tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post2710877533486760315..comments2023-10-16T04:58:53.689-04:00Comments on Verily Verily: Is this a logical problem?Rafaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-56044020243078585682009-11-03T18:51:55.644-05:002009-11-03T18:51:55.644-05:00I used to think Paul was the master of the run on ...I used to think Paul was the master of the run on sentence, but this guy wins.Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08510117634908744276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-68185080131507740972009-11-03T03:12:43.437-05:002009-11-03T03:12:43.437-05:00Yeah, I'm having a hard time seeing how Joslin...Yeah, I'm having a hard time seeing how Joslin got to that conclusion as well. Even if Joslin is using 'new' and 'old' ontologically rather than as linear reference points, the entire phrase still remains overly obscure. <br /><br />Having not read Joslin's book, I can only make guesses: but I think he has forgotten or overlooked the pattern of logic that has been at work throughout Hebrews up to chapter 7 (and beyond). The comparisons are not necessarily about newer vs. older; instead, it appears to be about complete vs. incomplete--or dare I say: better vs. not. In each case where reference is made to the complete (better), which appears to be counterintuitive, the author employs an example (from the OT) to prove his case. Melchizedek is no different.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-79901565385005704742009-11-02T21:58:42.236-05:002009-11-02T21:58:42.236-05:00I might be wring in understanding you but I think ...I might be wring in understanding you but I think the problem you are having might be having is place the new priesthood/Melchizedek argument plays the overall argument of Hebrews. The author Hebrews is trying to convince his reader not to apostatize and go back to non-Messianic Judaism. The role the new priesthood argument plays is to show that in the Ps 110 David said that the Messiah would be King and Priest, but if that were so he could not be a Levite, but a Judahite, so there must be a different type of priest, one like Mel who is not Aaronic. And if there is a new priesthood, there must be a whole new covenant because the priesthood was inextricably bound up with the covenant. Since Jesus is that new priest, there is a New Covenant and the Old has passed away.<br /><br />So Mel is not an old priesthood that Christ comes into, he is just a non-Aaronic/Levitical priest. If there is to be a new priesthood, it must be like Mel, i.e. non-Aaronic/Levitical.<br /><br />Is that helpful or even what you were looking for?Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04309878333724246362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-81770901917771400662009-11-02T19:11:59.656-05:002009-11-02T19:11:59.656-05:00"Am I missing something here?!"
Nope. ..."Am I missing something here?!"<br /><br />Nope. Got it in one.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14411792128064354591noreply@blogger.com