Mark777 Posted July 11, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 416 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 12 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/16/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 11, 2006 OC, You quoted Rev. 1:6-7 "...And has made us kings and priest unto God and His Father" I think the Greek will show that it means "God" and "Father" are referring to the same person. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted July 11, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 11, 2006 OC, You quoted Rev. 1:6-7 "...And has made us kings and priest unto God and His Father" I think the Greek will show that it means "God" and "Father" are referring to the same person. Mark Hello Mark that's it " exactly" as I already said in the previous post #35 as Jesus was the Word in the bosom of the Father in the beginning (John 1:18) God the Father spoke that word from out of Himself and when He spoke things happened and life came into existence as by that Word was the worlds framed (Hebrews 1) And that Word according to John chapter one was the "eternal Son of God from the beginning" who has always existed and has neither beginning of days nor ending of days no father nor mother. All three persons in one as I believe in the trinity and believe the Holy Spirit to be God as well that was there from the beginning also as the Spirit of God brooded over the waters of the face of the deep I believe wanting to create something birth it into existence in other words. We are made kings and priest but it is after Christ the eternal Son of God and not Melchizedek who only was a figure of the true Shepherd of our souls that was to come from the loins of Abraham the promised "seed" the son of David. He has made us able ministers of His Spirit the new covenant. Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of the "Father" God incarnate. blessings OC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark777 Posted July 11, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 416 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 12 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/16/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 11, 2006 OC, Sorry then, I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that Rev. 1:6 was saying," God and His Father" as in "God has a Father". I would love to have such a clear verse as that but we get that point only from inference. The actual language is more like "His God and Father". Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted July 11, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 11, 2006 No problem Mark777 mix up's happen blessings OC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark777 Posted July 11, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 416 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 12 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/16/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 11, 2006 OK, I am going to make the tentative claim that the majority of the church fathers believed that Melchizedek was a man and someone else other than Christ. And also, the idea that Melchizedek was Christ was more or less a Gnostic belief - until recently. Prove me wrong if you can but please referrence. Does anyone know a church father that thought they were the same person? Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted July 11, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 11, 2006 OK, I am going to make the tentative claim that the majority of the church fathers believed that Melchizedek was a man and someone else other than Christ. And also, the idea that Melchizedek was Christ was more or less a Gnostic belief - until recently. Prove me wrong if you can but please referrence. Does anyone know a church father that thought they were the same person? Mark Hello Mark777 I am glad to see that you are making this tentative claim that the majority of the church fathers believed that Melchizedek was a man and not actually Christ himself but a figure. Also your tentative claim that Melchizedek was Christ-incarnate is more or less a "Gnostic" belief. Which is what I believe and up until recently as you say it is becoming accepted as so. There are two church fathers in the scriptures and they are the apostle Paul who was the apostle to the Gentiles and the apostle Peter the apostle to the Jews. Paul in the book of Ephesians and in the book of Colossians tell us of Christ authority and of His eternal Godhead and of our inheritance in the saints. Peter comes from a Jewish pespective in all of his epistles explaining it all from the traditional Jewish ways and customs revealing to us Jesus Christ and His kingdom. Not only are these truths found of the Messiah in apostle Paul and Peter's writings it is also found throughout the 4 gospels that there was only "one" Son of the living God and that was the man Christ Jesus who was God-incarnate the promised seed of Abraham speaking of only "one" (Galatians 3:16-17). Acts chapter 22 is a good read as Paul gives his defense also chater 26 when Paul stood before king Agrippha (vs 6-7) and the below references are referring to verses 6-7 of Acts 26 (verse 6) Acts 23:6--Genesis 3:15; 22:18; 26:4; 49:10--Deut 18:15--2 Samuel 7:12--Psalms 132:11--Isaiah 4:2; 7:14; 9:6; 40:10--Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:14-16--Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24--Daniel 9:24; Romans 15:8--Titus 2:13 (verse 7)--James 1:1--Luke 2:37--1 Thessalonians 3:10--1 Timothy 5:5 and Philippians 3:11 blessings oc the gnostic beliefs are Melchizedek was Christ-incarnate as you held in your belief which is not possible. Because Jesus was "God" in flesh so therefore it is God-incarnate. The gnostics have turned and twisted this all around reversing it so to speak. It could not have been that Melchizedek was Christ-incarnate when God had not become flesh yet at that time. but at the "appointed" time in history God did take on the form of man born of a virgin and dwelt among us in the person of Jesus Christ who was the eternal Godhead bodily for He was the Son of the one and true living God and the "ONLY" begotten Son of the Father. blessings OC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark777 Posted July 11, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 416 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 12 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/16/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 11, 2006 OC, To make the point that strange situations happened concerning the apperance of God to certain individuals - read Genesis chapters 18 - 19. Concentrating on statements like Gen. 19:24. or Genesis 32:24-32. Tell me what you think. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted July 11, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 11, 2006 OC, To make the point that strange situations happened concerning the apperance of God to certain individuals - read Genesis chapters 18 - 19. Concentrating on statements like Gen. 19:24. or Genesis 32:24-32. Tell me what you think. Mark Hello Mark777 The three visitors which came to Abraham where heavenly messengers from God they were angels sent from God to minister to Abraham they came in the form of a men. In the case with Jacob he wrestled with the "angel" of God and would not quit so the angel had to dislocate his hip bone out of socket because Jacob was so determined to get a blessing from the Lord. Now this angel was not Christ-Incarnate nor was the heavenly visitors Abraham encountered and even ate with they were not Christ-Incarnate but they were angels or ministers bringing Abraham a message from God. And it's pretty neat that Jacob said that the place he was at was the gate of heaven and that he would give a tenth of all he had. As he as our spiritual father acknowledged the same offering that was still to come through the loins of Abraham. But heavenly messengers are all through out both the old and new testament as they are the angels of God who minister on his behalf. The Angel (a figure of Christ) that came to Josuha who represented the true captian of host which was Jesus Christ as Christ does and will lead his army of saints in victory. You had the fourth man in the fire in the book of Daniel who looked liked the son of God according to king Nebuchadnezzar's words about what he saw in the fire. That two was a figure of Christ. The angel Gabriel came to Mary on God's behalf with a message that God had chosen her and that she was highly favored of God. Gabriel the angel of God was not Christ-Incarnate either. For he was and angel an heavenly messenger of God. But in all these you will notice the scripture shows them in the spiritual realm and not in the natural. Melchizedek however was shown to us in the natural realm as a man and as a priest and as a King of a kingdom called Salem he is not shown to us momentarily in other words. I know that "God" will manifest himself he sure did down in Egypt in all the plagues, opening up the red sea, drowning pharoah army in the sea taking the wheels of their chariots, causing a fire to come down out of heaven blocking their pathway until God's mighty army got across the sea. tore the walls of Jericho down, made the sun stand still until the army of God won the battle, blessings OC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark777 Posted July 12, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 416 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 12 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/16/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 12, 2006 Thanks OC, Gen.32:28 says, "...you have striven with God." Gen. 32:30 says, "...I have seen God faced to face, yet my life has been preserved" In Genesis 18-19 there are some strange sentences. "Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of Heaven. There is something going on there other than angels. Wrestling with an angel - the passage says a man - would not be the same as striving or facing God. In Genesis 18-19 there is something unusual about the three men other than they are angels - it says that the Lord appeared to Abraham. Now, I did not mean that any of this was Christ incarnate. I was pointing out that when God wishes He can do as He wills. If He wishes to manifest himself as a man, he can. The issue is - did He before Christ? I don't think you can prove what the nature of these things are in totality but they are interesting to note. And, OC, please define "figure". You keep referring to "figure of Christ". Give me a black and white concise simple definition of this usage. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted July 12, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 12, 2006 Thanks OC, Gen.32:28 says, "...you have striven with God." Gen. 32:30 says, "...I have seen God faced to face, yet my life has been preserved" In Genesis 18-19 there are some strange sentences. "Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of Heaven. There is something going on there other than angels. Wrestling with an angel - the passage says a man - would not be the same as striving or facing God. In Genesis 18-19 there is something unusual about the three men other than they are angels - it says that the Lord appeared to Abraham. Now, I did not mean that any of this was Christ incarnate. I was pointing out that when God wishes He can do as He wills. If He wishes to manifest himself as a man, he can. The issue is - did He before Christ? I don't think you can prove what the nature of these things are in totality but they are interesting to note. And, OC, please define "figure". You keep referring to "figure of Christ". Give me a black and white concise simple definition of this usage. Mark Hello Mark777 I mean a type of or picture of Christ but "not" Christ himself I mean a foreshadow of the Christ that was to come an incident that gives us insight into the will of God concerning the eternal Son of God that was to come but not Christ-Incarnate. Only a foretaste or picture of the one true God that was yet to come in the form of man God-Incarnate God became flesh and dwelt among us. When that happened it was the real manifestation as the true Son of God that was revealed and sent into this world and they layed Him in a manager wrapped in swaddling clothes. That my friend was not a forshadow, that was no type, and that was no figure that pointed us to Christ for that was the real deal God-incarnate when the fullness of the time had come. God sent His only begotten Son into this world. God himself came dwelling amongs us in the form of His dear Son Jesus Christ His only begotton Son the word that was in the bosom of the Father from the beginning of time. All else was only pointing us to this great event when Christ was sent into the world to seek and save sinners for Christ did come and fulfill the law of God and so shall in the latter times come and fulfill the rest of the things that was foreshadowed or foretold us in God's Holy Word the bible using types and shadows to teach us these things in order to give us a picture a glimpse into the will of God to come. blessings OC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts