Hebrews 8:4

[Nick01]

Im making reference to laws, which are a form of force, just indirect force.

Do you mean civil laws?

If you mean 'religious law', here's another analogy - my mum used to make it a rule that I could not cross the road without holding her hand. At the time, I thought this was a bit dumb, but in retrospect, I could see the sense of it. There were consequences to not following that law, but there was certainly nothing stopping me being a civil disobedient, and doing it anyway. It would simply have meant I would either be punished by my parents at a later date, or more likely, I would be run over as a 5 year old.

Now, I'm not going to commentate on what it is you consume. Cones, alcohol, it doesn't particularly matter (although on substances, the Bible tends to draw the line on addiction and 'being drunk', more than anything, which is quite a ways back from where civil laws draw it, but that's another matter). But it obviously seems to cause you some sort of problem in relation to faith, by virtue of it bringing it up in the context of the other discussion you were having in this thread.

But I'm interested in asking: you mentioned you were having doubts and stuff before. Is part of that doubt trying to reconcile how you might want one thing ('consuming certain substances') and God, either in reality or in your perception, wants another?

 

[Flyboy]

I don't consume much of anything anymore, except the occasional whiskey drink. I don't appreciate the government telling me what I may put into my own body though. My doubts are philosophical as well as problems I see in the bible.

My parents gave me rules to live by as well, and I resented that just a little bit, but then I grew up and no longer need to have rules imposed upon me. The government is not my parent, the people in government are rather my representatives and they work for you and me. I am a libertarian, though I think the ideal would be anarchy. You see I have a bit of a problem with authority.

 

[JGIG]

Thats not quite what I meant. I am not talking about hurting others, but of simply making decisions in my own life.

Some decisions are objectively better than others because they further my life as a human. It is a better idea for me to drink water than it is for me to put heroin in my veins. Water is good for my body, heroin is not. But, if God does ot prevent me from making bad choices, why should men?

Regarding the OP: Another poster got it right when they said that Jesus would not be a priest here on Earth because He is of the Tribe of Judah. The priests in the Old Covenant were of the Tribe of Levi:

Hebrews 7:11-14
11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?

12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
​

This is an important fact to consider when determining which covenant is in effect today.

The New Covenant, the Covenant of which Christ Jesus is the Perfect High Priest is simply this:

1 John 3:23-24
23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.​

In attempt to answer what seems to be the broader question about faith, life direction/control, and decision-making, perhaps you would consider the following:

• The answers you seek are all found in Christ Jesus. He fulfilled the Law, took the punishment for those under the Law who deserved that punishment (death), and for those in Him, we are in a New Covenant of Grace, not in the Old Covenant of Law. Christ Jesus, to accomplish all that, was God come in the flesh to do what man could not.

• The Gospel is not about behavior modification; it's about becoming a New Creation in Christ - receiving His Life. When we believe on Christ, we receive the forgiveness provided at the Cross, the Righteousness of God in Christ, are sealed with His Holy Spirit, and filled with His Life (Rom. 5:15-21, 2 Cor. 5:16-21, Eph. 1, Eph. 2).

• The Gospel is not a rejection of the laws found in the Old Covenant, but a fulfillment of them. They are replaced by the simplicity of the Gospel: Believe on the One God has sent and love one another (John 6:28-29, 1 John 3:23). At that point, one's relationship to the Law changes - one dies to the Law and is no longer bound by it (Rom. 7:1-6, Gal. 2:20), and one's relationship with God also changes, from that of 'stranger' to the adopted of God (Eph. 1, Eph. 2).

• Love fulfills the Law - the parts of the Old Covenant Laws that God cares to see carried out after the Work of Christ: If one is walking in love they are not murdering, stealing, committing sexual sins, coveting, dishonoring, taking God's name in vain, etc. (Rom. 13:8-10).

• The really cool thing about Love fulfilling the Law is that it is not a 'work' that we perform, but a 'Fruit' of the Spirit that we bear (Gal. 5, Matt. 11:28-30). So even the command to love is fulfilled by Him! We just need to surrender to Him and let Him live His Life through us. He wants us to have freedom and liberty, and His leading always goes in that direction - to rest, not to bondage.

• We are set apart by the Righteousness we have in Christ, not by performance of Laws - Christ is the end of the Law for all who believe on Him for righteousness (Rom. 3:21-26, Rom 10:1-4, Gal. 5:18)

• The Law was our tutor/guardian/schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Gal. 3:24), and after Christ, Grace is our teacher (Titus 2:11-14), and we are always free to approach His Throne of Grace in our times of need (Heb. 4:14-16).

• Those in Christ are not against the Law, but for the proper use of the Law (1 Tim. 1:8-11), that it leads us to Christ (Gal. 3:24, above), and that once we are in Christ, we are dead to the Law (Rom. 7:1-6), understanding who we are in Christ (2 Cor. 5:16-21).

These three articles sum up the Gospel rather well:

• Good News! - Part 1 - What is it?
• Good News! - Part 2 - How do I respond?
• Good News! - Part 3 - What now?

Here's a free, five-part audio download of the Gospel (a very gentle, joyful, and thorough presentation - highly recommended):

• The Clear Message of Grace Part 1 – Forgiveness (appx. 50 min.)
• The Clear Message of Grace Part 2 – Righteousness (appx. 65 min.
• The Clear Message of Grace Part 3 – Unbroken Access to God (appx. 40 min.)
• The Clear Message of Grace Part 4 – No Longer Under the Law (appx. 50 min.)
• The Clear Message of Grace Part 5 – A New Nature (appx. 50 min.)

Two more free downloads regarding the simple Truths of the Gospel, what our relationship is to Old Covenant Law in Christ, and what New Life in Christ means:

• God’s Solution to Man’s Problem – Life! – Study notes available HERE. This download really details what happens upon receiving Christ - forgiveness, impartation of righteousness, sealing by the Holy Spirit, and bearing Fruit unto God. All done in a down-to-earth and humorous way.
• How Wonderful is the Gospel - Covers the same ground with a different style. Both very good, very interesting, and highly recommended.

A text article examining how we should live after coming to Christ:

• Grace or Law? How Then, Shall We Live?

I know that's a lot to take in, but if you study it through, I think you'll have a good representation of the Gospel without a lot of denominational biases.

Grace and peace to you!
-JGIG

 

[Nick01]

I don't consume much of anything anymore, except the occasional whiskey drink. I don't appreciate the government telling me what I may put into my own body though. My doubts are philosophical as well as problems I see in the bible.

My parents gave me rules to live by as well, and I resented that just a little bit, but then I grew up and no longer need to have rules imposed upon me. The government is not my parent, the people in government are rather my representatives and they work for you and me. I am a libertarian, though I think the ideal would be anarchy. You see I have a bit of a problem with authority.

I note we've gone a little aways from the first post, but as you're the OP, happy to keep talking here, of if you want to take this discussion elsewhere, also happy for that as well.

I guess we're getting slightly into the realms of political theory and what government is for. I want to first preface the rest of the discussion with a philosophical question: I think it is a category mistake to put the authority of God and the authority of man into the same basket, at the purely ontological level. I believe all human governance, and by decision making, is suspect (which I guess is something of an anarchist PoV!), because people are people. People in groups, even more so. However, this is true not only in a corporate sense, but also in an individual sense.

To put God in the same problem basket, however, isn't a priori a given. A human adult's level of decision making, processing, and rationalisation is above that of say, a child. It stands to reason then that God, if he is anything like what God is supposed to be, is similarly above our thinking. So God's authority, then, might not only be more enforceable (omnipotence), but also more rational. That's the philosophical objection, though I'm happy to lay further foundations for that if you wish.

So while we haven't gone into any specifics of what is supposed to be God's objections or permissions for specific instances of human activity, we can conclude that, on the philosophical level at least, it is plausible that God's reasons for objecting to or permitting action in general may well be more rational than our own, in the same way an adult's rationalisations make more sense than a child's. As much as I may personally think my rationalisations of this or that are sound, I have to also concede that I am hardly a sound judger of my own thinking!

I guess in terms of the Bible and authority, God doesn't just demand a hearing (although, for the reasons above, he could certainly justify doing so). IMO, he actually wins one. Part of what makes the cross compelling, for me anyway, on a philosophical, as opposed to just historical level, is that Christ had ultimate inherent authority, but came to earth as a man, and subjected himself to the auspices of evil (human) authority. Paul kind of describes this quite vividly, by describing Christ as someone...

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

If anyone was going to have a problem with authority, it should have been Jesus. But he didn't. So the Christian worldview comes away historically with this weird idea where it views all authority as subsisting in Christ, but puts itself under human authority, even authority it disagrees with. Christians were being executed for refusing to ascribe Lordship to Caesar, and yet didn't try to overthrow the secular government, until Emperor Constantine ends up a Christian and changes Western government for centuries. Kind whacky, when you think about it.

Anyway, my basic point is that it's ok to have a problem with authority, and it's ok to bring that to the table when thinking about Christianity, and whether you really do believe anything about Christ, or want to kick it all in. You wouldn't be the first, or last. But God's authority, and man's authority, are different, and man's authority is turned upside down by God's authority. To go back to Hebrews 8 (segue...) the whole force of the argument is that because Christ is God, and is not just a man mucking about with earthly rituals, he can do what we could never do - make things right between God and man.

/whewsomehowIgotbacktotheOP

 

[Flyboy]

Nick, I like to allow a conversation to flow naturally, because of this it normally veers away from the original topic fairly quickly. That's fine. I'm assuming you subscribe to the doctrine of original sin. Bu, why? This doctrine comes from the writings of Paul, and was fully formed by Augustine of Hippo. Both of these men were, well men. If man has a fallen nature, surely so did Paul and Augustine. And if man is fallen, then how do we set up any kind of government, whether civil or religious? All governments are created of men. Further, we can't go directly to God, if he exist at all. How does one talk to God? Without a vicar we have no connection to him.

 

[Nick01]

Hey, I'm about to head off to bed, but I saw this pop up and thought I'd give you a short (ish) response now, and maybe a longer one in the morning sometime I'm at work, if you want another reply.

First of all, original sin - depends on exactly what you mean, but yes, I think all humankind sins, but more than that, all humankind has a sinful nature. You don't need to go to Augustine, or even Paul, to prove that. Genesis and the Psalms, for instance paint quite a clear picture (cf Psalm 14:1-3). Paul and Augustine may expound on the concept, but for the most part they're just saying what has always been said.

Secondly, I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect human government. It's not possible. I think it's telling that our most advanced system of government, parliamentary (or congressional) democracy is marked more by how it prevents corruption and excess than anything else. But in biblical thought, whether a given government is corrupt is in some sense irrelevant - Christians are called to submit to the ruling authorities (which doesn't necessarily mean passivity, but it doesn't mean rebellion either). For the record, I don't want a human theocracy any more than I want a secular democracy.

Finally, we talk to God by praying (which mostly is just talking anyway), and we hear him most fundamentally in his word. I believe the Bible is indeed God's word, and that in the gospels in particular, we have the words and teaching of Jesus. He covers a lot of ground, and in so many instances those words have been applicable even millenia later, for how I should honour God, and live as Christ did.

One of the things Jesus said was "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” (Matthew 18:20). Jesus also talked about the Holy Spirit, who would remind his disciples of what he had taught (John 14:26). In fact, pretty much the last words Jesus said were "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20)

Jesus was on earth, and he hung out not only with ordinary people, but with the scum of society. The tax collectors, adulterers, lepers - everyone who society rejected, he spoke with them, healed them, forgave them, called them. He hasn't changed his MO since. He is still with his people, whoever calls on his name, and he doesn't need a priest or a vicar to do so. Jesus promised to be with his people, and he is. His words can still be read, and they have this habit of sticking in your heart, not just on the page.

Even more so, Jesus directly intercedes before the father on our behalf - in the OT, only certain priests could enter the presence of God, under special circumstances. Jesus, who proved he understands us intimately because he has been a man, is our high priest, our legal attorney, if you like. Hence why the writer of Hebrews can with both reverence and utter boldness, say:

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens—Jesus the Son of God—let us hold fast to the confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tested in every way as we are, yet without sin. 16 Therefore let us approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us at the proper time.

So the fact of authority, and the fact of our relationship to God, is ultimately not in the hands of man. We can equivocate and discuss, we can systematise our theologies, and so on. But all of that itself ultimately turns on a fundamental base that is unshakeable, and is true. That's the work of Jesus Christ

 

[loveme1]

I personally don't think Paul wrote Hebrews.

Really? Care to expand?

 

[oldhermit]

Really? Care to expand?

The following material is an excerpt from a commentary I wrote a number of years ago on the book of Hebrews. This is part of the introductory material that I used to address the question of authorship. Perhaps it will be of some help.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
III. Authorship [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]– [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Unknown:
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A. Proposed possibilities include such candidates as Aristian, Jude, Barnabas, Silas, Silvanus, Aquilla, Philip, Stephen, Mark, Apollos, Luke, Philo, or Timothy. It has even been suggested by some that perhaps Clement of Rome may have been the author of the letter but, for the most part, he is not given very serious consideration among most scholars. This would account for the later dating of the book. The three most likely considerations in this list seem to be Paul, Luke, and, Apollos.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1. The most popular of the three yet, the candidate least likely is the apostle Paul. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]a. Arguments for Paul are internal only.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* The mention of Timothy in 13:23. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Problem: Assumption by association. Timothy had very close working relationships with a great many teachers such as Sylvanus, Titus, Epaphraditus, Tertius, Gaius, and possibly even Apollos, 1Cor. 16:10.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* The extensive knowledge of the Law and the Levitical System demonstrated by the author.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Problem: Paul is certainly not the only person possessing such depth of knowledge in this area.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]b. Arguments against Paul
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* Historically his was not seriously considered as the author until the 4th[/FONT][SUP][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] [/FONT][/SUP][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]century A.D. The suggestion that Paul may have been the author originated in Alexandria. Neither the Muratorium Canon, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Gaius of Rome, nor Eusebius (all from the 4th [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]cent.) believed that Paul was the author of the letter. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- Pauline authorship was not given official acceptance until the Sixth Synod of Carthage in A.D. 419. This was the first time that the book of Hebrews was [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]listed among the Pauline letters.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- Among those pushing for Pauline authorship included Jerome and Augustine, yet neither of them actually believe Paul to be the author. So, why the push? Canonicity dispute. The inspiration of the book was called into question. Jerome and Augustine believed the book to be inspired, and in order for them to convince the Synod they had to first convince them that the book was the work of the apostle Paul. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* No MSS copies exist bearing his name. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* Paul was not an eloquent speaker. The Hebrew letter is written in the most eloquent Greek. No other letter in scripture can compare with this letter in its level of eloquence. Could this then have been a one-time author? This is hardly conclusive since there are a good many people who demonstrate poor verbal communication skills but prove to be most eloquent when putting their thoughts on paper. The truth is that Paul did not say that he was not eloquent, 1 Cor. 2:1; only that he did not come to them with eloquence of speech or of wisdom. In other words he did use eloquence or human wisdom (4) as a drawing card for the preaching of the gospel. There is certainly no lack of eloquence in any of the letters that we know are from Paul. Yet nothing to compare with the eloquence of Hebrews.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* The author’s disassociation with the apostles, 2:3-4. Milligan attempts to sidestep the argument (Introduction p. 14) “To win the hearts of his readers and soften his own ambitions” he identifies with them. He compares 2:3-4 with 6:1. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Problem:
In 6:1 the writer is addressing his readers from a student/teacher relationship. He cannot proceed with more mature instruction since his readers are unable to follow. In 2:3-4 he places himself in an historical setting in relationship to a communication continuum. He does not take his place among those were appointed to confirm the Word of God, but accepts the position as a recipient of the confirmed word just like his readers. Thus, whoever this author is, it is unlikely that he is an apostle.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2. The second most likely candidate is Luke.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]a. Arguments in favor of Luke.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* Not an apostle
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* Well educated – but not formally educated in the Law of Moses – he is a gentile.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* Close companion of Paul [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Problem – assumption by reason of association.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]b. Argument against Luke - the literary style is very different from Luke’s gospel and the book of Acts.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Problems:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* John’s gospel and his epistles are vastly different from that of the book of Revelation. Yet, the same author wrote both books. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]* The books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy - both written by Moses yet are vastly different in style.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]c. No real evidence either internally or externally in support of Luke. There is only speculation connected to his association with Paul. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]3. The best supporting textual evidence seems to favor Apollos of 1Cor. 3:4; Acts 18:14-19:1. It is possible that the book of Hebrews is Apollos’ letter to the church at Corinth between A.D. 52-54 from Ephesus. Arguments in favor of Apollos.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]a. Eloquence
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]b. Mighty in the scriptures – O.T. scriptures. Accurate in his teaching.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]c. Apollos lived and worked in Corinth. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]d. He had strong ties to the Church at Corinth
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]e. He was a powerful debater against the Jews in the synagogue
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]f. He was well educated. In his commentary on the book of Hebrews, Montefiore gives an excellent analysis of the internal evidence that seems to link the Hebrew letter to 1Corinthians. [/FONT]

 

[Flyboy]

Nick, If God is in heaven, he isn't listening. I have said thousands of prayers and not one has ever been answered. I can understand a religion run by a man, but how do you have a religion run by a man in heaven that is not listening to anyone?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Really? Care to expand?

It doesn't read like Paul to me.

 

[Flyboy]

It doesn't read like Paul to me.

Why does it not?

 

[maxwel]

Heb. 8:4 if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing hat there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.

Is Paul telling us Jesus did not live on earth?

Flyboy,

Please stop creating posts as if you're sincerely seeking answers... as this wastes the time of a great many people.

Please just be honest, and state up front that you're an atheist here to practice atheist apologetics and argue with everyone.

 

[Nick01]

Nick, If God is in heaven, he isn't listening. I have said thousands of prayers and not one has ever been answered. I can understand a religion run by a man, but how do you have a religion run by a man in heaven that is not listening to anyone?

I think he listens, but he doesn't always give us what we want, for all the same reasons I gave before. I don't know what it is that you've prayed, so I won't presume to comment, but I'll talk about myself. Probably the most vivid ways I have seen God answer to prayer is in saving people. I have a friend who came out of a heavy drug background. He was a hard person to get on with a few years back when I first met him - we didn't get on at all! I prayed for him, not really thinking anything would happen. I found out later that others prayed for him as well. In about the space of two years, he had become a Christian, stopped dealing, was working his way out of addiction, and had studied for a theological certificate at a Sydney bible college.

There are all sorts of things I have prayed for that haven't been answered, though. I've prayed for easy exams, I've prayed that certain girls would like me, I've prayed for physical healing, I've prayed for protection from suffering for either myself or people I care about. Out of those, probably the healing is the one I'd says has been answered most, but not often. The others sometimes appear to fall on deaf ears. Sometimes prayers get an answer I didn't expect, and that at the time I didn't want. There are many prayers that haven't been answered, at least not yet.

But I am convinced that God listens. That he really cares. But he doesn't not always give us precisely what we want, when we want it. A large part of why I'm convinced is the fact that Jesus himself did not get what he wanted in prayer, but was convinced His Father was listening, and that he didn't give him what he wanted for good reasons.

Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and He told the disciples, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” Taking along Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, He began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed. Then He said to them, “My soul is swallowed up in sorrow —to the point of death. Remain here and stay awake with Me.” Going a little farther, He fell facedown and prayed, “My Father! If it is possible, let this cup pass from Me. Yet not as I will, but as You will.”Then He came to the disciples and found them sleeping. He asked Peter, “So, couldn’t you stay awake with Me one hour?Stay awake and pray, so that you won’t enter into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, Your will be done.” And He came again and found them sleeping, because they could not keep their eyes open.
After leaving them, He went away again and prayed a third time, saying the same thing once more. Then He came to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the time is near. The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. Get up; let’s go! See, My betrayer is near.”

God is entirely silent during this exchange, and perhaps more importantly, during his execution. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", says the Son in the flesh while stuck on a cross. And yet, Jesus goes willingly to his death on our behalf, only to be raised and exalted to the Father's right hand afterwards.

There's a song called "The Silence of God" by a guy called Andrew Peterson that provides a take on this. When God appears silent, it doesn't make things easy. Even Jesus was lonesome in what might be described as a 'holy' quiet in the garden. And yet it's precisely Jesus himself that gives us the best reason for thinking that God is not ignoring us, but, as Paul says "We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28). The Father gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. And, to tie it back into the Hebrews theme ...

Long ago God spoke to the fathers by the prophets at different times and in different ways. In these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son. God has appointed Him heir of all things and made the universe through Him. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of His nature, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

In short, I believe God speaks, and God listens, and God replies, but not always in the ways we expect, or when we expect it. But he can always be heard plainly in his written word, and he will always hear us by prayer.

 

[Nick01]

Flyboy,

Please stop creating posts as if you're sincerely seeking answers... as this wastes the time of a great many people.

Please just be honest, and state up front that you're an atheist here to practice atheist apologetics and argue with everyone.

Speaking for myself, I have nothing more important to spend my time on than sharing what I believe, and reasoning as to why I believe in the Lord Jesus.

I recommend you speak for yourself, too. If the thread is wasting your time, perhaps stop posting in it.

 

[loveme1]

It doesn't read like Paul to me.

Oh I see.

 

[Mark51]

Christ does not get his priesthood from fleshly descent through Aaron but by direct appointment of God. Nor does he have a predecessor or successor in his office, he fulfills the things typified by the Aaronic high priest. The apostle makes this perfectly clear when he shows that the tentlike tabernacle constructed in the wilderness was a pattern of “the true tent, which Jehovah put up, and not man” and that the Levitical priests rendered “sacred service in a typical representation and a shadow of the heavenly things.” (Hebrews 8:1-6; 9:11) He relates that Jesus Christ, who had, not animal sacrifices, but his own perfect body to offer, did away with the validity or need for animal sacrifices; Jesus then “passed through the heavens,” “not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us.”-Hebrews 4:14; 9:12; 10:5, 6,　9.