Sunday, July 14, 2013

... on diverse matters, some of which make you want to pray "oremus et pro perfidis judaeis" while others indicate translatio sacerdotii

video is:
scishow : Facts about Human Evolution

Debate continued from here:

... on Arc of Noah and Lineage of Our Lord

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It very clearly says daughters can in some cases inherit - but not dispose of their heritage themselves, it is for their husbands to pass it on to their sons.

[Numbers 36 with Haydock comment

And where earlier blogpost left off:

Sophie Doon
Inheriting possessions is not the same as inheriting a family line. [!]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Might very well be. [Did I really concede that? I was tired!] But it is not totally unrelated either. [I got something right even so!] And if you had read Numbers 36 instead of trusting your husbands or your father's rabbi on it, you would have known that.
Sophie Doon
They are not the same.

Firstly, i’m not married and i didn’t rely on my Rabbi. This is a subject i have studied when i was younger and have also spent time in this region. For example, that picture on the left is me on Mount Sinai.

You can trace if you are Jewish through your mother, you can only trace your tribe through your father; this is Halacha, ‘Jewish Law’. Any child born to Mary, that wasn’t Josephs, is a ‘mamzer’ and had no tribal status.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
A child born from adultery or fornication is a mamzer and has no tribal status.

As for "tracing if one is Jewish" through one's mother - is that even in the law or is it the Talmud? I think it is the Talmud.

Now, Mishna is younger than any book of NT, Gemarah is younger than many known Church Fathers.

We need not trust your Talmudic interpretations of the law for what the law was when the Temple stood and when Christ was born. And never again call Christ a mamzer in my presence, will you!
Sophie Doon
Yes it is in the Talmud, but the Talmudic explanation is of Deuteronomy 7:3-4.

Jesus was not Josephs child, in the eyes of Jewish Law, he is a mamzer. I’m sorry if that upsets you, but Mary had a baby that wasn’t her husband’s.

Having no Human father meant Jesus had no tribal line, could never be a Priest and could never be a King.

These are the Laws of God. For Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to break them.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I’m sorry if that upsets you, but Mary had a baby that wasn’t her husband’s."

Any male child begotten of levirate is son of a mother who has a child that is not her husband's, since it is legally the child of her husband's late relative, her former husband.

That alone does not make a mamzer.
Sophie Doon
Irrelevant; God was neither Marys former husband or dead.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
But God is not an adulterer either. He is Creator. He creates each human being.

Once without any human origin: Adam.

Once without any mother, originating only from a man: Eve.

Once without any human physical father, originating only from a Mother: Our Lord.

Every other time than those, originating both from a father and from a mother. And (excepting demonic and medical art. insem.) always by sex, only category where mamzer's can be made out of wedlock.
Sophie Doon
The terms of the conception aren’t listed to what does and doesn’t make a baby a mamzer or not.

In the story, Mary gave birth to a baby that wasn’t fathered by her husband.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The terms of the conception aren’t listed"

There is no such list in the Law. It may be derived from the law, but it is not in the law.

Jesus was legally the son of St Joseph, since he received him as such.
Sophie Doon
You mean because he was adopted? Two problems.

Firstly, Joseph would have to explain how Mary (his wife) baby wasn’t his. Best case scenario, he would be thought Mad; worst case, he would be executed for blasphemy, like Jesus was.

Secondly, you still can’t trace Jesus’ line through Joseph. You can only trace your line through your natural father. Jesus didn’t have a ‘natural’ father.

He had no human father, no line and so could not be a descendent of King David.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Firstly: Joseph would have to explain ... to whom?

To his adopted son? Yes. Even if as God He certainly knew that already.

To some Cohen Gadol, like the one who had designed him as husband for Mary after she left the Temple? Possibly.

To anyone else? No. We know it through Jesus and Mary, and we know their holy veracity by miracles.

Secondly: that reasoning I have already debunked as pilpul rather than Law. You have given no reason to credit it better this time you state it.
Sophie Doon
Well, the Roman authorities for one. They were supposedly travelling to Bethlehem for a census (6 years before there was one, but that’s not important), weren’t they? Do you think Joseph said God was the father, or lie and say he was? I’d say the latter.

You haven’t debunked anything. I gave you chapter and verse where the Torah clearly states that you can only trace your Tribal, Kinship and Priestly line through your father.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You gave more than once chapter and verse for things not saying what you claimed them to say. Now to census:

If Jesus was not born while Joseph came, the question does not arise.

If he was it would still probably not have arisen, since Roman census was concerned with housholds or larger, not with mere individuals.

If it did arise, "Jesus is my Son" would not have been a lie, since St Joseph was His step-father. And legal husband of His Blessed Mother.
Sophie Doon
LOL, please, they all say exactly what i said they say.

Well, we are talking about a story here that is impossible to have happened. Until Judea was annexed as part of the Roman Province of Syria in the year 6, Judea was a Client Kingdom or Rome.

Client Kingdoms had to supply military assistance to Rome; they didn’t pay Tax, so no need for a census.

The Census of Quirinius was the very first Roman census in Judea. Nor did you need to travel anywhere.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your quotes of the law were inappropriate for proving God's Eternal Son inacceptable as heir of King David or inacceptable as the ultimate High Priest.

Your argument from Roman History is considerably weaker, since merely human. It may also include a misunderstanding.

I have heard one explanation it was not a tax census but a loyalty census on part of all royalty and nobility. St Joseph was that. Only, he was not living in the royal domain, since Herod was living there. Hence Bethlehem.
Sophie Doon
They are 100% appropriate. Also, Jesus needed to be a Priest of the line of Aaron to be able to atone Sin and perform the Sin Sacrifice. He wasn’t, and never could be.

So why does Luke say it was the Census of Quirinius, are you saying the Bible is completely wrong?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I said I hear that explanation. Not that I bought it.

As to other, you mix around divine order between His priesthoods. Christ = according to Melchisedec (not Aaron)
Sophie Doon
Well then you either have to agree with me or accept the Bible is wrong.

Jesus’ death, according to the Bible, was so that he could atone all our sins. The only person who can atone sin is a Priest of Aaron.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Under the Law of Moses which ceased to apply according to the letter when God was crucified. Probable reason why he was condemned by a priest of Aaron, though.

I have heard false alternatives like "stimmts oder hab ich recht before". Now, I can assume the real census under Quirinius (whether tax or loyalty) happened as Bible told, but after Herod's child murder he backed out of responsibility and said his term started years later. Everyone agreeing because that responsibility was so awkward.
Sophie Doon
If you know the Bible then you will know that Gods Laws are eternal. If the Laws given to Moses by God ended when Jesus was crucified, then this means God was wrong and they weren’t eternal. Therefore you are saying the Christian God is fallible.

There was no slaughter of the innocents. Matthew claims Herod's slaughter of the innocents is a fulfilment of Jeremiah 31:15. This is not a prophecy and has nothing to do with Herod. It’s about the Babylonian Captivity.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are doubly wrong.

First of all, the Old Law was already the eternal law according to its essence, but not according to each visible sign. At the Crucifixion there was a change in the priesthood. Jews may deny it, but in that case there would have been no sacrifice for nearly two thousand years.

And yes, there was a slaughter of the innocents. Haydock on Jeremiah 31:15, here:

Ver. 15. High. Literally, "high places." Hebrew Rama. (Haydock) --- There was a city of this name near Bethlehem, where Rachel was buried. Benjamin was her son, and was conducted by this road to Babylon. (Chaldean) (Grotius) (Tirinus) --- Ephraim and Manasses were also her grandchildren, and she may bewail their captivity by personification. St. Matthew (ii. 18.) shews that this prediction was more fully accomplished when the innocents were slain. The same passage may allude to different events. (Calmet) --- All the people of God, both of the ten and of the two tribes, bewailed their captivity, and the mothers lamented for those slain near Bethlehem. (Worthington)
[One comment by Sophie Doon was noticed and answered later, see below]
Sophie Doon
Jeremiah is not prophesising about the ‘Slaughter of the Innocents’ this is in reference to the Babylon Captivity and has nothing to do with Jesus.

Also, the prophesy that the Messiah will come from ‘town’ of Bethlehem is wrong. The literal translation of the Hebrew is that he will come from the House of Lehem. Lehem being a tribal name, not that of a town.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You do not understand prophecy, so you do not understand its fulfilment.
Sophie Doon
I certainly do, it’s Christianity that wrongly associates completely unconnected verses with Jesus.

The Jewish Bible actually speaks very little of the Messiah. In fact, the word for a future Messiah is ‘haMashiach’, and this never appears once in the Jewish Bible. The prophesies associated with the Messiah, Jesus didn’t fulfil. A big no-no was dying.

In Judaism, the most important part is achieving the Age of Perfection. The Messiah is simply the anointed King who oversees this Age.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"In Judaism, the most important part is achieving the Age of Perfection. The Messiah is simply the anointed King who oversees this Age."

He does. Age of Perfection, Reign of Thousand Years = Catholic Church.

"A big no-no was dying."

Not acc. Isaiah 11, "And his sepulchre shall be glorious". Uniting Judah and Ephraim, conquering Edom Moab and Ammon came after that verse. And so did the Church History after Pentecost. After Ascension, after Resurrection from Glorious Tomb.
Sophie Doon
“He does”

Does what? I don’t know what you mean.

“Not acc. Isaiah 11, "And his sepulchre shall be glorious".”

That’s not in the Jewish version of Isaiah 11?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You said the Messiah is he who oversees the age of perfection, I said about Jesus Christ "he does" namely oversee the age of perfection which is the Roman Catholic Church (by itself or with Orthodox possibly).

Check Hebrew for Isaiah ch 11 verse 10, here is Douay-Rheims:

In that day the root of Jesse, who standeth for an ensign of the people, him the Gentiles shall beseech, and his sepulchre shall be glorious.
Sophie Doon
The Age of Perfection is a time when there will be no sin, no death, the world will be perfect. Is the world perfect?

Exact translation of Isaiah 11:10

י וְהָיָה, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, שֹׁרֶשׁ יִשַׁי אֲשֶׁר עֹמֵד לְנֵס עַמִּים, אֵלָיו גּוֹיִם יִדְרֹשׁוּ; וְהָיְתָה מְנֻחָתוֹ, כָּבוֹד. {פ}

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You can hardly deny that the nations have been seeking Jesus Christ for two thousand years now. Or close to.

I suppose leaving "grave" would have pointed too much to the resurrection, but even for the Tabernacle this version is true about Christ. [It is true about His throne in Heaven too, His ascension being witnessed by the eleven and His being there by a vision of Proto-Martyr St Stephen]

Catholic Church is a society in which sins are readily forgiven and in which death becomes the door to eternal life. It is perfect.
[Noticed and answered later this by:] Sophie Doon
Firstly, there is no ‘Old’ Law, there is only the Law. Secondly, ‘but not according to each visible sign’ i don’t know what that’s supposed means?

There was no change in priesthood. Also, there didn’t need to any sacrifices, as the Sin Sacrifice is the least effective way of atoning sin, (after Prayer and Charity) because it only atones sins committed unintentionally.

In fact, God himself says that he doesn’t want sacrifices, he wants Prayer and sincere repentance.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
There is only THE law?

The law God gave to Adam or to Noah was no law then? And Abraham knew no law?

Aaronite priests were bringing forth bread and wine when Abraham came to Jerusalem?

Aaronite priests were first tying Isaac to the altar and then releasing him, when an angel from God held their hand back?

No change in priesthood, is that what you are saying? So destruction of Temple 40 years after Jesus Christ came was a bed time story? You could have fooled me!
Sophie Doon
Yes, there is only THE Law. The Torah was only written down at Sinai, that’s not when it came into existence though; it has always existed. There’s the Written Torah and there’s the Oral Torah, spoken by God. For example, Gen. 26:5 "Because Abraham obeyed My voice, and observed My safeguards, My commandments, My decrees, and My Torahs". Moses only wrote down the Law, the Laws already existed, they are eternal.

Destruction of the Temple...and?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Noah and Abraham did not feel obliged to abstain from shrimps or porc meat.

Destruction of Temple means end of the Aaronite sacrifices up to and including present. Not 70 years, but 1900 years. That either means sins are no longer remitted, or that priesthood has been transferred. There are OT prophecies of this transfer and they fit the Eucharist perfectly.

Psalms 109:4
The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.

(Continued about New Covenant prophecy, but not posted yet due to "youtube bug":)

Who was this Melchisedech? He did not descend from Aaron, since he was contemporary with Abraham. And his sacrifice was - bread and wine. The starting points for the Sacrifice of the New Covenant, in its unbloody form.

Genesis 14:18
But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God,

So much for your claim "Jesus cannot have been priest, he did not descend from Aaron".

Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.
Sophie Doon
Sorry, i also remembered; Noah was a Gentile and so wasn't required to adhere to the Laws of the Torah.

Just waiting for the references to Abraham eating Pork and Shrimp now.

I'm not aware of any, so would need you to show me where.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Noah a Gentile? Or common origin of Hebrews and Gentiles (Nimrod being origin of gentile diversity indirectly and idolatry directly)?

Abraham came after the directives given to Noah and before those given to Moses. Check out what was kosher food just after the Flood.

I am not saying Abraham ever actually ate shrimps or porc or, if he did, that he ate much of it. I can only see no evidence he felt obliged to totally avoid it.
Sophie Doon
So, i’m not sure what your point is?

You said that Noah and Abraham didn’t follow the Torah by eating shrimp and pork.

Then you contradict yourself by agree that Noah didn’t need to follow the Torah, and also that there is no evidence in the Bible that Abraham ate shrimp or pork.

Doesn’t make sense.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I said that eating shrimp and porc after the Flood but before Moses was not yet against the Torah.

I did not contradict myself at all.

I thereby argue that the ceremonial preceps of the Torah (as in Exodus/Leviticus) are not identic to or integral part of the unique Law. They were just applications of it back between Aaron/Moses and Jesus who with His disciples kept them as long as there was a need.

Jesus also instituted the priesthood of the new covenant. Aaronite one was not eternal.
Sophie Doon
Well, clearly the Laws of the Torah did exist before Moses, as i already pointed out to you the verse in Genesis where Abraham obeys Gods Torahs.

I never said you contradicted yourself, only that what you said didn’t make sense.

All the Laws in Oral and Written Torah are eternal, they are the same Laws; that includes Aaranite Law.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If it includes Aaronite law, how come then that:
  • Sacrifices were made before Aaron was even born?
  • Genesis and Psalms both note the excellency of the priesthood of Melchisedech who was clearly no Aaronite but on top of that sacrificed according to a ritual involving, like Holy Mass later on, bread and wine?
  • the Name of God is Holy among the Gentiles and a pure offering is born forth among them, outside Aaronite priesthood, outside the Temple (see Malachi 1:11)?
Sophie Doon
OK, firstly, just to confirm you understand that Gentiles weren’t required to obey the Torah; and that Jesus, as a Jew, was?

So, what sacrifices are you talking about before Aaron and also, when you mention what the Psalms say about Melchizedek do you mean Psalm 110?

This one is a wrong translation into English by KJV.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sacrifices before Aaron: Abel's, Noah's, Abraham's, Melchisedec's, Moses Father-In-Law's.

I mean the psalm we number as 109:

"Juravit Dominus, et non poenitebit eum: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech."

And I am not buying that Catholic Church translated rather than perhaps Masoretic transmitted it wrong.

Ergo: Aaron's priesthood was not the eternal one, was not the perfect fulfilment of the Torah's given to the patriarch's.

"just to confirm you understand that Gentiles weren’t required to obey the Torah; and that Jesus, as a Jew, was?"

1) The Eternal Son of the Eternal Father was God before He was a Jew. Nevertheless He obeyed the Law as long as that was required.

2) You can call Melchisedec a Gentile after nationhood, but not after Paganism.

This lands you with Melchisedec's sacrifice being the one also prophecied in Malachi 1:11.

I e Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Transferred priesthood, as per Hebrews.
Sophie Doon
Doesn’t matter; Jesus’ mother, Mary, was a Jew and so by Jewish Law, he was also a Jew.

Malachi 1:11 doesn’t mean what you think it means, you are cherry picking one verse. Malachi 1:6-14 is condemnation of Jews for not rebuilding the Temple, to resume Temple services and have instead performed atonement sacrifices not in accordance with Jewish (Gods) Law. So, the Temple must be rebuilt.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
For not rebuilding the Temple?

Does not say that anywhere.

For sacrificing in the wrong spirit, yes.

And at same time is recommended the unpolluted sacrifice by which God is honoured among the Gentiles - Holy Mass later to be instituted by Jesus Christ.

If He was a Jew by His Blessed Mother, He was from Eternity God by His Father. Of Him Moses spoke. If you believed Moses and the Prophets, maybe you would believe Him as well.
Chapter 1 as per Douay Rheims
Sophie Doon
Sorry, you have lost me, your descriptions are too deep for me to understand your point?

What exactly are you suggesting Malachi 1:11 is describing without being to flowery with your explanation?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Malachi 1:11 describes Holy Mass.

  • A sacrifice.
  • Which is immaculate.
  • Which takes place among the Gentiles. From East to West all over the world.
  • A food offering:

"Clean oblation. The precious body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice. (Challoner) --- This is denoted by the very word mincha, the offering of flour and wine. (Calmet)"


I am finding the "I don't understand what you mean" and "you have lost me" tiresome, possibly hypocritic.

No comments: