engaging with said Creator...I tend to refer to Her as QueenBee - something which at least can be pronounced without a lot of difficulty...I don't see the "unfortunate" in that as you obviously do.
Perhaps it is more a matter that arguing how one should name The Creator in opposition to simply allowing all to Name He She or It as they choose and get on with one's relationship with The Living Entity.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 56 by William]

Hey, at least we agree that the Deity is the "Living Entity".

Also, regarding my "sweeping statement", I did say "some".

[William]

Elijah John: Hey, at least we agree that the Deity is the "Living Entity".

William: That is all which matters...The Living Entity.

[Elijah John]

Elijah John: Hey, at least we agree that the Deity is the "Living Entity".

William: That is all which matters...The Living Entity.

Or to put it into Hebraic terms (roughly translated) "the Great I AM"