Why is Cain not listed in Adams descendent?

[VineBranch]

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.

[Lazarus Short]

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.

[eaglesway]

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)

[sheila]

   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...

[Molly]

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

[Molly]

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

[eaglesway]

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.

[VineBranch]

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.

[Molly]

]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,

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

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:

This 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

[Molly]

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

[redhotmagma]

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:

[ded2daworld]

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:

[redhotmagma]

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:

[Molly]

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.

[micah7:9]

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:

[VineBranch]

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.

[Lazarus Short]

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. 

[lomarah]

It is hurtful to me to be flaked by a fellow believer.  

:HeartThrob:

[ded2daworld]

I don't even know what "flaked" is. :dontknow:

[VineBranch]

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.

[VineBranch]

   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.

[VineBranch]

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.

[Lazarus Short]

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.

[VineBranch]

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.

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?)

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?

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?

[Lazarus Short]

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: