Anne Posted November 20, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 923 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 32 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/14/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/03/1974 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Am I the only one who doesn't believe that Melchisedec was Christ? Guys i've read it again, i just don't see it Your friend in Christ jesus Anne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borntorebel Posted November 20, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 127 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/02/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 20, 2004 Anne, So you don't have any problem with the errors I showed you in the paper about Melchisedec you posted? Can you show me where what I showed you from scripture is incorrect? May God's grace, power and peace be with you, Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne Posted November 20, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 923 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 32 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/14/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/03/1974 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Rebel, greetings in Christ Jesus name I do disagree with your conclusion that this High Priest was Christ, and i do disagree with some of the points you raised, however, i feel that you equally disagree with 99% of my conclusions. Hence we find ourselves at "logger heads," i can see nowhere in the Bible that identifies this man as Christ. God bless you Rebel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Colossians Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 This is what my New King James Bible says... Melchizidek is a type of Christ in his high priestly ministry. Like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Colossians Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Rebel, greetings in Christ Jesus name I do disagree with your conclusion that this High Priest was Christ, and i do disagree with some of the points you raised, however, i feel that you equally disagree with 99% of my conclusions. Hence we find ourselves at "logger heads," i can see nowhere in the Bible that identifies this man as Christ. God bless you Rebel <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He is identified as Christ by virtue of the philosophical axiom which states that 2 things equal to each other are equal to the same thing. The attributes of Melchizadek are equal to the attributes of Christ, therefore, there being no equal to Christ, Melchizadek was Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne Posted November 20, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 923 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 32 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/14/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/03/1974 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Colossians, Can you explain "philisophical axiom" and it's relevancy, not saying it's not relevant, i just don't get your meaning here. Anne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borntorebel Posted November 22, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 127 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/02/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 22, 2004 Rebel shall we agree to disagree, you believe this priest was Christ, i do not, we are both strong in our beliefs, and as such may find ourselves misinterpreting what the other is saying, just to prove a point. What was it you said that I misunderstood? Please share it with me so I have aproper understanding of your point of view. When someone states something that is the opposite of what God says, then I must as a christian defend my faith. For example, when in the paper you posted refers to Melchisedec being of the Levitical priesthood, I showed ther very passage he is speaking about says the exact opposite; "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." Heb.7:12. Anne, your disagreement isn't with me, but with God, for this is directly from the scriptures inspired by Him. If you don't want to believe what God says, that's your choice. Before this scripture, there's even more definite proof, inspired by God to be written, that Melchisedec isn't of the tribe of Levi or a Levitical priest. Will you believe God's word or a manmade teaching? You said "Amazing how far so called "theological scholars" will go to fit God into their little "belief" boxes." That's not a very nice thing to say Rebel, but i love you anyway. Well, I'm sure the religious leaders of Jesus' day didn't think it was very nice when Jesus called them whitewashed sepulchers, or vipers, or thieves of widows money. He still said it though. It would behoove you to read more closely how Jesus dealt with the religious people of His day, He wasn't always "nice", as you call it. May God's grace, power and peace be with you, Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest idied2 Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I'm not sure what you are getting at, please explain. While you are at it, do you believe the following verses: John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth. John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Hebrews 7:22-28 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. Blessings, Dad Ernie Hello Dad Ernie Yes I believe every scripture you posted. They do not refute what I was saying about melchizedeck and CHRIST. Every one and everything In the order that the LORD has purposed. In CHRIST JESUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ptr29citizen Posted November 27, 2004 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 94 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/11/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 27, 2004 King's have lineages, that's how they ascend to the throne. Christ was the direct line of David, but did not ascend because of lineage shifts in the Old Testament. To say that a king had no pedigree infers that he divinely took the throne, without dues to an inheritance, but because of the "divine right" grounds. Mel was appointed to be king and high priest, he didn't just get there because of who his "daddy" was. The Scriptures therefore compare Christ to Mel because Christ come to absolute Sovereignty divinely, not because of who He was born to. His authority grants him all power, not His parents. The focus is not on Mel, it is on Christ, that Christ is both High Priest and King of all. Mel was in no way God; many today argue over the Trinity, let's not start a Quadrinity doctrine! Wayne Jackson, a scholarly brother, discusses this far better than I ever could: http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/...dekQuestion.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adstar Posted November 28, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 12 Topic Count: 75 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,399 Content Per Day: 0.43 Reputation: 1,307 Days Won: 1 Joined: 09/01/2002 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 28, 2004 King's have lineages, that's how they ascend to the throne. Christ was the direct line of David, but did not ascend because of lineage shifts in the Old Testament. To say that a king had no pedigree infers that he divinely took the throne, without dues to an inheritance, but because of the "divine right" grounds. Mel was appointed to be king and high priest, he didn't just get there because of who his "daddy" was. The Scriptures therefore compare Christ to Mel because Christ come to absolute Sovereignty divinely, not because of who He was born to. His authority grants him all power, not His parents. The focus is not on Mel, it is on Christ, that Christ is both High Priest and King of all. Mel was in no way God; many today argue over the Trinity, let's not start a Quadrinity doctrine! Wayne Jackson, a scholarly brother, discusses this far better than I ever could: http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/...dekQuestion.htm <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks for the link As i read Hebrews it came across to me that the righter was using Melchidzedek to establish the validity of Jesus as a Priest outside the Levetical order. I just wish that verse was worded more clearly. All Praise The Ancient Of Days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts