Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote

(And if Aaron is the first high priest, wouldn't that at minimum preclude Moses from being a high priest?)

But no one is saying he was the HP, just A priest.

I'm just trying to be proactive and cut off the argument that if Moses is a priest at all he must obviously have been a high priest,

Are you saying that the whole of Israel was wandering around in the priests-only areas and that anyone in Israel could make sacrifices for the people?

On the altar of the LORD that he had built in front of the portico, Solomon sacrificed burnt offerings to the LORD, according to the daily requirement for offerings commanded by Moses for Sabbaths, New Moons and the three annual feasts—the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles.

So either King Solomon was a priest, Scripture is false and Solomon did not offer the ritual sacrifices, or your argument that only priests can offer sacrifices for the people is incorrect. I would choose the third option; which of these three options do you support?

As to Moses wandering in priests only areas, we know the LORD spoke to Moses face to face as a man speaks to a friend. This suggests that Moses had a unique relationship with Lord when it comes to his personal interactions with God. I am not certain why a person who saw the back parts of God directly would require the title of priest to enter the temple.

You are, but I'm more asking if you want to retract your argument as to why Moses isn't a Priest.

Like I said I would be more than willing to retract my arguments against if you can point me to anything in the Jewish or Christian thought that claims Moses was a priest. If there is nothing in these traditions that supports the claim that Moses was a priest, why do you think that might be?

I've been in a Women's bathroom before. I guess that makes me a woman. Now Saint of Virtue is more useful.

I've been in a Women's bathroom before. I guess that makes me a woman. Now Saint of Virtue is more useful.

im not even going to ask what you were doing in a womens bathroom.

I've been in a Women's bathroom before. I guess that makes me a woman. Now Saint of Virtue is more useful.

Don't tell your wife.

Also to my knowledge there is no law saying a man can not walk into a woman's restroom (Though it is socially unacceptable) where as you even TOUCHED the outer WALL of the tabernacle you were to be put to death!

I have to say though, I really don't get WHY this is so debated. We took miriam being a prophet at face value, yet there is nothing to prove her prophetness besides it saying she was.

I have to say though, I really don't get WHY this is so debated. We took miriam being a prophet at face value, yet there is nothing to prove her prophetness besides it saying she was.

Red'Rocks, this statement is false. Miriam has been established as a prophetess in both the Jewish and Christian traditions. So deciding that Miriam was a prophet is confirming existing tradition. I know of no similar tradition for Moses that supports the identification of Moses as a priest. If you have something along that line, please pass it along. If such support doesn't exist, why do you think that is?

To answer in general WHY this is an issue (beyond the specific case)... I am more than a little leery of cases where people come up with interpretations of Scripture that no one has ever managed to see before.

Okay maybe I'm missing it but it saying he is a priest flat out seems to need very LITTLE interpretation. Also tradition does not make something RIGHT. I may be wrong and if shown any biblical evidence that Moses is indeed NOT a priest, I will back down but at the moment we have tradition vs black and white text from the word of God.

. pretty clear to me.

[Moses being a priest] somehow escaped mention during four millenia of Jewish study and commentary on the OT, despite the fact that they contain extensive discussions of Moses, Aaaron, Miriam, and the priesthood.

According to this author, Moses was not spoken of as a priest because he was so big a character that he "broke out of every delimiting frame of reference", and because the definition of "priest" was later restricted to the "descendants of Aaron".  However the author does agree that Moses IS a priest, despite this Jewish tradition.

For those of you who wonder if this author knows what he is talking about...check here.

Apparently it does take a bit of interpretation because the black and white text from the word of God says that all of Israel are priests. The black and white text from the word of God says that all NT believers are priests. Are you actually arguing that the Redemption play definition should be that all Israelites and all NT characters should be given the identifier of priest?

Verses stated for those points:
(Hebrews 5:4): Is talking about Jesus, and the funny thing is, note which ORDER he is from. Not Aaron's line, Nor either of his sons. (Verse 10) "10. and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek."
Melchizedek, the priest who was NOT from Aaron's line.

(Exodus 19:3-6) While I can NOT refute this saying that he said to the Israelites to form a nation of priests, the AND bugs me, considerably. Because Priests are already set apart(Holy) so why would a nation of priests need to be a "Holy nation". I guess you COULD be evil priests but this was given as a command, I'm pretty sure God didn't mean for them to be evil priests so he tagged the addendum on to be holy. Also, the levites were a part of Israel.

Honestly, if you want to make them priests it is fine with me, I am just calling for consistency.

(Revelation 20:6) (I think this is the "NT Priests" verse everyone has been calling upon)
"1. And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3. And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up , and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled : and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image , neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished . This is the first resurrection.
6. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

Okay, I will let allow ANY NT believer be a Priest, after the end of the world.

Quote from: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on January 25, 2010, 11:50:19 AM

Okay, I will let allow ANY NT believer be a Priest, after the end of the world.

Depending, of course, on your interpretation of Revelation...but that's a whole other can of worms...

Yes, yes it is but the point is still there. That is talking about the millennial kingdom.

FWIW, I specifically cited both 1 Peter 2:5,9 back at the beginning of this discussion.

And Moses and the priests the Levites spake unto all Israel, saying, Take heed, and hearken, O Israel; this day thou art become the people of the LORD thy God.

Note the distinction made between Moses and the priests of the Levitical line.

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?

The author of Hebrews pretty much states that the Levitical priesthood started with Aaron. (Just for completeness note that Scripture discusses two and only two (holy) priestly lines--the order of Melchizedek and the order of Aaron.)

Not to be rude, but it seems to me like you are not putting all the arguments together.

Not to be rude, but it seems to me that no one is even attempting to answer the objections that have been raised (repeatedly).

The Talmud and the Midrash devote countless words to the priesthood and the family relationship of Moses, Miriam, and Aaron and reject the identification of Moses as a priest. (See, for example, Why Moses Did Not Become a Priest, which provides a layman's discussion of Moses as priest in the Jewish tradition.)

Combine this with the fact that the Bible actually calls Moses a priest, and that seems like nearly irrefutable evidence to me.

If this really is "nearly irrefutable evidence" doesn't it strike you as a bit strange that millenia of Jewish tradition and orthodox Christian belief speak against this identification? Doesn't that strangeness give you a bit of pause?

If this really is "nearly irrefutable evidence" doesn't it strike you as a bit strange that millenia of Jewish tradition and orthodox Christian belief speak against this identification? Doesn't that strangeness give you a bit of pause?

In as much as I've seen people claiming to be wiccans being burnt at the stake recently.

That is Rob's call.

Waiting game time! But I'm okay with that ^_^

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on January 25, 2010, 11:29:32 PM

doesn't it strike you as a bit strange that millenia of Jewish tradition and orthodox Christian belief speak against this identification?

Yes, it is a bit strange that others haven't picked up on this before.  But that doesn't make it wrong either.

I'm sure there are a few religions and groups somewhere that see Moses as a priest. Just because the religions that don't are some of the biggest, doesn't necessarily mean anything at all.