Hi guys,
Am I missing something here? Where is Cain? :dunno2:
Is there a reason he and his descendent was not listed?
1 This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them "Humankind" when they were created. 3 When Adam had lived one hundred thirty years, he became the father of a son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. 4 The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years; and he had other sons and daughters. 5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years; and he died. 6 When Seth had lived one hundred five years, he became the father of Enosh. 7 Seth lived after the birth of Enosh eight hundred seven years, and had other sons and daughters. 8 Thus all the days of Seth were nine hundred twelve years; and he died. 9 When Enosh had lived ninety years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 Enosh lived after the birth of Kenan eight hundred fifteen years, and had other sons and daughters. 11 Thus all the days of Enosh were nine hundred five years; and he died. 12 When Kenan had lived seventy years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 Kenan lived after the birth of Mahalalel eight hundred and forty years, and had other sons and daughters. 14 Thus all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died. 15 When Mahalalel had lived sixty-five years, he became the father of Jared. 16 Mahalalel lived after the birth of Jared eight hundred thirty years, and had other sons and daughters. 17 Thus all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred ninety-five years; and he died. 18 When Jared had lived one hundred sixty-two years he became the father of Enoch. 19 Jared lived after the birth of Enoch eight hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. 20 Thus all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty-two years; and he died. 21 When Enoch had lived sixty-five years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methuselah three hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. 23 Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty-five years. 24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him. 25 When Methuselah had lived one hundred eighty-seven years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 Methuselah lived after the birth of Lamech seven hundred eighty-two years, and had other sons and daughters. 27 Thus all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty-nine years; and he died. 28 When Lamech had lived one hundred eighty-two years, he became the father of a son; 29 he named him Noah, saying, "Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands." 30 Lamech lived after the birth of Noah five hundred ninety-five years, and had other sons and daughters. 31 Thus all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy-seven years; and he died. 32 After Noah was five hundred years old, Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
The Seedline folks try to get a lot of mileage out of this, but my take on it is that Seth was the son of choice, after Abel was killed and Cain was banished and his bloodline not to figure into God's Plan.
That makes sense thanks Laz :thumbsup:
Little Kwai Chang Cain was lucky the monks took him in and taught him Kung Fu.
Abel brought the acceptable sacrifice to God which involved the shedding of blood.
There is no shedding of blood, no sacrifice of a life, in the offering of vegetables.
Any one with little children knows they will usually offer to "sacrifice" their vegetables
rather than meat.
Abel was accepted by God and his was basically "innocent" blood. Seth was the replacement of Abel.
It was through Seth (his Son Enosh)that people began calling on the name of the Lord. There is no record that Cain did anything but whine about everything.
:Peace2:Many people have found tons of symbolism in this story so I'll stop here.
There is something deeper to consider here, too, and it is something I have written about in my book manuscript:
THE CHOOSING – A NON-RANDOM WALK
One of the themes running through the pages of the Bible, and there are many, many themes all intertwined, is the theme of the Two (sometimes Three), one accepted, one (or two) rejected. Beginning with Cain and Abel, we see such pairs over and over, such as the two thieves who were crucified with Christ, only one of whom was promised a good End. Ultimately, we see in the Great White Throne Judgment that the peoples and nations of the world are divided like sheep and goats. Keep in mind that both sheep and goats are clean animals, but the "sheep" nations seem to receive the nod of acceptance. Rather like the casting of lots in the seventh chapter of Joshua, where the focus narrowed from tribe, to clan, to family, to Achan, we see God dealing with an ever narrowing bloodline, as we shall see. It puts me in mind of farmers in the days before seed companies - they would set aside the very best seed of each harvest for next year's planting. I could almost call it a breeding program, and perhaps it was. We can see how Noah and his sons were chosen, while the rest of humanity perished, including (presumably) the entire Cain line. Of Noah's sons, Ham was rejected, and Japheth was a close second to the son of choice, Shem. We will see later a broad hint that Shem was the favorite son of his father. The line goes thus: Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, Eber (the father of all Hebrews), Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram. The eleventh chapter of Genesis, from which I drew the "begat" list, states that a father lived so-and-so many years after he sired the son of record, and begat other sons and daughters. So, there was a lot of choosing going on, as God kept an eye out for just the right lineage to turn up, according to His Plan.
Yep. All of Cain's descendants would have perished at or before the flood. The focus is on the line that survives through Noah. :thumbsup:
Cain is a type of the carnal man. The line that is followed is a type of the new man. :2c:
:iagree: two men will be in a bed..one will be taken..the other left behind..two women at
a hand mill..one taken..the other left behind.
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 02, 2013, 02:26:24 AM
Cain is a type of the carnal man. The line that is followed is a type of the new man. :2c:
Yes and Cain's descendant's are not given a geneology(sp) in print, but the gene's are very well at work today. I probably said the same thing you said Red. :HeartThrob: :dsunny:
Quote from: micah7:9 on February 02, 2013, 10:39:06 PM
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 02, 2013, 02:26:24 AM
Cain is a type of the carnal man. The line that is followed is a type of the new man. :2c:
Yes and Cain's descendant's are not given a geneology(sp) in print, but the gene's are very well at work today. I probably said the same thing you said Red. :HeartThrob: :dsunny:
Do you have a theory as to how Cain's genes survived the flood? I can't think of any way, unless one of the wives of Noah's sons was part Cain-ite.
It's the same kind of genes as "you are of your father the devil".
Coincidentally I just read an article about demonic DNA and how they are all born completely evil because the DNA of their parents were created completely evil.
Biology and especially DNA have always fascinated me. It was my favorite subject in school.
Ah, seedline theory! If the Cain line was literally of the Devil, a very nasty can of worms, theologically, and was NOT wiped out in the Flood, then any one of us could be contaminated and be a tare without knowing it. Scary, very scary. :doh:
My sarcasm monitor seems to be off today, so forgive me if I'm missing it.
Just to be clear Laz, I'm not speaking of literal genes.
I see that we need a "sarcasm" font. Any suggestions? How about this: Sarcasm Font? This font [Comic Sans MS] is available in our own "Post reply" window.
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 03, 2013, 12:24:42 AM
My sarcasm monitor seems to be off today, so forgive me if I'm missing it.
Just to be clear Laz, I'm not speaking of literal genes.
It would be hard to imagine some of the same genes Adam gave to Abel wouldn't be in Cain. Maybe Cain and Able had the same colour eyes, or the same hair loss problem (that would have been Eve's, never mind). I would buy that the same genotype produced by Adam would be applicable to both Cain and Abel.
I am having trouble with the
non-literal gene though. Would they be in charge of character, or behaviour, or maybe conscience? Wouldn't they also stem from Adam? Wouldn't this eliminate the seedline theory, in that Adam was of God, not the devil?
Adam, Cain, Ishmael, Esau
These are types
Christ, Able, Isaac, Jacob
poor Esau, why did God hate him before he was even born?
poor Hagar, that bondwoman is to be thrown out
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 03, 2013, 02:58:25 AM
Adam, Cain, Ishmael, Esau
These are types
Christ, Able, Isaac, Jacob
Could you elaborate on this. I'm afraid I don't get that. Is
type a form of
kind?
..I know! Poor Hagar. ..but God helped her.. it wasn't personal? She's not thrown out, as we know in UR, just the 1st covenant which was with Israel which Paul used her as an illustration, which I guess all of life is (an illustration!) A 1st covenant, I think so Israel would be swaddling cloths for the Christ..
Say.. has anyone ever thought that the Cainites were the ones with the prominent brows, which perished.. or that it to say, we don't have the Neanderthals around any more.. I think I got that right.. I've had trouble keeping Cro Magnon and Neandertals straight, but I think I finally got it so I remember..(?) I know the Bible says God put a mark on Cain and we usually think of that like a big x or something on his forehead.. but when we look at history...?
Here's another weird thought I've had.. remember how the oldest artifacts found of a religious nature, they assume, in archeology, were of a rather stout mother 'goddess'? And like legends of a great flood, they've been found in all lands.. I've found myself wondering if these artifacts weren't vague memories of Eve (the "mother of us all? as Adam called her) and perhaps by time her days were up, she hadn't become a rather stout lady?
- Well.. it's just an idea.. :smile:
We aren't talking any literal descent.
Rom 5
12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
1 co 15
45So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
The Hebrew word for earth is adamah, it is from the same word Adam comes from which means or red/ruddy
Adam is the old man, the natural man, the man of dust, he brings death
Gen 25
The LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples will be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger."
Rom 9
3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON (Isaac)." 10And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." 13Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."
Gal 4
21Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
27For it is written,
"REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR;
BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR;
FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE
THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND."
28And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.
30But what does the Scripture say?
"CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON,
FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN."
31So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.
Rom 8
1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Here's a fun nugget. Esau's territory is called Edom. Edom is the exact same word as Adam, except it has different vowel points (which are not original, they were added by the masoretes).
Gen 25
Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau.
Remember Adam comes from the word red/ruddy, the word red in Gen 25 for red is adimony the word that adam comes from
Quote from: RHM6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
We are the children of the promise, miracle children like Isaac, born from above. It is through Isaac that the seed will be reckoned.
The first covenant, the everlasting covenant, was made with Abraham. I will make you a father of many nations [Gentiles].
He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob because the birthright covenant comes down to us through that line.
Romans 4:13 It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world,
but through the righteousness that comes by faith.As for me, behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations.Gen 17:4
"nations"H1471
גּי גּוי
gôy gôy
go'ee, go'-ee
Apparently from the same root as H1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts: -
Gentile, heathen, nation, people.
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 02, 2013, 11:21:39 PM
It's the same kind of genes as "you are of your father the devil".
I believe I may have erred in using genes as my reason. As for Laz, "Do you have a theory as to how Cain's genes survived the flood? I can't think of any way, unless one of the wives of Noah's sons was part Cain-ite."
It were not genes or dna that survived a flood or any other disruption. The truth, the "knowledge of good and evil" had established it's self in mankind/human being and there would be no need for a Cain, as descendants to be printed, Cain's mind and nature is the nature of man, as Redhotmagma stated, the carnality of man is Cain. Can anyone deny the shortness of Cain's ancestry as written in Genesis is a witness as to what his line would produce?
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch:
and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
Gen 4:18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
Gen 4:19
And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Gen 4:20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the
father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
Gen 4:21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was
the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. Gen 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain,
an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
Gen 4:23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for
I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
Gen 4:24 If
Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
Redhotmagma, in my opinion, has it correct. :HeartThrob:
Quote from: marie glen on February 03, 2013, 04:03:23 AM
Say.. has anyone ever thought that the Cainites were the ones with the prominent brows, which perished.. or that it to say, we don't have the Neanderthals around any more.. I think I got that right.. I've had trouble keeping Cro Magnon and Neandertals straight, but I think I finally got it so I remember..(?) I know the Bible says God put a mark on Cain and we usually think of that like a big x or something on his forehead.. but when we look at history...?
I've kicked that idea around before. Not necessarily the brow being the mark. But the sons of God coming down to the daughters of men. The sons of God being the sons of Seth, the daughters of men being those of Cain.
Homo sapiens neaderthalensis, and Homo sapiens sapiens (cro-magnon) are now known to have been the same species. If you dressed Neaderthal in a suit and tie and sent him or her into a city, they wouldn't stand out.
Secondly, I don't think we can make the assumption that Adam could actually have sired a lesser and a greater being (either Abel, or Seth).
Yeah VB, I don't think so genetically, again, its more about spiritual status. Imagine a people led by Cain, very primitive, still genetically the same. Then the sons of God/Seth that had stayed up on the mountain of God, and continued to receive directly from God for their learning, albeit outside the garden, these are the gods. Or they would have seemed like gods to a more primitive people.
We see it after the flood, men becoming gods, Nimrod being the sungod, his wife the moon goddess. Their son, Tammuz the reincarnated father, who by the way may have been killed by Shem.
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 03, 2013, 10:06:51 PM
We see it after the flood, men becoming gods, Nimrod being the sungod, his wife the moon goddess. Their son, Tammuz the reincarnated father, who by the way may have been killed by Shem.
I hadn't heard about Tammuz having been killed by Shem, but the
Book of Jasher relates that Nimrod was killed by Esau, and that is why he came back home in a state of exhausted desperation, thinking Nimrod's men would track him down and kill him. Jacob thus was able to take advantage of him, demanding the birthright for a bowl of stew, which Esau agreed to, thinking his life was forfeit anyway.
God hated Esau because Esau despised his birthright, for which reason I believe America is currently under judgment.
He sold his birthright for a bowl of pottage.
Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.
--Gen 25:34
Quote from: Molly on February 04, 2013, 01:35:37 AM
God hated Esau because Esau despised his birthright, for which reason I believe America is currently under judgment.
He sold his birthright for a bowl of pottage.
Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.
--Gen 25:34
Nice connection, Molly. Most folks, I'm sure, could not name either the birthright or the current pottage. We are also like Esau in that Amerika, having sold its birthright, has become nothing but a source of trouble for the rest of the world.
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 04, 2013, 01:22:22 AM
I hadn't heard about Tammuz having been killed by Shem, but the Book of Jasher relates that Nimrod was killed by Esau ...
What the
Book of Jasher?
Quote from: VineBranch on February 04, 2013, 04:32:53 AM
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 04, 2013, 01:22:22 AM
I hadn't heard about Tammuz having been killed by Shem, but the Book of Jasher relates that Nimrod was killed by Esau ...
What the Book of Jasher?
Joshua 10:13 Is not this written in the Book of Jasher?
II Samuel 1:18 Behold, it is written in the Book of Jasher.
It exists in several editions, some of which are forgeries, and the genuine one (the 1840 edition) is supposed to have been translated from a single Hebrew manuscript. It is often dismissed as a forgery or a midrash, and I am hesitant to put it anywhere on an even footing with the Holy Bible, but it is sometimes useful in backfilling a Biblical story. It is more man-centered than the OT, with God more in the background of things. Still, worth a read.
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 04, 2013, 05:17:04 AM
It exists in several editions, some of which are forgeries, and the genuine one (the 1840 edition) is supposed to have been translated from a single Hebrew manuscript. It is often dismissed as a forgery or a midrash, and I am hesitant to put it anywhere on an even footing with the Holy Bible, but it is sometimes useful in backfilling a Biblical story. It is more man-centered than the OT, with God more in the background of things. Still, worth a read.
I thought it was a reference to something which may once have existed. Is it on the same level as the Apocrypha? You and redhot actually quote it as historically accurate. Are we dealing with elite knowledge?
I confess I'm becoming a bit leary of you guys.
Quote from: VineBranch on February 04, 2013, 06:05:13 AM
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 04, 2013, 05:17:04 AM
It exists in several editions, some of which are forgeries, and the genuine one (the 1840 edition) is supposed to have been translated from a single Hebrew manuscript. It is often dismissed as a forgery or a midrash, and I am hesitant to put it anywhere on an even footing with the Holy Bible, but it is sometimes useful in backfilling a Biblical story. It is more man-centered than the OT, with God more in the background of things. Still, worth a read.
I thought it was a reference to something which may once have existed. Is it on the same level as the Apocrypha? You and redhot actually quote it as historically accurate. Are we dealing with elite knowledge?
I confess I'm becoming a bit leary of you guys.
Well, we do have a double witness in the OT as to its historical existence. If the manuscript had turned up earlier, it might well have made it into the Apocrypha. Historical accuracy - well, sometimes it follows the Bible, and sometimes it doesn't, and that is why I do not put it on the same level as inspired scripture. It needs to be given the "Panin Test" to see if it's inspired. No, it's not elite knowledge, just a bit hard to find - it's probably not in your usual evangelical bookstore. You just have to read it and make up your own mind.
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 04, 2013, 06:51:15 AM
Well, we do have a double witness in the OT as to its historical existence.
No you don't; you have a book which has a similar title to one mentioned in scripture.
The book of Joshua was written around 1400 BC. To have been quoted in said book,
Jasher would have to have been written around the same time as the Torah. Yet we have no provenance for it? You're starting to scare me Laz. Lom will probably be by to tell me to lighten up soon, but I am really a bit antsy here.
When I first read about the Book of Jasher, per the OT verses I quoted, I thought well, the book must have been lost centuries ago. When I found it was not lost, I devoured it. I introduced it to my dad, who decided it was hokum, until he read the double witness himself. After that, he defended the book against all my doubts. With that said, I've hinted that it is controversial, and I am not completely sold on its genuineness. It does not follow the OT 100%, and for that reason maybe I should not have mentioned it, but it does give some backstory information, as with the early life of Abram. You have to make up your own mind, but I think yours is. For me, my opinion of the book has declined over the years, and I now realize that God does not speak to me through its pages, but then, I find that God is very much in the background of this book. Maybe that's the whole crux of the matter. :dontknow:
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 04, 2013, 07:52:13 AM
You have to make up your own mind, but I think yours is. :dontknow:
It's not made up. What troubles me is that the provenance is not meticulously stated. You and red stated that the things said were true: "We see it after the flood, men becoming gods, Nimrod being the sungod, his wife the moon goddess. Their son, Tammuz the reincarnated father, who by the way may have been killed by Shem." Not mentioned anywhere else, yet treated as true. Nimrod somehow has a history, and we believe it because some book we didn't validate says so.
Later on Laz you yourself wrote: "I hadn't heard about Tammuz having been killed by Shem, but the Book of Jasher relates that Nimrod was killed by Esau, and that is why he came back home in a state of exhausted desperation, thinking Nimrod's men would track him down and kill him. Jacob thus was able to take advantage of him, demanding the birthright for a bowl of stew, which Esau agreed to, thinking his life was forfeit anyway". In My Humble Opinion, this is how people come to believe 'new' old scripture: the 'lost' Gospels, the new lineages of Christ. I've seen Pagels and Earleman, and Williamson, accepted without so much as a 'prove it'. The Jesus seminar takes away Jesus' divinity and there is no 'wait, how do you figure that'. John Shelby Spong takes Christ away from Christianity, and he's still a Bishop of the Anglican Church.
According to the Book of Mormon we must ... no wait, I can't use that, no one will believe me. yet an equally specious book in which we have faith can be quoted as if true. Oh well, it's okay, it's one of which we approve.
Quote from: VBJohn Shelby Spong takes Christ away from Christianity
So, he's the guy that destroyed the Anglican church! :laugh:
Thanks for the info.
John Shelby Spong: Anglican Nightmarehttps://www.christiancourier.com/articles/735-john-shelby-spong-anglican-nightmarePS I don't think you have any worries about RHM and Lazarus, VB. This is actually a very conservative board religiously speaking, or I wouldn't be here. That doesn't mean we don't talk about all kinds of things, from time to time though. But I don't think anyone is in danger of being led astray by extra-biblical writings. :2c:
Actually VB I wasn't referring to Jasher. I was referring to much more profane sources. These are legends myths stories passed down. I don't consider any of it fully reliable. I find it interesting but it doesn't affect my faith whatsoever.
But there is biblical witness that backs up some of the assertions.
:2c: :2c:I guess it is sinful man that states or believes the Bible ripped off pagan sources for their ideas. To me, it makes much more sense that Pagans ripped off the Bible stories. I mean, is God likely to copy satan to decieve or is satan likely to copy God to decieve. Many cultures have a flood story, a "first man" story, a "trinity" in the form of Father, Son and Mother, a rising from the dead, a little guy overcoming a huge opponent, etc. :Peace2:
Check out this thread. I go over a lot of these things in there. Unfortunately I started another thread that was lost in the big shutdown/hack, that has some more of my research into these things.
http://tentmaker.org/forum/lounge/signs-symbols-and-pagans-oh-my/msg121698/#msg121698
Quote from: VineBranch on February 04, 2013, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 04, 2013, 06:51:15 AM
Well, we do have a double witness in the OT as to its historical existence.
No you don't; you have a book which has a similar title to one mentioned in scripture.
The book of Joshua was written around 1400 BC. To have been quoted in said book, Jasher would have to have been written around the same time as the Torah. Yet we have no provenance for it? You're starting to scare me Laz. Lom will probably be by to tell me to lighten up soon, but I am really a bit antsy here.
:laughing7:
Jesus was in the faces of the religious leaders of his day. He called them vipers and sons of the devil. I personally believe the ones he was addressing were Satanists, and that they brought their Satanic religion [the mystery religion of the antichrist] back from the Babylonian exile.
He also called them "imposters," meaning they may not even have been tribe of Judah or Levite priests at all in many cases. They were able to buy that position at that time, and it evidently was a prosperous position to hold as witnessed by the money changers [bankers!] in the Temple.
As always, they laid terrible burdens on the people, moreso than even the Roman Empire which Jesus largely ignored. Could we deduce from this that the greater sin is pretending to be a man of God while worshipping the enemy of God, than merely being a secular power?
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.
--Sinclair Lewis
Quote from: Molly on February 04, 2013, 01:39:11 PM
PS I don't think you have any worries about RHM and Lazarus, VB. This is actually a very conservative board religiously speaking, or I wouldn't be here. That doesn't mean we don't talk about all kinds of things, from time to time though. But I don't think anyone is in danger of being led astray by extra-biblical writings. :2c:
I agree Molly. The only reason I feel comfortable talking so openly to these guys about things which trouble me is because I have come to trust them implicitly. I know I can say what is on my mind and express it in frank terms because I know they will take it as me questioning. I have no answers, just observations and queries: these guys have shown they are willing to listen and take what I say seriously. I therefore try to be honest as I can with my reactions. I wouldn't write in this manner if I didn't trust everyone her as Christian brothers and sisters, who accept each other just the way they are. Otherwise what's the use?
Quote from: VineBranch on February 04, 2013, 04:54:31 PM
Quote from: Molly on February 04, 2013, 01:39:11 PM
PS I don't think you have any worries about RHM and Lazarus, VB. This is actually a very conservative board religiously speaking, or I wouldn't be here. That doesn't mean we don't talk about all kinds of things, from time to time though. But I don't think anyone is in danger of being led astray by extra-biblical writings. :2c:
I agree Molly. The only reason I feel comfortable talking so openly to these guys about things which trouble me is because I have come to trust them implicitly. I know I can say what is on my mind and express it in frank terms because I know they will take it as me questioning. I have no answers, just observations and queries: these guys have shown they are willing to listen and take what I say seriously. I therefore try to be honest as I can with my reactions. I wouldn't write in this manner if I didn't trust everyone her as Christian brothers and sisters, who accept each other just the way they are. Otherwise what's the use?
Sounds good to me. :thumbsup:
VB, I agree totally with your healthy skepticism about this-or-that ancient book. I have myself defined the Holy Bible as a reference standard of Truth, and have explained how I have backed away from my enthusiasm for the Book of Jasher. It is useful here and there, but far short of perfect or perfectly reliable. Can we lay this issue to rest? I'm tired of getting beat up over it. :punish: > :friendstu:
But Laz, I was waiting till you were totally down before I kicked you :laugh: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 04, 2013, 06:44:15 PM
But Laz, I was waiting till you were totally down before I kicked you :laugh: :HeartThrob:
Careful! I'm not totally down, I kick back, and I know that there K. Ratey! :laughing7:
So Cain was sent out of the presence of God and he became a city dweller and builder.
Who was teaching Cain and his progeny all the arts and scientific trappings of 'high culture'?
Some say it was the fallen angels mentioned in Gen 6, also known as the sons of God.
But, Abel was righteous, as was his father, Adam, and Seth likewise, made in the image of his father who was made in the image of the one to come.
Because when God made Adam, God made a farmer. :winkgrin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sillEgUHGC4
Why would Cain being a builder and a city dweller imply that he was taught special knowledge??
Well, generally speaking, civilization sprang full blown out of nowhere.
There was nothing leading up to it in fits and starts. It's just there--all of a sudden--around 3500 BC--in the area of the garden, also known as Mesopotamia and the birthplace of civilization.
The Bible tells us the second from Adam, Cain, is sent off from the farm where he just grew vegetables and he built a city. How does that work? Who taught him to build a city?
If we were blown back to the dark ages today, how long would it take groups of us to rebuild the civilization we now enjoy? Does the average person know how to do any of it? Or does the average person just enjoy the benefits, having no idea why the lights turn on when he flips a switch?
There is also the book of Enoch, but I'm loath to mention that given the current mood in here. :winkgrin:
But let's just say this, occult knowledge gave the leaders of civilization an edge then, as it does to this very day, over the rest of us.
IMO, I meant it doesn't take a rocket scientist to build a house or any building. Why would the knowledge have to be occult? ...
and given the long life they enjoyed, they had plenty of time for trial and error. Remember civilization barely changed at all until electricity was utilized. If you discount electricity, things aren't all that complicated. Plus, I believe people back then were far more intelligent since they didn't have generations of DNA losses and mistakes. Solomon was the smartest man that ever lived. God gave him that as he had to have given Adam all his intelligence.
On the contrary, building a house is not that easy, if you have a group of people who have never built one before. That's why we look around and we see so many different kinds of structures in the world even today, from mud or cardboard huts to sky scrapers. You have to go to school for a long time before you know how to build a sky scraper because first it has to be designed. And, you need the right tools, and the right metals to create the tools, and the wheel and the engine and on and on.
So, we look back at what they did then and we see things that we couldn't replicate today, like the pyramids, for instance. And, this pyramid built with mindblowing technology leads us wondering how did they do that? And why does it reveal the golden ratio and PI when looked at from every angle? And, what was it for?
But, before you build a city, we know this much, you need lots of food which will create a leisure class that can just eat on demand and is free to do other things. God taught Adam modern agriculture techniques which allowed the masses to settle in one place and build a civilization. But, God's men always remained shepherd kings, living in tents, all the way down to Abraham and beyond.
For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
--Heb 11:10
I agree with the last post Molly except for the skyscrapers. Electrical times.
It is quite possible, like you mentioned, that Cain and his group received extra-terrestial knowledge
I just don't think it's certain it was from someone other than God. :Peace2:
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 04, 2013, 08:05:42 PM
I agree with the last post Molly except for the skyscrapers. Electrical times.
It is quite possible, like you mentioned, that Cain and his group received extra-terrestial knowledge
I just don't think it's certain it was from someone other than God. :Peace2:
Then I'll just repeat. Cain was sent out of the presence of God because of what he did to his brother. There is no indication that God taught Cain technology of any sort.
13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
--Gen 4
16 And
Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. Gen 4
...and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
--Gen 4:17
...and there is no indication that he didn't or that someone else did. :laughing7:
Just not enough info to say so in my book, it's irrelevant. :Peace2:
There is every indication that he didn't.
He was trying to teach Cain to give a shepherd's sacrifice, and Cain refused to learn it.
After that, there was no more teaching of any sort. Cain left the presence of the Lord.
It shouldn't be lost on us that there are two branches here.
One goes and dwells in cities and one remains shepherd kings, living in tents and in the presence of the Lord.
Does God TRY and fail??
and there is no more teaching... mentioned... by anyone at anytime.
Yes Cain left the presence of the Lord, which, since Adam walked with God in the garden,
I believe that was a Christophany and Cain leaving the presence of the Lord was the actual physical presence.
There just isn't enough info.
Like when the atheist says, "Prove there is a God." - There is no "proof"
the only answer is "prove there isn't a God" which is also undoable.
We can have opinions but if the bible isn't clear, they are just opinions. :Peace2:
well, I'm trying to answer the question of the thread--why is Cain not listed as a descendent of Adam? Because he was removed from the generations of Adam, who had more in common with each other than not and led directly in genealogy to the birth of Jesus.
Jesus called himself Son of Adam.
There is a difference between Cain and Abel [Seth].
And, those who stayed in the presence of God were more alike than different.
But, Cain and his cities were no longer in the presence of God.
Cain is building cities with who knows what information but many generations later Abraham is still living in tents, looking forward to a city whose architect and builder is God.
That means that God was not the architect and builder of Cain's cities.
Seth is the lineage that led up to the Christ, not Cains. Just like Shem is the lineage out of Noah's 3 sons.
We are interested in the line from Christ back to Adam and that's how it goes. :2c:
Yes, but God was carefully picking the one out of each generation who would be in the lineage. And, more often than not, it was not the oldest son.
Seth is 'appointed' to take Abel's place.
Agreed. What signifigance is that?... :Chinscratch: cause I don't see any.
All due respect, Ded, I can't spend all day talking to someone who doesn't want to hear what I have to say. I'm just repeating myself.
You talk about Christophany--
QuoteI believe that was a Christophany and Cain leaving the presence of the Lord was the actual physical presence.
But it is more than that. Jesus calls Abel "righteous." Well, how did that happen? How does one get to be called righteous? And Abraham, his descendent many generations later, is also called 'righteous.' And, still living in tents.
And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him.--Heb 11:6
Does Cain have faith? No.
Cain wants to do it his way.
The difference between Cain and Abel [Seth] is a qualitative difference.
And, that remains true all the way down the genealogy to Jesus, IMO.
I WAS listening. I meant what is the signifigance of God choosing the non-firstborn?
I'm sorry. Don;t answer if it will take up too much time.
Ok, sorry. There is a significance which is later revealed in the difference between law and grace. Law is the elder brother and grace the younger. Adam, devastated by the law, is the elder brother, and Jesus, full of grace and truth, is the younger. Jesus, crucified by the law, is the elder brother, and we, the children of the promise given to Abraham through grace are the younger.
He has always been a God of grace, even though it appears that the Law comes first.
And, the genealogy comes down to Christ through grace, not law.
Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
Thank you. I hadn't thought of that elder/younger in that way before. :dsunny:
Yes, the natural heir is not in the kingdom, he will serve the younger. Esau and Jacob, Ishmael and Isaac, Adam and Jesus.
And if you are Christ's, then you are Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Speaking of God and Farmers, this was a nice tribute to them at the superbowl.
http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/watch/Super-Bowl-XLVII-Commercials/8911914896018719112/17317955931/Ram-Trucks-Farmer/videos?cmpid=FCST_SB_ADS (http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/watch/Super-Bowl-XLVII-Commercials/8911914896018719112/17317955931/Ram-Trucks-Farmer/videos?cmpid=FCST_SB_ADS)
Yes, this secret [mystery], kept secret from ages and generations, Christ in you the hope of glory, goes all the way back to Adam.
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith [in] of Jesus Christ for all who believe.
--Rom 3
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 04, 2013, 09:03:44 PM
Agreed. What signifigance is that?... :Chinscratch: cause I don't see any.
Jeff, you could think of it this way: the choosing of the first-born son is the prideful, carnal way of man, and the choosing of the younger son is the humble, spiritual Way of God.
Deut 21;17 the right of the firstborn........that son is the first sign of his father's strength.
not by might...but by my spirit
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 04, 2013, 08:43:40 PM
Does God TRY and fail??
and there is no more teaching... mentioned... by anyone at anytime.
Yes Cain left the presence of the Lord, which, since Adam walked with God in the garden,
I believe that was a Christophany and Cain leaving the presence of the Lord was the actual physical presence.
There just isn't enough info.
Like when the atheist says, "Prove there is a God." - There is no "proof"
the only answer is "prove there isn't a God" which is also undoable.
We can have opinions but if the bible isn't clear, they are just opinions. :Peace2:
Sorry to interupt ded, but you think there was an actually Christophany before the Gospel?
Quote from: Molly on February 04, 2013, 07:06:00 PM
Because when God made Adam, God made a farmer. :winkgrin:
I loved the Paul Harvey tribute, but I think I need to say, God made a gardener (didn't He?), and when he fell, that gardener became a farmer.
Quote from: VineBranch on February 05, 2013, 05:31:22 AM
Quote from: Molly on February 04, 2013, 07:06:00 PM
Because when God made Adam, God made a farmer. :winkgrin:
I loved the Paul Harvey tribute, but I think I need to say, God made a gardener (didn't He?), and when he fell, that gardener became a farmer.
For the long haul, gardening is far more sustainable than farming, as farming tends to deplete the precious topsoil. It will last long enough, however, to fulfill God's purposes.
To me, a gardner grows stuff for himself, family and friends to enjoy. No money involved except cost of the gardening and time.
A farmer is a gardner on a huge scale and sells leftover produce to earn a living.
and VB yes I do think there was a christophany before the gospel. Since God is out of time, and Christ was slain before the foundation of the world, it's possible he had a body when God decided to make man in the "Image of the invisible God"
God the Father is in unapproachable light for a human to live, so when Jacob wrestled with God, I believe it was Jesus.
:thumbsup:
It's true. They called him among other things, the word of the Lord.
1 Samuel 3:1
And the child Samuel ministered unto the Lord before Eli. And the word of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision.
Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him.
8 And the Lord called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And Eli perceived that the Lord had called the child.
9 Therefore Eli said unto Samuel, Go, lie down: and it shall be, if he call thee, that thou shalt say, Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth. So Samuel went and lay down in his place.
10 And the Lord came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.
--1 Sam 3
wow!!! :thumbsup:
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 05, 2013, 02:30:42 PM
To me, a gardner grows stuff for himself, family and friends to enjoy. No money involved except cost of the gardening and time.
A farmer is a gardner on a huge scale and sells leftover produce to earn a living.
and VB yes I do think there was a christophany before the gospel. Since God is out of time, and Christ was slain before the foundation of the world, it's possible he had a body when God decided to make man in the "Image of the invisible God"
God the Father is in unapproachable light for a human to live, so when Jacob wrestled with God, I believe it was Jesus.
Cool (my niece said that if I say cool I'll look cool ... I'm tempted to take her to an optometrist), that totally belays the notion that the gospels are the singular origin of the Christophany. Now, this would presuppose that the Resurrection wasn't necessary as the actual cause of the Christophany. This is so cool, I never get to talk to anyone about this.
Do you think God walking in the garden was the pre-existent logos?
Do you think the figure to whom Abraham spoke in Genesis 18 was Christ?
Do you think the fourth man in Daniel 3:25 was Christ?
I know in the world of UR it ultimately doesn't matter. But I think all those examples were Christ. I don't think Melchizedek was a Christophany though. If he was, we get more into Christ as avatar, and that is a kettle of fish into which I would prefer to never again dip my net. But some of my Hindu friends think it's fine.
Neat, thanks ded
Quote from: VineBranch on February 06, 2013, 07:05:09 AM
Do you think God walking in the garden was the pre-existent logos?
Do you think the figure to whom Abraham spoke in Genesis 18 was Christ?
Do you think the fourth man in Daniel 3:25 was Christ?
I don't think Melchizedek was a Christophany though.
Since the Father dwells in inapproachable light, God in the garden, visiting Abram/Abraham, and in the furnace, yes, must have been Jesus/the Christ/the Logos.
My dad did some date crunching and other study, and his best guess was that Melchizedek was Shem.
Avatarism will be the trumpet of the anti-Christ.
Melchizedek only appears once in the Old Testament in person form. He gives Abraham communion.
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. [Gen 14]
Abraham gives him a tithe. Later, Paul will say that Abraham tithed for all the Levites who were in his loins with this tithe. He points out that this means Melchizedek is a higher priest than the Levites are because the lesser tithes to the greater and the greater blesses the lesser.
5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
--Heb 7
If this isn't Jesus, I don't know who he is. lol
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Heb 7
belated answer to VineB,
I think...God walking in the Garden was the pre-existent logos
Abraham spoke face to face in Chap 18 of Genesis was Christ
There is no question in my mind the 4th man in the flames at Daniel was Jesus - we even had the pagan confirmation the 4th man looked like the son of God.
Melchizedek is another story. On the one hand, he is named which never happens elsewhere. However this name is a title prince/king of peace which is also one of Jesus' titles. It says he was a priest of the most high God. Since the hebrew/Jewish system started with Abraham as called out a people for his own, Melchizedek had to have been the only "priest of the one true God" which omitting angels that are never mentioned as priests, leaves Christ.
I'm not certain but as Molly said, if it is not Christ, there is no one else it could be that we know of. Paul said only Jesus descended from heaven and Melchizedek was certainly no common man.
"Melchizedek" is a title, and we do not know the man's name. He was a priest of the Most High God, but then was not Jethro the high priest of Midian? I believe that men fell into idolatry gradually after the flood, and a few priests of the True God remained. We can see traces of true worship and belief in many cultures, at least as far as China. The establishment of Israel as a nation was God's answer to the general apostasy. Following my father's research, I think Melchizedek could have been Shem, and the time factors indicate that they could have been the same person, but we have no way of knowing for sure this side of the veil.
...just how I see it........Melchezedek had to do with the greater Preisthood...the seed of the promise... As such
it precedes and supercedes all other covenants. the Lamb slain before the founding of the world/covenant....
Bread and wine offered by Melchezedek=communion with Heaven in
regard to the promised seed.It is an eternal covenant. He is without Father or Mother in the human sense;
for it is a covenant of the eternal spirit of God..who had no beginning or has no end.God Himself is the source
of it. Michael means 'who is like God"? Thus bears testimony to the promised seed who is the express image of the
Father..to such an extent that if you have seen the Son,you have seen the Father.
Thus Michael standing up and all the people whose names are written are delivered...signifies the promise
of the Holy seed quickening spirit of life eternal. This seed Blesses all nations'the desire of the nations'
this seed delivers from evil..'crushes' the head of the serpent. The long awaited deliverance of Adam's
projency through the promised seed spoken in the garden of God. This promise of God supercedes the
law covenant[fulfills in spirit] and...the tokogae expierence. indeed the spirit of God/Son was and has been active
throughout the scriptures; ever testifying and working out/toward the fulfillment of the eternal promise of God.
Michael standing up is synomynous with God standing up..for his name is 'who is like God?"
Therefore wait for me,declares the Lord,for the day I WILL STAND UP TO TESTIFY...I have decided to
assemble the nations,to gather the kingdoms and to pour out my wrath on them-all my fierce anger
the whole world will be consumed by the fire of my jealous anger. Then will I purify the lips of the peoples
that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder.
It was appropriate that Melchezedek offer bread and wine/communion to Abraham...thus showing
Abraham to be blessed of God by covenant of promise. the Word of God come to Abram shortly after
communion with bread/wine from Melchezedek.and after this the 'word of God' come to Abram and
covenanted promised seed with him.
it is a preisthood of spirit..a heavenly preisthood......a house of communion and prayer in the spirit for all
men..it is of the kingdom of heaven..and not of this earth.A spirit has not flesh and blood..but the
Word of God did come in flesh. Flesh and blood can not inherit..but He poured out His spirit on all flesh
Quote from: eaglesway on February 06, 2013, 07:41:00 AM
Avatarism will be the trumpet of the anti-Christ.
Preach it brother!!
Quote from: Molly on February 06, 2013, 07:59:09 AM
Melchizedek only appears once in the Old Testament in person form. He gives Abraham communion.
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. [Gen 14]
Abraham gives him a tithe. Later, Paul will say that Abraham tithed for all the Levites who were in his loins with this tithe. He points out that this means Melchizedek is a higher priest than the Levites are because the lesser tithes to the greater and the greater blesses the lesser.
5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
--Heb 7
If this isn't Jesus, I don't know who he is. lol
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Heb 7
I think we are being shown that the priesthood to come is not one of Law (Levite), but one of eternal life. I have problems with Christ being an example of Himself unless He says it directly. In the same chapter it says: "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
(Heb 7:14-16)
I have no problem with the other (coming) priest being Christ, but for it to be 'another', IMO it cannot be the same thing. I have no problem with Mel being a metaphor for Christ, but to take it further would, again IMO, violate the spirit of fair reading.
Good point VB.We tread dangerously when we read into what may or may not be there :thumbsup:
It's a little strange that people sift through prophets of old to find the identity of some spiritually great person rather than accept such a one as himself. Like, "who are the 2 witnesses" discussion: other than what Jesus said the 2 witnesses are (the Father's miracles attesting to the words of the Son) or their being Joshua and Elisha typologically, how about a couple of original people out of the billions alive, not someone else come back to us? Another example to press this point would be of the 3 messengers of Rv 14 that seem to have planet-wide ministries. As the 1st messenger pertains to God's world-wide judgement, the 2nd the fall of Babylon and the 3rd the mark of the beast, why would they not be people for whom these are their times, the time on history's stage in which these judgements occur? They serve God in their own generation, the children of the era in which they are anointed to serve, the hour of God's judging, the fall of Babylon and the mark.
Why would it be controversial to think Melchizedek is Melchizedek? The old Rabbi's say he's Seth. Even though Seth died about 1,000 years before Abraham. It is recorded in Gn 56-8. Death is used in 5 ways in the N.T. I'm not sure how to discount scripture saying Set died; but, if a satisfactory explanation could be found, you could argue His entrance into immortality, a result of being born of God even in the physical, exempts his identity in Adam. Strictly speaking, since he has no mother or father (Hb 73,), and we know who Seth's parents are, he can't be Seth. Calling Melchizedek a Christophany doesn't exactly work either since he is said to be, "Picturing the Son of God." (Hb 73, CLV) The Son of God is not a picture of the Son of God. "Made like unto the Son of God" is how it is said in the KJV. He can't be like something he is, or made in the similitude of some other thing which he already is.
Speaking of Melchizedek we find: "...of whom it is witnessed that he liveth" is how the KJV puts Hb 78. CLV says: "...one of whom it is attested that he is living." The meaning from the Greek has the writer of Hebrews saying of himself that he is receiving as reliable witness the testimony that the same Melchizedek of 2,000 years previous to Jesus' is presently living at the time of the writing of Hebrews. Coming another 2,000 years into the future to our own time, I believe he is still interceding somewhere in the city of Jerusalem. While a few years ago it was said by the Chief of Police there that they had at least 11 Melchizedeks, that is not quite what is meant here in our discussion. Whether or not one of them is the real thing probably wouldn't lead to his discovery by mere searching anyway.
The closer we are to God, the more unique we are, and, simultaneously, the more we have in common with other people. The unmistakeable personalities of Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Jesus, Paul, or John are quite different from one another. Yet, they are identified with by almost anyone who reads their stories. As those with prominent healing ministries in the the 2th Century operated in ways very different from one another, or each vessel through whom God's inspiration flowed to write scripture are discernible individuals with unique modes of expression, so those of whom Jesus says, "Happen upon the resurrection" show distinctive aspects of incorruptible deathlessness emphasized in their manifestation.
Beautiful :cloud9:
Quote from: VineBranch on February 07, 2013, 06:30:27 AM
Quote from: Molly on February 06, 2013, 07:59:09 AM
Melchizedek only appears once in the Old Testament in person form. He gives Abraham communion.
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. [Gen 14]
Abraham gives him a tithe. Later, Paul will say that Abraham tithed for all the Levites who were in his loins with this tithe. He points out that this means Melchizedek is a higher priest than the Levites are because the lesser tithes to the greater and the greater blesses the lesser.
5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
--Heb 7
If this isn't Jesus, I don't know who he is. lol
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Heb 7
I think we are being shown that the priesthood to come is not one of Law (Levite), but one of eternal life. I have problems with Christ being an example of Himself unless He says it directly. In the same chapter it says: "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
(Heb 7:14-16)
I have no problem with the other (coming) priest being Christ, but for it to be 'another', IMO it cannot be the same thing. I have no problem with Mel being a metaphor for Christ, but to take it further would, again IMO, violate the spirit of fair reading.
well, let's put it this way, Jesus has pre-eminence in all things. If he is a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, this is not an office he would take that would make him lower than Melchizedek. We too are/will be the new priesthood, based not on lineage but on an indestructible life. But, Jesus will always be over us, as the first and the last.
For this reason, the first one with an indestructible life would have to be Jesus, by definition.
No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded." [Jn 10:18]
PS Yes Jesus is from the tribe of Judah, making him king as well as priest, as Melchizedek also, the King of Salem, the King of Peace.
"Salem"H8004
שׁלם
shâlêmshaw-lame'
The same as H8003;
peaceful; Shalem, an early name of Jerusalem: - Salem.
Quote from: ReformerThe Son of God is not a picture of the Son of God. "Made like unto the Son of God" is how it is said in the KJV. He can't be like something he is, or made in the similitude of some other thing which he already is.
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Heb 7
I believe it is written like this for our benefit. We, too, will look like this one day. Obviously, I do not believe Jesus is created. I believe he is the Creator. But, we are created. Likewise, all the sons of God are created, with the exception of the unique [only begotten] Son of God.
The description of the One in the fire with the three Hebrews is written in a similar way. He is 'like the Son of God.' Don't we consider that to be Jesus, rather than some random immortal wandering around earth who decided to jump into the fire with them?
23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
24 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt;
and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.--Dan 3
IMO, Since Melchizedek was without father or mother, no beginning or end of days, he is therefore uncreated. The only one uncreated (without beginning or end) was God. The Father never appears in the flesh, the Holy Spirit never appears in the flesh. I believe we are looking at God in the flesh, Jesus Christ. "Salem" was just short for Jerusalem "King of Salem" king of the Jews with the city of Jeru-salem...and Jesus, the "Prince of Peace" also for the King of Peace. Nobody is called the duke, earl or count of peace since only the royal family is called King and Prince (the son who is heir to all)
Just ramblin thoughts :Peace2: :2c:
I believe we are entering into uncreated life. When we are born of the Spirit of God that is by what our spirits are quickened. Our experience of "newness of life" is an experience without beginning or end. "Christ IN us [is] the hope of glory." We IN Christ are the glory revealed. In the Millennial Age of Tabernacles the young immortals will be trained as we enter on into God. This advancing Image of God is Christ of Whom we are members. We will continue progressing into our revealing through us of Him Whose Temple we are.
Quote from: reFORMer on February 08, 2013, 07:29:32 AM
I believe we are entering into uncreated life. When we are born of the Spirit of God that is by what our spirits are quickened. Our experience of "newness of life" is an experience without beginning or end. "Christ IN us [is] the hope of glory." We IN Christ are the glory revealed. In the Millennial Age of Tabernacles the young immortals will be trained as we enter on into God. This advancing Image of God is Christ of Whom we are members. We will continue progressing into our revealing through us of Him Whose Temple we are.
Heb 6:20 where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
A forerunner opening the way for many sons unto glory....everyone of them learning by, and perfected by, the sufferings they endure as His disciples.
If we suffer with Him we will also reign with Him
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ,
if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. (Rom 8:16-19)
oh yeah,and what if we find out 'you have been with me from the beginning" and before Abraham was ,I AM?
1 Jn 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
Quote from: sheila on February 08, 2013, 06:27:08 PM
oh yeah,and what if we find out 'you have been with me from the beginning" and before Abraham was ,I AM?
It's interesting you say that, because as I was writing a song a couple of weeks ago (the one I posted on Harmony's hi thread), when it came to the Holy Spirit's part He sort of told me what to write (that doesn't sound exactly right but again, hard to put into words, you know what I mean anyhow), and I wrote "we are one my love". And I went back to that afterward and tried to change it because it didn't sound right to me, but He wouldn't let me, He kept saying, "One with Him from the foundation of the world". And then later on some reading was made available to me (that I wasn't searching for) that confirmed it. I knew it was Him confirming it to me and after that I was ok with it lol. (Sometimes He needs to pound things into me before I'll believe it wholeheartedly. :mblush: )
yep, He's a GREAT TEACHER!!!!!
1 Peter 1:20
For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared(manifested) in these last times for the sake of you.
1 Pet. 1:1,2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
We are loved with the same love given to the Firstborn Son.
"The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. 24"Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
25"O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; 26and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them."
IMO we were one in Him before the foundation of the world
The male and female in the image of God in Gen 1 is speaking to this.
y ep...what GOD HAS JOINED TOGATHER...let no man put asunder[seperate ]
Quote from: Molly on February 07, 2013, 05:11:16 PM
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Heb 7
Guys ... if this offends anyone, I lay myself prostrate before you and beg your forgiveness.When I read the description in Genesis about Melchizedek, it is a short, matter of fact kind of description about two people meeting. There is nothing said of lineage, or what was going on before the encounter. Could it be, that the writer of Hebrews (maybe Paul, maybe not) was responding to the traditions and collected folk-wisdom which had accumulated in the roughly 14 hundred years since the recording of the event. That's almost one and a half millenia of additions and traditions. I had the same reaction to Nimrod. Where did we get all this information? Why isn't it recorded in the OT? Why is this only coming to light in the NT? I'm not from Missouri, but could you show me the stuff; if not is it Gnostic stuff? Should we be skeptical of information brought into view after the fact: in this case 18 hundred years after the fact and 14 hundred years after said fact was recorded? I am afraid I am equally skeptical about Mary Magdalene having been a lady of the evening: I don't see that proved anywhere either.
In for a penny, in for a Rand ... Here is what I read when I read about Abram and Melchizedek.
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. (Gen 14:18-20) KJV
To me, layman that I am, the sentence reads that Melchizedek (who has been the subject of the previous sentences regarding the two men) gave tithes to Abram. Abram was of the most high God, Melchizedek, was the priest of the most high God. Doesn't that mean Abram is actually greater than Melchizedek?
Perhaps a priest of the order of Mechizedek is a priest who actually gives TO the people, instead one who takes FROM the people.
Maybe this is what is being shown here.
VB, I know where you are coming from, but we are dealing with a basic, Christianity 101 concept here. The texts you want to ascribe to accumulated folk wisdom and/or folk tradition were (as I believe, at least) written under the direct inspiration and direction of one of the seven Spirits of God, commonly referred to as the Holy Spirit. I accept them as absolute truth - comments anyone?
Further, the text had to satisfy both literal/grammatical meaning and the underlying mathematical coding, resulting in occasional odd word choices. That occasional oddness is how Panin found the codes, and got converted. I understand the text to mean "And he (Abram) gave him (Melchizedek) tithes of all (the booty)." I try to keep things in a large context.
In case anyone is not connecting the dots, the "underlying mathematical coding" is the very reason I accept any and all Biblical texts as absolute truth - at least the original autographs, you understand.
As I see it, the scriptures are completely inspired, where the translation is completely authentic.
There are some things that require wisdom- the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of God. 1 Cor chapters 2 & 3 and 2 Cor 3 & 4 are so beautiful and clear on this.
I think we are only given what we are worthy TO WALK IN. We crave knowledge, for good reasons and bad- but the Teacher gives us what we are meant to WALK IN. "Wherever you set your foot that I will give you as a possession." The Israelites had to cast out the adversaries through faith before the ground became theirs, and the same is true with us.
Until the flesh is "driven out" by grace in the Spirit. Until the towers and strongholds that exalt themselves against "the true knowledge of God" are pulled down, this true knowledge being the "manifestation of Christ in you, the hope of glory, the divine nature, the fruit of the Spirit".
What we think we know is unknown to men around us until it "manifests". It is the demonstration of God's grace that convinces the soul, turns the naysayers around, etc. "The light shines i the darkness and the darkness cannot overcome it." "Light shies out of darkness to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."
In my opinion, the "manifestation" is the great mystery, the elusive "amen"- that we look for. God withholds it from the immature( I think we are all immature, forgive me if you will). The "keys of the kingdom" once given, will always(IMO) produce the will of God.
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
(Act 2:42-47)
I believe Abram was doing this. Proverbs 3;9 Honour the Lord with your wealth,with the firstfruits of
all your crops....and I believethat even unto this day....the seed of Abraham[faith] tithe firstfruits unto
a HIGH PREIST OF THE MOST HIGH LIKE UNTO MELCHEZEDEK.......
Rev 14;4 these were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits unto God and the Lamb...
We are the firstfruits, aren't we? A type of firstfruits, as Paul said, born from above in this age, before our time, before receiving our immortal bodies. Jesus, of course, is the firstfruits offering [the wave sheaf which the priest waves before the altar].[and he is also the high priest,] which we make to God through him, because it is impossible to please God without faith. The tithe is ourselves in Christ.
Abraham, also, gives this tithe to God by believing him and doing as he is asked, and it is counted to him for righteousness.
The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
Gen 12:1
10. "...Then you shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits/bikkurim of your harvest to the priest/kohen."
Lev. 23:11. "And he [the priest] shall wave the sheaf before YHWH, to be accepted for you..."
1 Peter 2:5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God--this is your spiritual act of worship.
--Rom 12:1
Quote from: VineBranch on February 09, 2013, 04:08:11 AM
Quote from: Molly on February 07, 2013, 05:11:16 PM
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Heb 7
Guys ... if this offends anyone, I lay myself prostrate before you and beg your forgiveness.
When I read the description in Genesis about Melchizedek, it is a short, matter of fact kind of description about two people meeting. There is nothing said of lineage, or what was going on before the encounter. Could it be, that the writer of Hebrews (maybe Paul, maybe not) was responding to the traditions and collected folk-wisdom which had accumulated in the roughly 14 hundred years since the recording of the event. That's almost one and a half millenia of additions and traditions. I had the same reaction to Nimrod. Where did we get all this information? Why isn't it recorded in the OT? Why is this only coming to light in the NT? I'm not from Missouri, but could you show me the stuff; if not is it Gnostic stuff? Should we be skeptical of information brought into view after the fact: in this case 18 hundred years after the fact and 14 hundred years after said fact was recorded? I am afraid I am equally skeptical about Mary Magdalene having been a lady of the evening: I don't see that proved anywhere either.
In for a penny, in for a Rand ... Here is what I read when I read about Abram and Melchizedek.
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. (Gen 14:18-20) KJV
To me, layman that I am, the sentence reads that Melchizedek (who has been the subject of the previous sentences regarding the two men) gave tithes to Abram. Abram was of the most high God, Melchizedek, was the priest of the most high God. Doesn't that mean Abram is actually greater than Melchizedek?
Perhaps a priest of the order of Mechizedek is a priest who actually gives TO the people, instead one who takes FROM the people.
Maybe this is what is being shown here.
Are you saying you don't believe the writer of Hebrews?
Priests don't give tithes, they receive tithes and give blessings in return.
Melchizedek also performs another priestly duty, he gives Abraham communion.
18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.--Gen 14
We know there is a Melchizedek. We meet him once in Genesis 14. We also know there is a priestly order of Melchizedek which is different than the Levite priesthood. We also know that priests of this order are priests forever and that Jesus is part of this order of priesthood [born both king and priest] as a forerunner for us. These priests are both king and priest like the Captain of their salvation, which is why Peter calls them a 'royal priesthood.'
So, Melchizedek is king and priest, who has established an order of priesthood based on an indestructible life. They are priests forever.
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.--Psalm 110:4
Interesting questions abound concerning Melchizedek. I hear confident statements, but the word does not always agree with them.
....a priest AFTER THE ORDER of Melchizedek.
This signifies the possibility of a pre-existing order into which Jesus was ordained.
Melchizedek was the king of Salem and the priest of the Most High God, having neither beginning of days nor end of days, having neither Father or Mother. Yet Jesus has a Mother and a geneology to which the scriptures pay great attention, and Hebrews says Melchizedek was MADE LIKE THE SON OF GOD(Heb 7:3)- indicating the possibility that he MAY NOT HAVE BEEN the Son of God.
SO, my point is, we ought not say, DON"T YOU BELIEVE HEBREWS?... when we really mean, "IF YOU DON"T SEE HEBREWS JUST LIKE I DO YOU DONT BELIEVE THE WORD".
It is just not fruitful.
Melchizedek is a heavy subject, by the writer of Hebrews own admission. IMO we ought not be so bold in our proclamations of personal revelation about it.
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 09, 2013, 05:13:02 AM
VB, I know where you are coming from, but we are dealing with a basic, Christianity 101 concept here. The texts you want to ascribe to accumulated folk wisdom and/or folk tradition were (as I believe, at least) written under the direct inspiration and direction of one of the seven Spirits of God, commonly referred to as the Holy Spirit. I accept them as absolute truth - comments anyone?
Further, the text had to satisfy both literal/grammatical meaning and the underlying mathematical coding, resulting in occasional odd word choices. That occasional oddness is how Panin found the codes, and got converted. I understand the text to mean "And he (Abram) gave him (Melchizedek) tithes of all (the booty)." I try to keep things in a large context.
In case anyone is not connecting the dots, the "underlying mathematical coding" is the very reason I accept any and all Biblical texts as absolute truth - at least the original autographs, you understand.
Basic Christianity 101 concepts? Like Hell, and the Eternal Torment of souls? That was taught to me as a basic Christian truth.After reading about Panin Laz I would certainly not claim him as my authority. IMO the man didn't convert to Christianity, he imposed some numeric Gnosticism on scripture. His notion of seven wasn't even borne out in his own vocabulary list. His list, he claimed had 5,304 words (not a multiple of 7). When I count the words on Strong's list, there are 5,523 words (a multiple of 7). I would love to compare the two lists, but unfortunately Panin's wasn't published, while Strong's has been available for yonks.
Patterns based on seven are there, but if you look you find that patterns based on lesser numbers occur even more often. Seven is of course a biblical number, so it can wow an audience interested in Revelations.
I remember when Michael Drosnin's books came out. I have a copy. IMO It is as spurious as Panin's.
Paul wrote to Timothy that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). I'm guessing that what he meant to say was that "The bible code which makes the scripture acceptable is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". I guess David should have written your word is an abacus to my feet.
You said "The texts you want to ascribe to accumulated folk wisdom and/or folk tradition were (as I believe, at least) written under the direct inspiration and direction of one of the seven Spirits of God, commonly referred to as the Holy Spirit. I accept them as absolute truth ..." I have friends who say exactly the same thing about their angle Moroni and the text he gave to Joseph Smith. interestingly enough if you read "The Testimony", March 2000, there is an article by Jack Robinson. He says you get the same repeating 7 pattern in the Book of Mormon.
You also said "Further, the text had to satisfy both literal/grammatical meaning and the underlying mathematical coding, resulting in occasional odd word choices." Could you provide some evidence that God needs some hidden arithmetical semblance in order to get His meaning across. So, the Bible is not for everyone then. It is only for those who can figure out the special hidden (note the word gnostic means hidden) meaning. Will these special people be called priests? Techno-mages perhaps. IMO Laz you've put the bible right back in the hands of the elite again. This circle is becoming old.
All of this was hard for me to read Laz, but not as hard as your last sentence: "In case anyone is not connecting the dots, the 'underlying mathematical coding' is the very reason I accept any and all Biblical texts as absolute truth - at least the original autographs, you understand". Thus, You don't think the Bible is true because God says it is.
You need to place a standard above God, arithmetic, in order for God's inspired book to be true. Congratulation Laz, you have truly stunned me.
Quote from: EW]SO, my point is, we ought not say, DON"T YOU BELIEVE HEBREWS?... when we really mean, "IF YOU DON"T SEE HEBREWS JUST LIKE I DO YOU DONT BELIEVE THE WORD".
Ok. Sorry. I"ll clarify my statement.
VB said,
"To me, layman that I am, the sentence reads that Melchizedek (who has been the subject of the previous sentences regarding the two men) gave tithes to Abram. "
Whereas, the writer of Hebrews said,
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; [Heb 7]
So, to me, that is not a question of interpretation, but rather plain English. The writer of Hebrews says that Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, not the other way around.
Now, as far as your statement,
QuoteMelchizedek was the king of Salem and the priest of the Most High God, having neither beginning of days nor end of days, having neither Father or Mother. Yet Jesus has a Mother and a geneology to which the scriptures pay great attention
i'll just say the same thing I said to my Catholic friend, who said to me, 'You mean Jesus existed before he was born in a manger?"
Yes.
If that's too bold, sorry. That's the way it stands. There are some circumstances when I can be bold, such as when I'm being factual.
So Jesus still qualifies as Melchizedek. I'm not saying you have to agree that he is.
But, consider, to this:
QuoteThis signifies the possibility of a pre-existing order into which Jesus was ordained.
I'll just say again, Jesus has pre-eminence in all things, which to me means he doesn't join things, he starts them.
And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.--Col 1:18
"preeminent"Superior to or notable above all others
Here's an example of how you can take a doctrine as beautiful as the Melchizedek priesthood, and distort it beyond all recognition by traditions of men--what's worse, going to eternal hell or never being allowed into heaven? It is up to Jesus where or how I end up, not some Mormon high priest:
"Smith came up with the priesthood authority line to give himself credence. Plain and simple. The following is an in-depth discussion of it that I wrote up a while back.
Mormons teach that in order to administer the ordinances of the Gospel, a person must have the priesthood of God.
Catholic and Orthodox sects teach that their authority comes through apostolic succession from the time of the Apostles who obtained their authority from Jesus himself. Protestant churches who split from the Catholic tradition trace their authority back through the same succession and another facet of Protestantism teaches that all in the body of Christ, i.e. all members of the protestant church, are part of the priesthood of all believers.
Mormons believe that they have the exclusive authority of God to act in his name on earth. They believe that soon after the deaths of the original apostles, the priesthood, or the authority of God, was lost and that after a complete apostasy from Jesus' church that a restoration of the Gospel was necessary. On the other side of the equation Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that they preserve Tradition. At the outset of the 18th century the Eastern Patriarchs said the following:
"We preserve the Doctrine of the Lord uncorrupted, and firmly adhere to the Faith He delivered to us, and keep it free from blemish and diminution, as a Royal Treasure, and a monument of great price, neither adding any thing, nor taking any thing from it."
Mormons also teach that unless a person is baptized by one holding proper authority, i.e. a priesthood holder in the Mormon Church, that person will not be able to enter heaven. Churches such as the Greek or Russian Orthodox Church are able to show their priesthood line back to the apostles. Churches that split off from the Orthodox or Roman Catholic are also able to show their priesthood pedigree. The Mormon Church has only the claim that their priesthood comes from Peter, James and John when the three supposedly visited Joseph Smith and bestowed it upon him. The Mormon priesthood is split into two main levels, the Aaronic or lesser priesthood and the Melchezedec or greater priesthood.
The Aaronic priesthood is divided into three levels; deacon, teacher and priest. When young Mormon boys reach the age of twelve they are ordained to the priesthood and become deacons in the church. At fourteen they are ordained to the office of a teacher and at sixteen they are ordained to the office of a priest. In order to baptize one must at least be a priest. However, Christ brought an end to the Aaronic priesthood.
The Melchezedec priesthood is also split into three levels; elder, seventy and High Priest. The office of an elder allows a person to officiate meetings in the church and also to confirm members of the church and bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost. The office of Seventy is basically defunct now but was an office of missionary work. The High Priest office is the office of officiation in the church. Bishops and higher officials in the church are High Priests.
This past weekend my family had dinner with another family in the process of leaving the LDS Church. While we were speaking the other father
mentioned that he had somewhat resented his priesthood office of elder. He is in his mid-forties and all of his friends are high priests.
As many here know, the LDS Melchizedek priesthood consists of several offices: elder, high priest, patriarch and apostle. In order to a be a bishop, bishop's counselor, stake president, stake president's counselor, stake high counselor, or high priest group leader or assistant, a man must be a high priest.
According to LDS Scripture and practice, all presiding offices of the church require the office of high priest (see DandC 107:10).
For many men, such as my friend, failure to become a high priest is a social stigma for several reasons. First, these men are not deemed qualified for presiding responsibilities. Second, they are forced to remain in elder's quorum meetings with younger men while their contemporaries meet separately. Third, they are seen by others as unfit for advancement.
This sort of stigma for a man is very difficult. The alleged Holy Priesthood of God becomes a class system.
But the basis of the need for high priests as a matter of theology is bogus, even in the LDS belief system.
Allegedly, God revealed to Joseph Smith God's requirement that any man who presides within the Church must hold the office of High Priest.
As a temple worker, I ordained countless men who were acting as proxy for the dead to the office of elder, not high priest. The office of elder is all that is needed to become a god, to preside over worlds, endless spirit children and endless priesthood.
So, on earth a man must be a high priest to preside, but in heaven a God need only be an elder. "
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_melchizedek_aaronic_priesthood.html
what I find hilarious about that article Molly is that the person writing it is comparing "their" hierarchy (protestant or catholic) to the mormon hierarchy, and using bloodline/passed down tradition as the basis for "their" heirarchy's legitimacy.
Neither heirarchy has any place in the body.
We are all priests with One high priest.
:2c:
Questions: Was God dealing with anyone directly before Abraham - other than those mentioned? Were there enough dealing directly with God that they would have a high priest? What about the rituals? Weren't they given much later? What function did the melchizidek priest have without the ritual and ceremony that came later? Is it possible Melchizedek was "like unto the son of God" because Christ was not yet born and this was a christophany just like with the three then four in the furnace? If God wanted to teach Abraham the tithing principle how else would he have done it? :dontknow:
Hey VB, gnostic means knowledge, not hidden. The term gnostic that you use implies hidden, but lexically it is the Greek word used for knowledge.
Paul speaks of the mystery. Jesus spoke in parables ONLY. Jesus said there are many more things I have to tell you.
IMO the Bible was not written for all... in this age (just as the prophets of old were given prophecy that was hidden from them, only to be revealed in Christ). Only to whom the Spirit draws, enlightens, reveals. The wisdom is hidden in a mystery. To most it is a dead book. And they are correct, for without the Spirit giving life to them it is. IT is foolishness to them that are perishing. God uses the foolish things to shame the wise.
:HeartThrob: :2c:
D2,
Also, notice what they are celebrating with communion--my body which was broken for you, my blood [of the new covenant] which was shed for you. That hasn't been manifested, yet.
There are no rituals that I know of associated with the Melchizedek priesthood, [other than a belief in Jesus, of course].
All those rules and regulations came after Mt. Sinai [the Law] with the institution of the Levite priesthood.
That's why I say that Moses was a type of Melchizedek priest, because, whereas his brother Aaron is spending hours preparing himself to minister before God in the tabernacle and if he touches anything unclean he has to start all over from scratch, Moses just stands there talking to God in his dirty sandals.
The same is true of the pre-Moses saints. They talked with God[Jesus] face to face.
RHM,
Yes and it makes you realize what people are saying when they say, If you are not a [fill in the denominational blank], you are not saved.
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 09, 2013, 03:27:56 PM
Hey VB, gnostic means knowledge, not hidden. The term gnostic that you use implies hidden, but lexically it is the Greek word used for knowledge.
Paul speaks of the mystery. Jesus spoke in parables ONLY. Jesus said there are many more things I have to tell you.
IMO the Bible was not written for all... in this age (just as the prophets of old were given prophecy that was hidden from them, only to be revealed in Christ). Only to whom the Spirit draws, enlightens, reveals. The wisdom is hidden in a mystery. To most it is a dead book. And they are correct, for without the Spirit giving life to them it is. IT is foolishness to them that are perishing. God uses the foolish things to shame the wise.
:HeartThrob: :2c:
Very nice. :dsunny:
Quote from: eaglesway on February 09, 2013, 05:51:20 AM
As I see it, the scriptures are completely inspired, where the translation is completely authentic.
I have Mormon friends who have told me that they believe in the Bible in as far as it is translated correctly. Unfortunately, what I have found is that people who hold that, find those things with which they disagree the improperly translated parts.
Quote from: VineBranch on February 09, 2013, 10:08:18 AM
Basic Christianity 101 concepts? Like Hell, and the Eternal Torment of souls? That was taught to me as a basic Christian truth.
After reading about Panin Laz I would certainly not claim him as my authority. IMO the man didn't convert to Christianity, he imposed some numeric Gnosticism on scripture. His notion of seven wasn't even borne out in his own vocabulary list. His list, he claimed had 5,304 words (not a multiple of 7). When I count the words on Strong's list, there are 5,523 words (a multiple of 7). I would love to compare the two lists, but unfortunately Panin's wasn't published, while Strong's has been available for yonks.
Patterns based on seven are there, but if you look you find that patterns based on lesser numbers occur even more often. Seven is of course a biblical number, so it can wow an audience interested in Revelations.
I remember when Michael Drosnin's books came out. I have a copy. IMO It is as spurious as Panin's.
Paul wrote to Timothy that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). I'm guessing that what he meant to say was that "The bible code which makes the scripture acceptable is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". I guess David should have written your word is an abacus to my feet.
You said "The texts you want to ascribe to accumulated folk wisdom and/or folk tradition were (as I believe, at least) written under the direct inspiration and direction of one of the seven Spirits of God, commonly referred to as the Holy Spirit. I accept them as absolute truth ..." I have friends who say exactly the same thing about their angle Moroni and the text he gave to Joseph Smith. interestingly enough if you read "The Testimony", March 2000, there is an article by Jack Robinson. He says you get the same repeating 7 pattern in the Book of Mormon.
You also said "Further, the text had to satisfy both literal/grammatical meaning and the underlying mathematical coding, resulting in occasional odd word choices." Could you provide some evidence that God needs some hidden arithmetical semblance in order to get His meaning across. So, the Bible is not for everyone then. It is only for those who can figure out the special hidden (note the word gnostic means hidden) meaning. Will these special people be called priests? Techno-mages perhaps. IMO Laz you've put the bible right back in the hands of the elite again. This circle is becoming old.
All of this was hard for me to read Laz, but not as hard as your last sentence: "In case anyone is not connecting the dots, the 'underlying mathematical coding' is the very reason I accept any and all Biblical texts as absolute truth - at least the original autographs, you understand". Thus, You don't think the Bible is true because God says it is. You need to place a standard above God, arithmetic, in order for God's inspired book to be true. Congratulation Laz, you have truly stunned me.
VB, you have hugely misunderstood what I said. You have added things which I did not refer to:
Drosnin
Gnostics
Mormons
Techno-mages
Further, you twist Holy Text to make a joke: "I guess David should have written your word is an abacus to my feet."
Then to put a cherry on top of it all, you accuse me of putting the authority of arithmetic over the authority of God. :eek: On the other hand, it seemed to me that you were putting the authority of "accumulated folk wisdom" over the same. I was trying to say [only!] that the same God who inspired the grammatical level of meaning also inspired a mathematical level of meaning. I was introduced to the work of Ivan Panin by Christians, and have gotten a lot of flak from non-believers on account of my support of Panin's thesis. It is hurtful to me to be flaked by a fellow believer.
QuoteIt is hurtful to me to be flaked by a fellow believer.
:HeartThrob:
I don't even know what "flaked" is. :dontknow:
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 09, 2013, 03:27:56 PM
Hey VB, gnostic means knowledge, not hidden. The term gnostic that you use implies hidden, but lexically it is the Greek word used for knowledge.
How the words are used in the context concerning religious/spiritual sentences.gnostic: possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
esoteric: private; secret; confidential. (of a philosophical doctrine or the like) intended to be revealed only to the initiates of a group.
It is knowledge hidden from the common, and revealed to the few.
Quote from: sheila on February 09, 2013, 06:35:59 AM
I believe Abram was doing this. Proverbs 3;9 Honour the Lord with your wealth,with the firstfruits of
all your crops....and I believethat even unto this day....the seed of Abraham[faith] tithe firstfruits unto
a HIGH PREIST OF THE MOST HIGH LIKE UNTO MELCHEZEDEK.......
Rev 14;4 these were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits unto God and the Lamb...
I'm sorry but I don't see the word 'MELCHEZEDEK' anywhere in Proverbs 3:9.
Quote from: Molly on February 09, 2013, 07:28:23 AM
Are you saying you don't believe the writer of Hebrews?
Priests don't give tithes, they receive tithes and give blessings in return.
Melchizedek also performs another priestly duty, he gives Abraham communion.
18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
--Gen 14
You don't think he could just have been expressing hospitality, and providing sustenance to a weary warrior and traveller?
What I am saying is that UR flies in the face of contemporary wisdom. It gainsays what has been established Christian belief for ages. People hang onto Hell and ET because they have been taught how to read the scripture in a way which conforms to the teachings and supposition of those who have gone before. Let not we, who have come to read The Bible in a clear way, become bogged down with suppositions and traditions of our own. We've gone past the traditions which make hell necessary. We did this by showing that the words which created hell, don't actually exist in the OT. We got rid of hell by a clear, straight forward reading of the text. We have gotten rid of those things which aren't supported by the OT text. The thing is, IMO we are trying to hang onto those things which are equally unsupported, because they are the unsupported things in which
we believe.
There is a lot of literature supporting hell out there. We read past it. Let's do the same for all unsupported readings, not just those with which we disagree.
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 09, 2013, 09:26:27 PM
I don't even know what "flaked" is. :dontknow:
Yeah, I doubts about that word, and I have a bad habit of making verbs. Think "flaked" as in "flak." You're right, it looks too much like "flake-d." Fail. My bad.
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 09, 2013, 08:01:25 PM
Then to put a cherry on top of it all, you accuse me of putting the authority of arithmetic over the authority of God.
Actually I accuse you of putting a standard above God: "You need to place a standard above God, arithmetic, in order for God's inspired book to be true."
I take it then you didn't say: "In case anyone is not connecting the dots, the 'underlying mathematical coding' is the very reason I accept any and all Biblical texts as absolute truth - at least the original autographs, you understand"? If those are not your exact words, then I am indeed sorry and deserve any and all censor you could inflict upon me.
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 09, 2013, 08:01:25 PM
On the other hand, it seemed to me that you were putting the authority of "accumulated folk wisdom" over the same.
Actually Laz. it was you who did that. May I refresh your memory. You said: ""The texts you want to ascribe to accumulated folk wisdom and/or folk tradition were (as I believe, at least) written under the direct inspiration and direction of one of the seven Spirits of God, commonly referred to as the Holy Spirit. I accept them as absolute truth ..."
I denigrated them. (twisting words?)
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 09, 2013, 08:01:25 PM
I was trying to say [only!] that the same God who inspired the grammatical level of meaning also inspired a mathematical level of meaning. I was introduced to the work of Ivan Panin by Christians, and have gotten a lot of flak from non-believers on account of my support of Panin's thesis. It is hurtful to me to be flaked by a fellow believer.
I'm sorry Laz, I don't know what flaked means in this context.
Are you saying you are hurt because I don't believe Panin is right, and make no bones about saying so?
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 09, 2013, 08:01:25 PM
VB, you have hugely misunderstood what I said. You have added things which I did not refer to:
Drosnin
Gnostics
Mormons
Techno-mages
Were this a debate, yes I would agree. But I have been told over and over again that this is discussion. Were I debating you, or cross examining you, yes, I would stick only to the issues you introduced. But from what I have seen thus far, this is a forum encouraging free-ranging discussion; topics, and areas or discourse don't seem to be limited on this site. Did I get the nature of this forum wrong?
VB, I took another look at your previous, previous post, and I think I misunderstood you. You said, "Could it be, that the writer of Hebrews (maybe Paul, maybe not) was responding to the traditions and collected folk-wisdom which had accumulated in the roughly 14 hundred years since the recording of the event." I think I missed the key phrase, "responding to," so I thought you meant the writer of Hebrews was using, not responding to, folk wisdom. Sorry!
As for my statement that you so took issue with, "In case anyone is not connecting the dots, the 'underlying mathematical coding' is the very reason I accept any and all Biblical texts as absolute truth - at least the original autographs, you understand?", keep in mind that I believe the same God who inspired the plain text, also inspired the coding. The plain text is sufficient for belief, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, but the coding clinches it. If I failed to stress that, again, sorry!
Finally, you began that previous, previous post with this:
"Guys ... if this offends anyone, I lay myself prostrate before you and beg your forgiveness."
That's a good start, and can we finish on that note? I don't want to react anymore... :friendstu:
Quote from: VineBranch on February 09, 2013, 10:23:23 PM
Quote from: Molly on February 09, 2013, 07:28:23 AM
Are you saying you don't believe the writer of Hebrews?
Priests don't give tithes, they receive tithes and give blessings in return.
Melchizedek also performs another priestly duty, he gives Abraham communion.
18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
--Gen 14
You don't think he could just have been expressing hospitality, and providing sustenance to a weary warrior and traveller?
What I am saying is that UR flies in the face of contemporary wisdom. It gainsays what has been established Christian belief for ages. People hang onto Hell and ET because they have been taught how to read the scripture in a way which conforms to the teachings and supposition of those who have gone before. Let not we, who have come to read The Bible in a clear way, become bogged down with suppositions and traditions of our own. We've gone past the traditions which make hell necessary. We did this by showing that the words which created hell, don't actually exist in the OT. We got rid of hell by a clear, straight forward reading of the text. We have gotten rid of those things which aren't supported by the OT text. The thing is, IMO we are trying to hang onto those things which are equally unsupported, because they are the unsupported things in which we believe.
There is a lot of literature supporting hell out there. We read past it. Let's do the same for all unsupported readings, not just those with which we disagree.
And, maybe Jesus was just expressing hospitality at the last supper?
QuoteLet not we, who have come to read The Bible in a clear way, become bogged down with suppositions and traditions of our own. We've gone past the traditions which make hell necessary.
I'm doing my best to read the Bible in a clear way. When an immortal being pops up offering bread and wine and taking tithes and giving blessings my head goes to the logical place.
I have no traditions. No church I have ever been in has even mentioned Melchizedek. I didn't see the name until I began reading the Bible for myself. And, the church I grew up in never mentioned Hell, so I don't have the issue with it that others here have. [But, maybe I should say that I believe 'hell' exists, just not ET.]
That said, I would never reject something just because it is tradition. Usually the church gets it right, IMO.
But, I remain confused.
Are you for some reason not believing the writer of Hebrews about Melchizedek? The writer of Hebrews says that Abraham gave a tithe to Melchizedek which is greater than the tithe given to the Levites and therefore Melchizedek was greater than the Levite priests--and, also, because the greater blesses the lesser.
4 Consider then how great this Melchizedek was. Even Abraham, the great patriarch of Israel, recognized this by giving him a tenth of what he had taken in battle. 5 Now the law of Moses required that the priests, who are descendants of Levi, must collect a tithe from the rest of the people of Israel,[a] who are also descendants of Abraham. 6 But Melchizedek, who was not a descendant of Levi, collected a tenth from Abraham. And Melchizedek placed a blessing upon Abraham, the one who had already received the promises of God. 7 And without question, the person who has the power to give a blessing is greater than the one who is blessed.
8 The priests who collect tithes are men who die, so Melchizedek is greater than they are, because we are told that he lives on. 9 In addition, we might even say that these Levites—the ones who collect the tithe—paid a tithe to Melchizedek when their ancestor Abraham paid a tithe to him. 10 For although Levi wasn't born yet, the seed from which he came was in Abraham's body when Melchizedek collected the tithe from him.
11 So if the priesthood of Levi, on which the law was based, could have achieved the perfection God intended, why did God need to establish a different priesthood, with a priest in the order of Melchizedek instead of the order of Levi and Aaron?
--Hebrews 7
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 09, 2013, 03:21:53 PM
Questions: Was God dealing with anyone directly before Abraham - other than those mentioned? Were there enough dealing directly with God that they would have a high priest? What about the rituals? Weren't they given much later? What function did the melchizidek priest have without the ritual and ceremony that came later? Is it possible Melchizedek was "like unto the son of God" because Christ was not yet born and this was a christophany just like with the three then four in the furnace? If God wanted to teach Abraham the tithing principle how else would he have done it? :dontknow:
We are looking into an age in which we have a few sentences about thousands of years. Maybe Abraham already knew Melchizedek. Maybe they spent a month together, maybe an hour. Maybe Abraham was led by the spirit.
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ;
that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Gal 3:14)
Receiving the promise of the Spirit is a primary focus of the New Covenant.
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
(Joh 16:7-8)
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
(Joh 7:38-39)
For
as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
(Rom 8:14-17)
We who are primarily intellectually driven assume that the Spirit was inactive among the prophets and the patriarchs, but this is far from true. IMO in the OT the Holy Spirit was only given to a few(holy men moved of God). Maybe Abraham and Melchizedek. Enoch, Noah, David...... In the New Testament, EVERYONE who is born of the Spirit is like the wind(according to Jesus Jn 3:8) and every child of God has the PROMISE of the fountain of living water AVAILABLE to them. This is the GOAL AND THE MEANS by which all the promises are fulfilled- the overflow of the Spirit.
But we do not see this. Why? IMO because we are carnal(intellectually driven, tree of knowledge eaters), meaning(in the Spirit) immature. Immature as to the Spirit. Born again but under tutors(laws) because Christ is not yet formed in us(Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you).
IMO ritual had nothing to do with the Melchizedek priesthood. Especially if he was a tetragramton. I don't think he was a tetragramaton, because of the distinction set between Jesus and Melchy in Hebrews- but I am by no means certain about that. However Peter ways in on this as well, saying that Jesus was "foreknown" before the foundation of the world, but "manifest in these last times for you". I don't think Jesus was manifest in the flesh before He was born of a virgin.
I think something people sometimes forget is that Jesus Christ is forever.
to God be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen. (Ephesians 3.21)
They keep forgetting his time on this earth as the man, Jesus Christ, comes in the middle of the story.
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. [Rev 1]
They forget that his professed desire and command was to make his chosen people a nation of priests.
and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel." [Exodus 19:6]
Maybe they don't realize that these priests will be an immortal priesthood, based on an indestructible life.
Revelation 1:6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father--to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
Maybe they don't realize that those who stood at the base of Mt Sinai, the twelve tribes of Israel, were the original church, the ecclesia, the called out ones.
This is he, that was in the church [ecclesia] in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us. [Acts 7:38]
Maybe they don't understand that a mortal man cannot be an adequate priest to an immortal God.
Therefore he is able, once and forever, to save those who come to God through him. He lives forever to intercede with God on their behalf. [Heb 7:5]
Maybe they are unaware that always in the background of this story is a loving God, working through the ages to achieve his purposes and desires, the salvation of all men.
1 John 2:1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.
Then when they meet the one called Melchizedek, they forget that only One could ever be called, King of Righteousness.
and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, King of Righteousness, and then he is also King of Salem, that is, King of Peace. [Heb 7:2]
16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. [Jer 23:6]
"But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom." (Heb. 1:8)
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 09, 2013, 11:47:24 PM
VB, I took another look at your previous, previous post, and I think I misunderstood you. You said, "Could it be, that the writer of Hebrews (maybe Paul, maybe not) was responding to the traditions and collected folk-wisdom which had accumulated in the roughly 14 hundred years since the recording of the event." I think I missed the key phrase, "responding to," so I thought you meant the writer of Hebrews was using, not responding to, folk wisdom. Sorry!
As for my statement that you so took issue with, "In case anyone is not connecting the dots, the 'underlying mathematical coding' is the very reason I accept any and all Biblical texts as absolute truth - at least the original autographs, you understand?", keep in mind that I believe the same God who inspired the plain text, also inspired the coding. The plain text is sufficient for belief, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, but the coding clinches it. If I failed to stress that, again, sorry!
Finally, you began that previous, previous post with this:
"Guys ... if this offends anyone, I lay myself prostrate before you and beg your forgiveness."
That's a good start, and can we finish on that note? I don't want to react anymore... :friendstu:
Yes. Laz, father, I am sorry.
I have offended you in trying to make a point. No point is worth offending someone. Only God is right; I have but opinions. I see but in a glass darkly. Yet I have offended you. That is inexcusable!
I beg your forgiveness. If you wish to impose a censure, I will submit to it. I shall write on this subject here now more.
Would that we all be as gracious as you are VineBranch :dsunny:
This what I know about Melchizedek
Gen 14:17 And the king of Sodom goeth out to meet him (after his turning back from the smiting of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings who are with him), unto the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's valley.
Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem hath brought out bread and wine, and he is priest of God Most High;
Gen 14:19 and he blesseth him, and saith, `Blessed is Abram to God Most High, possessing heaven and earth;
Gen 14:20 and blessed is God Most High, who hath delivered thine adversaries into thy hand;' and he giveth to him a tenth of all.
Psa 110:4 Jehovah hath sworn, and doth not repent, `Thou art a priest to the age, According to the order of Melchizedek.'
BDB Definition:
Melchizedek = "my king is Sedek".....Strong's...king of right;
What else do I "know" about Melchizedek? Is he important? I say yes.
VB, of course you are forgiven! We were twins in under-understanding and over-reacting. You are valuable to our forum, and appreciated. :friendstu: :friendstu: :friendstu: :friendstu: :friendstu:
Quote from: Molly on February 10, 2013, 03:13:40 PM
I think something people sometimes forget is that Jesus Christ is forever.
to God be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen. (Ephesians 3.21)
They keep forgetting his time on this earth as the man, Jesus Christ, comes in the middle of the story.
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. [Rev 1]
They forget that his professed desire and command was to make his chosen people a nation of priests.
and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel." [Exodus 19:6]
Maybe they don't realize that these priests will be an immortal priesthood, based on an indestructible life.
Revelation 1:6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father--to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
Maybe they don't realize that those who stood at the base of Mt Sinai, the twelve tribes of Israel, were the original church, the ecclesia, the called out ones.
This is he, that was in the church [ecclesia] in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us. [Acts 7:38]
Maybe they don't understand that a mortal man cannot be an adequate priest to an immortal God.
Therefore he is able, once and forever, to save those who come to God through him. He lives forever to intercede with God on their behalf. [Heb 7:5]
Maybe they are unaware that always in the background of this story is a loving God, working through the ages to achieve his purposes and desires, the salvation of all men.
1 John 2:1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.
Then when they meet the one called Melchizedek, they forget that only One could ever be called, King of Righteousness.
and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, King of Righteousness, and then he is also King of Salem, that is, King of Peace. [Heb 7:2]
16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. [Jer 23:6]
"But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom." (Heb. 1:8)
These are all excellent points and reasonings. My point has been that if we can't say, "This is what I see regarding Melchizedek"- and leave it at that, instead of teaching our perspective as if it is the only possibility regarding a mystery concerning which the writer felt the Hebrews were as yet unready to receive- maybe we are missing some other more important point. I think it is possible that there is more to the story than simply saying......Melchizedek was Jesus in some pre-birth incarnation.
For instance. If it was a tetragramaton of Jesus it had to be as an angel(the angel of the Lord), because Jesus could not possibly have been incarnated in the flesh previous to His virgin birth. IMO, that would undermine the entire gospel and about a dozem clear scriptures. Yet ask yourself...... Can an angel be a priest? The writer of Hebrews says "every priest chosen from among men"
For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins Heb 5:1
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he(the Father) that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. He 5:5
"Jesus' preisthood extends from His sonship as the only begotten of the Father. Our sonship extends from "adoption as ssons"- "born not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but (born) of God."
Unto which of the angels did He say, "Thou art my Son this day I have begotten thee".
When I ask questions and point out inconsistencies it is not to "invalidate" some elses view. If I think their view is incorrect I just say so. I just think their may be more to the story.
Some people don't understand that they don't have the answers to all questions and won't even look at some of them.Like...
1) what about what Peter said of Christ, "Who was foreknown from the foundation of the world but was manifested in these last times for you".
Was He foreknown and then manifested? or was He always manifested- as angels, tetragrammatons, burning bushes and such.
2) If the Melchezedek priesthood is an order, are there others in it? Why bother with the subterfuge in Hebrews if the answer is just....
"Melchizedek was Jesus"... because in my opinion there is nothing particularly challenging about this concept.
3) The "tetragrammaton" concept may be real, or it could just be a convenient construct for theologians who just don't want to accept that there are some things we have not yet been given to know. Personally, I would rather rely on Peter's clear statement that place to much weight on interpretation of obscure verses which the apostles themselves regarded as mysteries.
To me, the whole Melchizedek think is like the Genesis 6 thing. Good discussion, but makes for a poor debate- just not enough info given to establish empirical evidence.
Quote
1) what about what Peter said of Christ, "Who was foreknown from the foundation of the world but was manifested in these last times for you".
Was He foreknown and then manifested? or was He always manifested- as angels, tetragrammatons, burning bushes and such.
God, who at sundry times
and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers
--Heb 1:1
"divers manners"G4187
πολυτρόπως
polutropōspol-oot-rop'-oce
Adverb from a compound of G4183 and G5158;
in many ways, that is,
variously as to method or form: - in divers manners.
So this implies that God talked to the OT saints in many different forms, but now speaks to us only in one form, the Son of God.
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son [Heb 1]
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 10, 2013, 07:04:35 PM
VB, of course you are forgiven! We were twins in under-understanding and over-reacting. You are valuable to our forum, and appreciated. :friendstu: :friendstu: :friendstu: :friendstu: :friendstu:
You humble me sir! Thank you.
Quote from: Molly on February 10, 2013, 10:34:05 PM
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers
--Heb 1:1
"divers manners"
G4187
πολυτρόπως
polutropōs
pol-oot-rop'-oce
Adverb from a compound of G4183 and G5158; in many ways, that is, variously as to method or form: - in divers manners.
So this implies that God talked to the OT saints in many different forms, but now speaks to us only in one form, the Son of God.
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son [Heb 1]
On this we are in total agreement :o)
Quote from: Molly on February 10, 2013, 10:34:05 PM
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son [Heb 1]
In my estimation, the following is very important for an accurate understanding of the book of Hebrews. More literally the above phrase is: "...in the last of these days speaks to us
in a Son. This, "In a son" has no article. In Greek there are not several articles, no "a" son. There is either an article or there is none. With an article, "The Son" would apply to the specific Son, Jesus of history. Without the article, so the noun "son" is said to be "anarthous," as it is here, making it more generic. Scripture is saying this culminating, never to be superseded word God is now speaking to us is, "Regarding the category of sonship," or, that He, "...is speaking to us 'son-wise.'" Bringing many sons into glory, having a corporate, many-membered son, God's expression IN sonship is His ultimate revelation of Himself. "Beloved, now we are called 'sons of God' and it does not yet appear what we shall be; but, we know that when He appears, we shall appear with Him in Glory!"
1 John 3
1-3, CLV:
1 Perceive what manner of love the Father has given us, that we may be called children of God! And we are! Therefore the world does not know us, for it did not know Him.
2 Beloved, now are we children of God, and it was not as yet manifested what we shall be. We are aware that, if He should be manifested, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him according as He is.
3 And everyone who has this expectation in Him is purifying himself, according as He is pure.
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
(Heb 1:2-3)
Not sure I understand what you are saying. It appears to me that Only Jesus would qualify for "made the worlds"....and "upholding all things by the word of His power"......."when he had BY HIMSELF purged our sins".....
While the Tetragammatron is usually thought of as "the 4-letter name," many ancient rabbis used this appellation to refer to a superior being who's above the angels. I'm not sure if some of you were referring to this or not.
____________________________________________
Abraham knew God as El-Shaddai, but not by His great name Yahweh.
Exodus 61-3:
[1] The Yahweh said to Moshe, "Now you shall see what I will do to Par`oh, for by a strong hand he shall let them go, and by a strong hand he shall drive them out of his land." [2] Elohim spoke to Moshe, and said to him, "I am the Yahweh; [3] and I appeared to Avraham, to Yitzchak, and to Ya`akov, as El Shaddai; but by my name the Yahweh I was not known to them.
Melchizedek was Priest of El-Elyon.
Psalm 911: He who dwells in the secret place of Ha`Elyon Will rest in the shadow of Shaddai.
This secret and shadowy place where Shaddai and Elyon are made One is the place of the birthing of the sons.
Abraham and Melchizedek both understood the other to be of the same God. They were in agreement.
From then til the next appearance of El-Elyon it was about 1,000 years. It was in David and His Psalms (110) we find Him. It was another 1,000 years to the time of Jesus when The Most High (El-Elyon) overshadowed Mary so that Holy One born of her would be called the Son of God the Most High (El-Elyon.) And the out pouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was from on High (Elyon.)
QuoteFor instance. If it was a tetragramaton of Jesus it had to be as an angel(the angel of the Lord), because Jesus could not possibly have been incarnated in the flesh previous to His virgin birth. IMO, that would undermine the entire gospel and about a dozem clear scriptures. Yet ask yourself...... Can an angel be a priest? The writer of Hebrews says "every priest chosen from among men"
You say he could not possibly have been incarnated in flesh, but aren't there different kinds of flesh? What's going on with this story?
And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked,
and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.
7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
--Gen 18
Here there are 3 men and one of them is the Lord. Abraham recognizes him, rushes out to meet him, and prepares a feast, offers water to wash his feet, and talks with them while they eat. They have come to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Then the two leave towards Sodom and the Lord stays behind and talks to Abraham. In the next chapter, those two are called 'angels.'
Here is another place where Abraham meets Jesus in divers manners.
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."--John 8:56
If we called Melchizedek by his English name, would we have any trouble recognizing him? What if we said:
and the King of righteousness, the King of peace, brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. [Gen 14:18]
Would everyone still say, 'who is that'? I'm just asking.
Here we see Abraham bargaining with someone who is most assuredly the King of righteousness over saving the city for a few righteous men.
Abraham stood yet before the Lord.
23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26 And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:
28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.
29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.
30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.
31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.
32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.
33 And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.
--Gen 18
I can guarantee that he will give them justice quickly. But when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?" [Luke 18:8]
Molly, I noticed two interesting things in the verses you quoted in your last two posts.
First, the "three men" ate bread, milk, butter, and veal. Meat and milk at the same meal - a big violation of Kosher, but Kosher may be an imperfect image of God's Laws on food.
Second, this incident where Abraham runs out to the three men happened not too long after he had circumcised himself. Ouch! The man had fortitude.
Also milk and meat might have a spiritual interpretation, --good find!
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
--Heb 5
Quote from: reFORMer on February 11, 2013, 09:12:52 AM
While the Tetragammatron is usually thought of as "the 4-letter name," many ancient rabbis used this appellation to refer to a superior being who's above the angels. I'm not sure if some of you were referring to this or not.
____________________________________________
Abraham knew God as El-Shaddai, but not by His great name Yahweh.
Exodus 61-3:
[1] The Yahweh said to Moshe, "Now you shall see what I will do to Par`oh, for by a strong hand he shall let them go, and by a strong hand he shall drive them out of his land." [2] Elohim spoke to Moshe, and said to him, "I am the Yahweh; [3] and I appeared to Avraham, to Yitzchak, and to Ya`akov, as El Shaddai; but by my name the Yahweh I was not known to them.
Melchizedek was Priest of El-Elyon.
Psalm 911: He who dwells in the secret place of Ha`Elyon Will rest in the shadow of Shaddai.
This secret and shadowy place where Shaddai and Elyon are made One is the place of the birthing of the sons.
Abraham and Melchizedek both understood the other to be of the same God. They were in agreement.
From then til the next appearance of El-Elyon it was about 1,000 years. It was in David and His Psalms (110) we find Him. It was another 1,000 years to the time of Jesus when The Most High (El-Elyon) overshadowed Mary so that Holy One born of her would be called the Son of God the Most High (El-Elyon.) And the out pouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was from on High (Elyon.)
Perhaps so. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was directly thought Jesus Christ, so I guess you are making El-Elyon out to be Jesus?
Quote from: Molly on February 11, 2013, 12:57:50 PM
QuoteFor instance. If it was a tetragramaton of Jesus it had to be as an angel(the angel of the Lord), because Jesus could not possibly have been incarnated in the flesh previous to His virgin birth. IMO, that would undermine the entire gospel and about a dozem clear scriptures. Yet ask yourself...... Can an angel be a priest? The writer of Hebrews says "every priest chosen from among men"
You say he could not possibly have been incarnated in flesh, but aren't there different kinds of flesh? What's going on with this story?
And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.
7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
--Gen 18
Here there are 3 men and one of them is the Lord. Abraham recognizes him, rushes out to meet him, and prepares a feast, offers water to wash his feet, and talks with them while they eat. They have come to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Then the two leave towards Sodom and the Lord stays behind and talks to Abraham. In the next chapter, those two are called 'angels.'
Here is another place where Abraham meets Jesus in divers manners.
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
--John 8:56
I am just asking questions that require scriptural answers is all. I am not even claiming to have the answers. Peter says Jesus was foreknown from the foundation of the world, but was "
manifest in theses last days for you". John says the word was God, the word was with God, ad the word was "MADE FLESH". When? When He came forth from the womb of Mary.
I am not saying you are wrong, but when "the Lord" manifests in the OT is isnt always Jesus. The "angel of the Lord" is not always Jesus. God spoke in the first person through the angel of the Lord that stood on Balaam's way.
Then the LORD(YHWH) opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face. And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold,
I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me: (Num 22:31-32)
Was this angel of the Lord, Jesus? MAybe, but I don't think so.
He makes his angels/messengers winds(breaths).
The breath of the Lord. An angel/messenger is a breath, a composite thought, given personality and presence and personhood by the Lord. They are so open to the presence of YHWH, He comes right through. There are a few other examples of YHWH speaking through angels in first person but I don't hav the time or the inclination to look them up at this moment.
SO, was the "person" among the 3 persons Abraham called "my Lord" really Jesus? Maybe. Maybe not.
When John was met by a "messenger" of the Lord he fell down to worship...
And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen,
I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not:
for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
(Rev 22:8-9)
We think we know A LOT Of STUFF. I am not so sure about what we think we know :o)
Quote from: eagleswaySO, was the "person" among the 3 persons Abraham called "my Lord" really Jesus? Maybe. Maybe not.
The reason I think it has to be Jesus is
1) Abraham bows down to him and he doesn't correct Abraham like the angel in Rev does
2) It is at this time that he gives the promise to Abraham that he will bear a son
3) He is able to make life and death decisions about whether or not to destroy the cities
4) Abraham recognizes him and calls him Lord. Angels are not called Lord.
5) Abraham calls him 'the Judge of the whole earth.'
Quote from: eaglesway on February 12, 2013, 05:24:37 AM
Quote from: reFORMer on February 11, 2013, 09:12:52 AM
While the Tetragammatron is usually thought of as "the 4-letter name," many ancient rabbis used this appellation to refer to a superior being who's above the angels. I'm not sure if some of you were referring to this or not.
____________________________________________
Abraham knew God as El-Shaddai, but not by His great name Yahweh.
Exodus 61-3:
[1] The Yahweh said to Moshe, "Now you shall see what I will do to Par`oh, for by a strong hand he shall let them go, and by a strong hand he shall drive them out of his land." [2] Elohim spoke to Moshe, and said to him, "I am the Yahweh; [3] and I appeared to Avraham, to Yitzchak, and to Ya`akov, as El Shaddai; but by my name the Yahweh I was not known to them.
Melchizedek was Priest of El-Elyon.
Psalm 911: He who dwells in the secret place of Ha`Elyon Will rest in the shadow of Shaddai.
This secret and shadowy place where Shaddai and Elyon are made One is the place of the birthing of the sons.
Abraham and Melchizedek both understood the other to be of the same God. They were in agreement.
From then til the next appearance of El-Elyon it was about 1,000 years. It was in David and His Psalms (110) we find Him. It was another 1,000 years to the time of Jesus when The Most High (El-Elyon) overshadowed Mary so that Holy One born of her would be called the Son of God the Most High (El-Elyon.) And the out pouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was from on High (Elyon.)
Perhaps so. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was directly thought Jesus Christ, so I guess you are making El-Elyon out to be Jesus?
Isaiah (12:2) says, "Yahweh is become my Jesus (Yeshuah)." That the power of the Highest (ie., El-Elyon) overshadowed Mary to cause her pregnancy makes El-Elyon the Father of Jesus. Jesus is Yahweh manifested as flesh.
So Jesus impregnated Mary to bring forth Jesus?
Behold, God is my salvation(y'shuah); I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.
(Isa 12:2)
As to whether this was meant as a proper name, who knows? It occurs 77 times in the OT as salvation/deliverance.
Gen 49:18 I have waited for thy salvation,(H3444y'shuah) O LORD.
Quote from: eaglesway on February 12, 2013, 07:40:41 AM
So Jesus impregnated Mary to bring forth Jesus?
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of
the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1
35)
In this passage of scripture "The Highest" is El-Elyon. The usual translation for El-Elyon is "The Most High." This is who made Mary pregnant. The child she had was Yahweh manifesting as flesh. He was called, "Yah-shuah."
As I understand it, the family in the heavens is Elohim. The father is El-Elyon. The mother is El-Shaddai. The son is Yahweh. Spirit is feminine in Hebew and Greek, so it seems to be rather self defining in the Deity.
This is practically the briefest mention I can make of these things and still say something acceptable, though much additional information and many qualifying remarks need to be made; but, because it's past my bedtime and I have to extricate myself from cyber space,...brevity!
Ok, so the Son is YHWH eh? Interesting.
There are only three named men in the Bible who are given the title, son of God: Adam, Melchizedek, and Jesus. Are they men in the sense that we are? Maybe not quite.
Adam:
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. [Luke 3]
who was a pattern of the one to come. [Rom 5:14]
Melchizedek
Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever. Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! [Heb 7]
Jesus
He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life... Now there have been many of those [Levite] priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. Hebrews 7:13-16, 23-28
Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Quote from: reFORMer on February 12, 2013, 09:40:48 AM
The father is El-Elyon. The mother is El-Shaddai. The son is Yahweh. Spirit is feminine in Hebew and Greek, so it seems to be rather self defining in the Deity.
Could you say that one again slowly. Because a word is feminine in a language, the entity to which it refers is feminine? Both 'sailor' and 'farmer' in Latin are feminine.
Male=giver
female=reciever
God is the ultimate male. Every human receives all from him. That's why, earthly male and female, we are his bride. The manliest earthly man is a woman compared to God. As woman came out of man, we came out of God. :2c:
Quote from: anna274 on February 12, 2013, 04:19:03 PM
re: Maybe not quite.
Adam CREATED, not born
Melchizedek "LIKE" son of God , neither father nor mother
Jesus ONLY BEGOTTEN , Gal 4:4 born of a woman
So much yet to learn about these three men... I wonder is Melchizedek the physical representation (Gen 14) of the new man??
Adam is created as
the figure of him that was to come"figure"G5179
τύπος
tupos
too'-pos
From G5180;
a die (as struckthat is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler ("type"), that is,
a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning): - en- (ex-) ample, fashion, figure,
form, manner, pattern, print.
Melchizedek is the King of Salem. Where is Salem? Who is its King?
God is known in Judah; His name is great in Israel.
His abode has been established in Salem, his dwelling place in Zion.--Psa 76:1,2
Salem is Jeru-salem :2c:
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 12, 2013, 04:59:11 PM
Salem is Jeru-salem :2c:
Above or below?
It's only mentioned 4 times in our Bible. Three with reference to Melchizedek.
This is the fourth
In Judah is God known: his name is great in Israel.
2 In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.
3 There brake he the arrows of the bow, the shield, and the sword, and the battle. Selah.
--Psalm 76
I believe above since Jerusalem has been anything but a land of peace since it's inception.
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2013, 02:36:55 PM
There are only three named men in the Bible who are given the title, son of God: Adam, Melchizedek, and Jesus. Are they men in the sense that we are? Maybe not quite.
Adam:
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. [Luke 3]
who was a pattern of the one to come. [Rom 5:14]
Melchizedek
Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever. Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! [Heb 7]
Jesus
He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life... Now there have been many of those [Levite] priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. Hebrews 7:13-16, 23-28
Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Adam didnt live forever and he had a definite beginning of days. As our progenitor he was , "as we are", in Adam one and the same.
I am wary of anything that makes Adam or Jesus of "different raw material" than we are because Adams defeat is ours in Him and Jesus' victory is ours in Him- only two vines, we are in one or the other, sons of disobedience or sons of God.
This is why "as in Adam all die so also in Christ all will be made alive.
17 Therefore,
in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
This is the weakness that makes Him a sympathetic priest and a suitable go between.
Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and
declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.
This is the
indestructible life that validates Jesus' priesthood-
resurrection from the dead. No one else has that, nor was anyoe else born f the seed of David, another element of Jesus' sonship.
This is what makes Him the unique Son and the firstborn from among the dead so IMO Melchizedek, if he is Jesus, is some sort of tetragrammaton of the Word pre-incarnation.
Agreed...except Adam was different from us in that he was the only created human(not born of man or woman) AND he did not have (originally) sinful blood. - It may even have been identical to the blood of Jesus, coming directly from the Holy Spirit/Father.
A sci/fi film "The Omega Man" had Charlton Heston, being persecuted by "the living dead" as a virus(sin) killed the zombies off. Hestons blood was incorruptible concerning the deadly virus and he eventually found out that injecting his own blood into the living dead would "Raise them to walk in the newness of new life from his blood. In the end, he gives a jar of his blood to some he had rescued as the zombies killed him at a fountain while he was in the crucifixion pose. "There is a fountain filled with blood flowing from Immanuels veins, and sinners/zombies washed/transfused by this blood lose all their guilty stains/zombie attributes.
They had Will Smith do a remake but it didn't have nearly the symbolism. The remake was called, "I am Legend"
Quote from: ded2daworld on February 12, 2013, 08:02:49 PM
Agreed...except Adam was different from us in that he was the only created human(not born of man or woman) AND he did not have (originally) sinful blood. - It may even have been identical to the blood of Jesus, coming directly from the Holy Spirit/Father.
It is doubtful that Adam or Eve had blood as we know it, before the fall and curse. Adam called Eve bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. After man's redemption is finished, in the later chapters of the Revelation, again there is no mention of blood.
Exactly - none of us know what it is like NOT to have sinful Blood except Adam and Eve,
If they did NOT have blood they wouldn't have been human. Heaven- flesh and bone
Earth - flesh and blood -"the natural man"
IMO, Adam most definitely had blood from the beginning, and Jesus still has blood today.
I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
--1 Cor 15:50
1 Corinthians 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
I believe Adam was created marred, not perfect. If he was perfect he could not have "fallen". The man (male and female) in Gen 1 is the new man IMO. All of Genesis 1 is a prophecy, the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy. The 7 days of creation are the phases of growing up into the fullness of the head.
God called into darkness let there be light,and the light shined in our hearts. DAY 1.
Let us therefore enter into his rest. DAy 7
Or you could argue that Adam is the 8th day man, the circumcision, the first covenant man.
I'll create a new thread Anna.
Quote from: Lazarus Short on February 12, 2013, 08:08:58 PM
It is doubtful that Adam or Eve had blood as we know it, before the fall and curse. Adam called Eve bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. After man's redemption is finished, in the later chapters of the Revelation, again there is no mention of blood.
Laz, how would the oxygen circulate through their bodies? If they had no blood, why would God have needed to give them breath?
The English word spirit is from the Latin word spiritus meaning 'breath.'
Inspiration, a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify him or her to receive and communicate sacred revelation.
The breath of God is called the Holy Spirit--ruach [Hebrew] and pneuma [Greek].
The breath of God is the 'life-giving spirit.'
And because you belong to him, the power of the life-giving Spirit has freed you from the power of sin that leads to death -
--Rom 8:2
Instead of the blood being the life of the body, now, the Spirit is the life of the body.
Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
Quote from: redhotmagma on February 13, 2013, 03:00:52 AM
I believe Adam was created marred, not perfect. If he was perfect he could not have "fallen". The man (male and female) in Gen 1 is the new man IMO. All of Genesis 1 is a prophecy, the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy. The 7 days of creation are the phases of growing up into the fullness of the head.
God called into darkness let there be light,and the light shined in our hearts. DAY 1.
Let us therefore enter into his rest. DAy 7
I believe Adam was created free, and that was the mar. The mar is now becoming perfection, weakness becoming strength, as Adam cries out in Christ, nevertheless not my will but thine be done and the second Adam is overcomes the first.
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2013, 06:20:20 AM
Instead of the blood being the life of the body, now, the Spirit is the life of the body.
Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
I was actually talking about then.
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2013, 06:20:20 AM
The English word spirit is from the Latin word spiritus meaning 'breath.'
It also means,
breathing, soul, air, and life.
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2013, 06:20:20 AM
Instead of the blood being the life of the body, now, the Spirit is the life of the body.
Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
The blood of Jesus is made effective by the Spirit for certain, but the idea that there is no blood in Him, that He was resurrected bloodless, has no empirical scriptural backing. It is an interpretation and a subjective opinion- which doesnt make it wrong- It just shouldnt be presented as a fact.
Quote from: eaglesway on February 13, 2013, 06:49:10 AM
The blood of Jesus is made effective by the Spirit for certain, but the idea that there is no blood in Him, that He was resurrected bloodless, has no empirical scriptural backing. It is an interpretation and a subjective opinion- which doesnt make it wrong- It just shouldnt be presented as a fact.
I thought we were talking about Adam and Eve and the blood. I'm getting a pair or sneakers.
Quote from: eaglesway on February 13, 2013, 06:49:10 AM
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2013, 06:20:20 AM
Instead of the blood being the life of the body, now, the Spirit is the life of the body.
Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
The blood of Jesus is made effective by the Spirit for certain, but the idea that there is no blood in Him, that He was resurrected bloodless, has no empirical scriptural backing. It is an interpretation and a subjective opinion- which doesnt make it wrong- It just shouldnt be presented as a fact.
You're right. I went too far out on a limb with this. I'll just say:
Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
+
We are part of his flesh and of his bones
---------------------------------------
4
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.--Eph 5:30
Quote from: VineBranch on February 13, 2013, 08:24:44 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on February 13, 2013, 06:49:10 AM
The blood of Jesus is made effective by the Spirit for certain, but the idea that there is no blood in Him, that He was resurrected bloodless, has no empirical scriptural backing. It is an interpretation and a subjective opinion- which doesnt make it wrong- It just shouldnt be presented as a fact.
I thought we were talking about Adam and Eve and the blood. I'm getting a pair or sneakers.
You asked about the breath. Trying to answer your question.
Quote from: eaglesway on February 13, 2013, 06:49:10 AM
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2013, 06:20:20 AM
Instead of the blood being the life of the body, now, the Spirit is the life of the body.
Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
The blood of Jesus is made effective by the Spirit for certain, but the idea that there is no blood in Him, that He was resurrected bloodless, has no empirical scriptural backing. It is an interpretation and a subjective opinion- which doesnt make it wrong- It just shouldnt be presented as a fact.
Or again, he changes water to wine, wine to blood, and blood to Spirit.
The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.--1 Cor 45
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
1 Peter 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. [Jn 1:13]
James 1:18 He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
I guess my point is this ... if Adam wasn't flesh and blood, and he wasn't an air breather, then in some way he was not what I know to be human. If he was not human he cannot represent me or any other human as the first man. That's just the thought which brought me here.
Adam was certainly an air breather, for that's how he got the breath of life. As to flesh and blood, it is not proven, only guessed, that he lacked blood (as we know it) at the beginning. The Biblical account makes it clear that Adam was fully human.
red blood cells have no nuclear dna nor mitochondrial dna. It is a symbol of LIFE from the spirit and
not flesh. Blood is what He has made His atonement and sacrifice and covenant with. Jesus Blood was just
like ours. The Blood feeds and nourishes..flesh of my flesh. When sin entered Adam..his blood become
like that of a dead man...incapable of sustaining life eternally. due to no dna in red blood cells they can not
repair themselves. Bone marrow must make new ones...bone of my bone. A contentious wife[soul] is
decay in the very bones. A striken spirit is dryness to the bones..
He says...I will not contend with man forever..in that he is but flesh.
The covenant of blood/life is in mans heart........He placed the blood/life in our heart as a living sign....
He placed eternal life in our hearts.
A spirit hath not flesh and bones..however, the eternal spirit is a life-giving quickening spirit..that makes
that which is mortal put on immortality.
THERE'S POWER IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB
Quote from: VineBranch on February 13, 2013, 04:55:08 PM
I guess my point is this ... if Adam wasn't flesh and blood, and he wasn't an air breather, then in some way he was not what I know to be human. If he was not human he cannot represent me or any other human as the first man. That's just the thought which brought me here.
Maybe because you don't know who you are?
Please note the two different words--lambkin versus lamb
everyone whose name had not been written in the Book of Life belonging to the lamb that had been slaughtered since the foundation of the world.
--Rev 13:8
"lamb"G721
ἀρνίον
arnion
ar-nee'-on
Diminutive from G704;
a lambkin: - lamb.
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. Jn 1:29
"Lamb"G286
ἀμνός
amnos
am-nos'
Apparently a primary word;
a lamb: - lamb.
Now this word "Lamb" used in 1:29 is only used three more times in the New Testament. The other
occurrences are found in John 1:36, Acts 8:32 and 1 Peter 1:19. All the other 31 times where "lamb" is used
(thirty times in Revelation) the word does not refer to Jesus specifically, but possibly could by implication.
The Greek in all these other occurrences means "lambkin." In other words, the "lambkin" means a company or
group of lambs or a diminutive term for lamb. The many places where this occurs in the book of Revelation
causes a tremor in the normal interpretation of the book, but also enlivens the true meaning.
http://www.lighthouselibrary.com/pdf/WELLER,%20CHARLES%20W/LAMB%20OR%20LAMBKIN%20[Charles%20W.%20Weller]%20Year%201994.pdf
This is the book of
the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
---Gen 5
When he comes on that day, he will receive glory from his holy people--praise from all who believe. And this includes you, for you believed what we told you about him.--2 Thess 1:10
When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them "Mankind" when they were created.
A better translation IMO
Going back to the original question, "Why is Cain not listed in Adams descendent?"
Cain IS Adams descendent. He is Adams son and therefore a descendant. If you mean why didn't the Bible follow all the descendants of Adam until the flood, then there would be an incredibly boring section of the Bible. Just like the Bible says, "and Adam had many other sons and daughters." - those kids aren't mentioned either because it is only the line of Seth leading to Noah which is important. :2c:
Exactly. Roll it up. Done.