|
Author
|
Topic: Who was Melchizedek
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
oneyearandcounting,
Right. And the reason for this is-
They do not know the truth. So they worshipped the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
And for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections.
It did not stop here. They changed even their own natural affections.
Until you have someone like Lot married to his own offspring.
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
oneyearandcounting
Advanced Member
Member # 4449
|
posted
AMH
If My very limited knowlege serves me correct. Don't some people who call themselves Christians already worship certain angels?
By this I mean the RCC. SO TO ansewr your question yes I guess some will worship even the angels that are in the Bible.
God bless
greg
--------------------
Acts9:18 And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized.
Posts: 183 | From: winder Ga | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
oneyearandcounting,
If we worship Melchizedek then would we expect to be put out of the Church as just another cult?
Or how about those incarnate angels that pop in and out of Scripture. Should we worship these also?
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneyearandcounting
Advanced Member
Member # 4449
|
posted
AMH
Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. I had to go check the scripture to see if Melchizedek died for my sins. After reviewing the scripture the verdict is he did not. There for I do not worship him.
God bless
greg
--------------------
Acts9:18 And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized.
Posts: 183 | From: winder Ga | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
For all those who say “Melchizedek is none other than Christ incarnate”,
I have three plus witnesses whose actions say that he was not-
Abraham was in his presences but Abraham never falls down and worships Melchizedek. Abraham only gives Melchizedek money, (Christ needs money).
The Psalmist never worships Melchizedek; he only compares him to the Son.
The writer of Hebrews only compares Melchizedek to Christ; he never commands we worship him.
And finally-
I don’t see any of you worshipping Melchizedek. What is wrong?
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
HisGrace,
Retract what?
Don’t you become suspicious when someone wants to take something from you?
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by AMH:
HisGrace,
Do not sell your self short.
The King James says that not only do we believers have a stake in the Priesthood; Christ has also made us kings, (just like Melchizedek).AMH
quote:
Since you do not want it, may I have your crown
Are you retracting from the above statements with this AMH -
"Crowns are fit only for kings."
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
HisGrace,
Crowns are fit only for kings.
Some trade, “My kingdom for a horse.”
Others a bowl of pottage
To halt “Stars in their course.”
Strike only words from happy cottage
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by AMH:
HisGrace,
Since you do not want it, may I have your crown?
AMH
AMH, nothing personal, but I consulted the Bible and the scriptures are telling me to keep it ![[thumbsup2]](graemlins/thumbsup2.gif) Sorry.
Revelation 3:11 (KJV)
Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
HisGrace,
Since you do not want it, may I have your crown?
(And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. Luke 16:8)
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
(She stays quietly in the safety of the cave and hopes they cant see the little light of the candle - it is better this way - some some people should keep their mouths shut when they are tired because they often end up with their feet in their if they dont when they are tired and punchy) ![[zzzzzz]](graemlins/20.gif)
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
Sorry HFHS - It is AMH who I think is being a bit petty.
IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
I dont think the probelm is you. I never said you quoted anything. I thought you were asking about where it says we are Kings... the only scripture I know of are these so I thought perhaps they were what AMH was refering to when he said "The King James says that not only do we believers have a stake in the Priesthood; Christ has also made us kings, (just like Melchizedek)."
Sorry I thought I was being helpful; it seemed that you thought it was in Peter and couldnt find it.
(She now crawls back into her cave, lights a candle opens her Bible and minds her own business!)
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
I never quoted Rev. 5:10. Anyway the NLT says -
And you have caused them to become God's Kingdom and his priests. And they will reign on the earth.
Looks very kingly to me. Rev. 1:6 mentions the kingdom as well. I don't think I have to be too concerned about selling myself short.
Anyway I am starting to feel kind of silly trying to clarify such pettiness.
IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
I believe that AMH refers to Rev 1:6 & 5:10.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by AMH:
HisGrace,
Do not sell your self short.
The King James says that not only do we believers have a stake in the Priesthood; Christ has also made us kings, (just like Melchizedek).AMH
My version said Royal Priesthood. You can't get any more kingly than that.
BTW AMH I just checked 1 Peter 2:9, KJV, which includes us, and it doesn't say anything about kings.
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light (KJV)
IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
HisGrace,
Do not sell your self short.
The King James says that not only do we believers have a stake in the Priesthood; Christ has also made us kings, (just like Melchizedek).
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by AMH:
HisGrace,The King James has more to offer.
AMH
King James is most popular and I use it a lot, but I often refer to biblegateway.com and use the version which is most clearly descriptive to me.
IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
helpforhomeschoolers,
Maybe some time we will do that. I find you a most pleasant correspondent.
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Well that is most gracious of you. If we cant tie it into this discussion then we should not discuss it here. I would like to know your thoughts should you chose to start a thread I think that there is a great amount of things that could be studied with regard to Lot. I would certainly listen.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
helpforhomeschoolers,
But this thread was started by HisGrace and was intended to be about Melchizedek. HisGrace already asked me to stop on another topic. The subject of Lot will lead us, for a time, far away from what HisGrace wanted.
My apologies, (I should not have mentioned it).
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Well are ya gonna tell me? Or just keep me in suspense? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
helpforhomeschoolers,
You are game. I like that.
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Ok Ill bite, so why do you disagree that lot was just? I am confused?
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
HisGrace,
The King James has more to offer.
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
helpforhomeshcoolers,
But some of us are very much aware of it.
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
2 Peter 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
A lot of people are unaware that the Bible calls Lot Just.
Just is the word :
1342 dikaiov dikaios dik’-ah-yos
V-righteous 41, just 33, right 5, meet 2; 81
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
Thanks HFHS!
quote:
Originally posted by AMH:
HisGrace,
If we extend Exodus 19:6 into the New Testament we can find fulfillment.
Revelation 1:6 (But sadly there are those today that give up on this one also.)AMH
Rev.1:6 To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 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.
Wow - through Jesus we can be part of the royal priesthood!
1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
helpforhomeshcoolers,
1
Who were Abraham’s enemies is something important to identify-
What forced Abraham to go to Egypt was not a lack of provisions but a lack of faith.
When Abraham went down to Egypt he thought that Pharaoh was the enemy, but it was Abraham’s lying tougue.
That Isaac had to endure persecution by his half brother was Abraham’s fault.
(Those rascal kings up north could not handle Abraham; he was way to strong for them.)
2
Support for Sodom’s confidence. You sort of touch on the proof yourself-
You write later that maybe the confederates were getting to strong.
Also the Word clearly gives the reasons for the final destruction of Sodom, it centers on pride. They thought that they had a bullet proof vest after Abraham “saved” them.
Lot became a big man in Sodom after that. They placed him in the gate of the city. Abraham’s own nephew. Father Abraham will protect us. (Sounds a little like a Pharisee prayer.)
3
As stated earlier-
Abraham, (through God’s power) was way to strong for them.
4
That Lot was just is certainly a point where we differ.
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
HisGrace,
If we extend Exodus 19:6 into the New Testament we can find fulfillment.
Revelation 1:6 (But sadly there are those today that give up on this one also.)
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
I hate to be a grinch, HFHS, but it would be nice to let us know who you are addressing whenever you make quotes.
![[hug]](graemlins/hug.gif)
IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Thanks I was lost for a moment there.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
quote:
AMH Posted:Before we jump to the New Testament is it possible for us to be sure about whether Abraham was acting in accordance with the will of God in the matter of delivering Sodom’s inhabitants? (There are several instances where Abraham neglected to follow clear instructions.)
Abraham had to hurry if he was to overtake Lot’s captors before they made it back to their stronghold. Instead of first praying the record says that he armed and began to pursue. (I cannot find one place in the Bible where the Father ever got in a hurry. The big complaint is always-“How long oh Lord?”)
Ok, This seems a logical argument or perhaps proposition is there a scriptural answer?
Was Abram acting in God's will?
Gensis 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.
Genesis 15:1 ¶ After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
These things would seem to me that Abram had pleased God and also the very fact that Melchizedek came to meet him and brought bread and wine and blessing.
quote:
AMH Posted: When he got done no outsider was willing to try invasion again. The people of Sodom believed this so much that they became even more wicked, resting in the fact that their enemies were frozen by fear.
I had not thought about this, but do you find support for this in the scripture? Where do we find that Sodom's enemies were frozen in fear? And as to the people of Sodom becoming more wicked because they had been brought back... I cant see the connection. Sodom would not have been like Israel where God or even like Egypt and Ethiopia where the Prophets of God warned them to repent of their wickedness or be handed over in judgement would they? I dont recall any prophet ever sent to warn the people of Sodom to repent. Even whent he angels came to destroy it they went to Lot and told Lot to go to his family, but I dont see any prophets being sent to warn Sodom of coming judgment. So, I dont see that they would have on their own seen their invasion and captivity as judgment and so I cant see that they would have seen their liberation as license to become more wicked. It is very possible that I have missed something though. What do you base this thought on?
quote:
AMH Posted: Why didn’t Abraham get Lot and let the rest alone, (Abraham had no interest except for Lot)? He could have even waited until the enemies of Sodom made it back to their stronghold and then opened diplomatic relations and bartered for Lot’s release.
Good question. Melchizedek says that Abram's enemies were given over to his hand. I actually think that GOD used Abram to bring judgment to Chedorlaomer and his confederates who ws becoming too powerful.
Abraham is living in the land of an Amorite Chief and We have a Babylonian King, an Assyrian King, and an Elamite King who have just marched through the lands of the all these other kings, I think that I counted 13 different peoples including some Amorites and so God just allowed Abram to come against him and not get too haughty.
quote:
AMH Posted: There were many possibilities. (Hind sight is 20 20 but come on. Abraham had to know how bad Sodom was. It was no place for nieces and nephews. Because of Abraham’s actions his own kin were placed right back in the evil. This just cannot be describe as deliverance.)
I dont know if this should go with the portion above or here, but if I think of this scene allegorically and not just literally, then I would also say that it comes to mind that the same rain does fall on the just and the unjust in this way the unjust also receive blessing.
Abram went for Lot the Just Lot, but he did bring back the unjust as well. As to handing them over to the King of Sodom, they were his people. I dont know what else to say in that regard, but some gained from what abram did. Also it was Lot's choice to live in Sodom, and I suspect that Sodom was a better place because of it because one just person living among the unjust is better than no just people living among them as the rain does fall on the unjust when God sends it to the just. And we know from the rest of Lot's story that God is able to preserve HIS own in the midst of the wicked.
I dont think that all the details have to be there for a type or an allegory to be seen literally... I think that the example that I gave when we were disagreeing on Mordecai was an example of Moses.... in whom we see a type of Christ... a picture of God's salvation.... But Moses is no Christ. Moses was a murderer!
Again, I am not saying that I have a handle on this or stamping my feet that this is the way it is... it is just what I see. I dont see that it is so much about deliverance as it is about the moving of spoil from one kingdom to another. About what Abram tithed, about what Abram used and where it came from and where it was left in the end. About economies if you will and of course about the King of Salem.
The kings here are really something to see
Melchizedek the King of Righteousness & Peace
The King of Sodom - The King of Burning
The King of Gomorah - Birsha - Son of Wickedness
Chedorlaomer is today believed to be Hammurabi who united Babylonia
I have a feeling you could study this chapter for a long time and not get all there is to get here. There is a of attention to detail in this story for instance it was armed trained servants born in his own house that Abram took with him.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by helpforhomeschoolers:
But the people were of all 12 of the tribes???
AMH was referring to the priests only as in Exodus. 19:6
IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
But the people were of all 12 of the tribes???
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by AMH: HisGrace,
I find the premise of author Steven Sweetman to be faulty. Originally Israel was to be a nation of priests, (check out Exodus 19:6). Because of a lack of faith it fell to the Levites. AMH
The Levites were desendants of Levi, one of the Tribes of Israel, Moses himself was a Levite. Exodus 19:6 would be referring to the Levite priests. Speaking to Moses, "And you will be to me a kingdom of priests, my holy nation."
Exodus 2: 1-4 Now a man of the house of Levi married a Levite woman, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. When she saw that he was a fine child, she hid him for three months.
But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then she placed the child in it and put it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile. His sister stood at a distance to see what would happen to him.
IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
HisGrace,
I find the premise of author Steven Sweetman to be faulty. Originally Israel was to be a nation of priests, (check out Exodus 19:6). Because of a lack of faith it fell to the Levites.
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
helforhomeschoolers,
(We all have our good days and our bad.)
Before we jump to the New Testament is it possible for us to be sure about whether Abraham was acting in accordance with the will of God in the matter of delivering Sodom’s inhabitants? (There are several instances where Abraham neglected to follow clear instructions.)
Abraham had to hurry if he was to overtake Lot’s captors before they made it back to their stronghold. Instead of first praying the record says that he armed and began to pursue. (I cannot find one place in the Bible where the Father ever got in a hurry. The big complaint is always-“How long oh Lord?”)
The natural course of events would have been for Sodom to go into captivity. Abraham thwarted this. When he got done no outsider was willing to try invasion again. The people of Sodom believed this so much that they became even more wicked, resting in the fact that their enemies were frozen by fear.
Why didn’t Abraham get Lot and let the rest alone, (Abraham had no interest except for Lot)? He could have even waited until the enemies of Sodom made it back to their stronghold and then opened diplomatic relations and bartered for Lot’s release.
There were many possibilities. (Hind sight is 20 20 but come on. Abraham had to know how bad Sodom was. It was no place for nieces and nephews. Because of Abraham’s actions his own kin were placed right back in the evil. This just cannot be describe as deliverance.)
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by oneyearandcounting:
AMH, Ok I see what you are saying but with what scripture says about Melchizedek is it such a reach to say that he was Christ before the cross.
Don't get me wrong I'm not hung up on the idea and if someone was to show me why I am wrong then so be it I'm wrong. It's just something that very early in my Christian walk after doing a study on Melchezedec I have come to believe.
But we do know that God was on earth in the flesh at least one other time.
But I also must agree with you if we go to far with traditions we are in the same boat as the RCC and the Jews of the world.
Jesus Like Melchizedek Hebrews 7:11-28)
Before we go any farther we should review the three different priesthood’s the writer has been and still is talking about. First of all you have the priesthood of Melchizedek who lived during the time of Abraham. Then you have the Levitical Priesthood which was during the time of Moses and following. Then lastly, you have the priesthood of Jesus. Here in verse 11 we note that if "perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood … why was there still need for another priest to come". The Priest to come is referring to Jesus, and is compared to the Melchizedek priesthood. Jesus’ priesthood has nothing to do with the Levitical priesthood.
Verse 12 tells us that "when there is a change in the priesthood, there must be a change in the Law". What does this mean? The Old Testament Law said that only the descendents of Levi could be priests. No one from another tribe could be a priest. So if you were going to allow someone other than a Levite to be a priest, you would obviously need to make a new law that would allow this to happen.
The writer goes on to say that Jesus was not a descendent of Levi but of Judah. Therefore by rights, He could not be a priest in the Levitical system anyway.
Jesus would have to be a priest under a whole new system. He did not become a priest because He was born into a particular family. His priesthood is like Melchizedek’s because both He and Melchizedek’s priesthood "was on the basis of the power of an indestructible life" (ch. 7:17) This means that both Jesus and Melchizedek had no beginning and no end. It was for this reason that both could become priests under a different system than the Old Testament Law required.
This discussion is pointing out the weakness of the Old Testament Law. It is so weak that the writer in verse 18 says that the "former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless". The writer goes on to say that "the Law could make nothing perfect", that is why it is weak.
In verse 19 the writer speaks of "a better hope". The Law has not been laid aside without something else taking its place. Of course we know what that something else is.
The Law has been replaced by Jesus. We see this clearly in Rom. 10:4 where Paul says that "Christ is the end of the Law". The Levitical priests became priests because they were born into the family of Levi. Yet Jesus became a priest due to an oath, due to a covenant that God made with Himself. The writer quotes a Psalm where God’s covenant is stated. "The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind: you are a priest forever" He is clearly talking about Jesus here. God has covenanted with Himself to make Jesus a priest forever.
Verse 22 says this clearly. "Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant". You see God gave the Law to Moses. It was a covenant, but now there is a better covenant that has replaced the Law of Moses. This covenant is seen in the above Psalm. God decided to make a new priesthood of which Jesus is the one and only priest forever. This covenant far outweighs the Mosaic covenant.
In verses 23 to 25 the writer makes the point that the Levitical priests died and had to be replaced. Yet with Jesus, He never dies. He doesn’t have to be replaced. This makes Jesus a much better priest. He sits beside God constantly interceding for us.
In verse 25 he says that Jesus "is able to save completely those who come to God through Him". Jesus and only Jesus can save us completely. Only His sacrifice can make us perfect in God’s eyes.
From verse 26 to the end of this chapter the writer compares Jesus to the high priest of the Levitcal system. It says that Jesus is "holy, blameless and pure, set apart from sinners, is exalted above the heavens". When comparing Jesus with the traditional high priest, there just isn’t any comparison. The high priests that the Jews were used to had to offer sacrifices over and over again, not only for the people but for themselves as well. Jesus does not have to offer such sacrifices over and over again. He offered Himself as a sacrifice once and for all. There are no other sacrifices to be made, not even one. Besides, Jesus did not have to offer His sacrifice for Himself since He is perfect.
Verse 28 speaks of God’s covenant that came after the Law of Moses. We often think of God’s covenant that was made in Abraham’s day, but this can’t be what is being talked about here since the writer says that the covenant that makes Jesus a priest forever came after Moses. It is possible that this oath was made in David’s day since it is recorded in the Psalms? Or it is possible that this oath was an eternal oath that God made before creation but merely proclaimed in David’s day?
About Jesus - By Steve Sweetman
IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
If and when I am it is because He is living in me and I am hid in him; if in when I am not it is because I have walked out of the Spirit and into the Flesh. I think that this is true of all of us. Amen?
Praise God for HIS love and Mercy on us humans!
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
helpforhomeschoolers,
You are helpful and kind, like Christ.
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
quote:
helpforhomeschoolers,
Even though we have had words, I would discuss your last post.
I am having a hard time accepting what you write. (Not for the sake of argument.) It just does not add up, (to me).
Abraham is a picture of the Father. That he would so willingly turn souls over after saving them is hard to accept, (do you see what I am saying).
It could be that I am totally off base here. But I believe that the Spirit showed me this in realtion to the very subject of tithing and tribute and some of the things that we have been discussing here.
It could be that we have different thoughts about election predestination etc that cause us to see things differently.
I do see what you are saying about abram (Not yet Abraham) handing over the souls to the King of Sodom.
I would say that the reason that is not a problem with me is that I see this:
There are some in the world that are not wheat; They are planted by the enemy. These are the tares.
I see here in this parable that some are reaped from where HE did not sow; but they have been given opportunity to be blessed by blessing Abraham's seed...
Matthew 25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
I see that there are some that no matter what happens will not come into the reign of the King of Righteousness - they are not like Lot having a familial relationship to Abraham, and they are not part of the Tithes that Abram gave to Melchizedek either.
2 Peter 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
************************************************
On the other note: I see that Melchizedek is Christ before Jesus was manifest - Like the Rock was Christ... Jesus is begotten - has a Father - and a beginning - Christ is Alpha and Omega.
I believe that this speaks of this meeting:
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Before Abram was Abraham - I am Christ says the Son of Man who is the manifest Son of the Living God, who walks the earth in the image of sinful flesh and now having ascended appears to John... like unto the SON of Man, but having feet of fine polished brass and eyes of flaming fire.... the Alpha and Omega. Without beginning of days or end of life.
Christ appeared to John as one like unto the Son of Man. Christ appeared to Abram as One Like unto the Son of God.
As to the Wine and the Bread that Melchizedek brought - Did Christ not bring the NEW Wine and the Bread of Life which would Bless Abraham and all his house?
Those are my thoughts for what they are worth.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneyearandcounting
Advanced Member
Member # 4449
|
posted
AMH
Very true and amen.
God bless
greg
--------------------
Acts9:18 And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized.
Posts: 183 | From: winder Ga | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
oneyearandcounting,
Let us so live our lives that if someone did not know better they would think that there goes Christ.
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneyearandcounting
Advanced Member
Member # 4449
|
posted
AMH,
Ok I see what you are saying but with what scripture says about Melchizedek is it such a reach to say that he was Christ before the cross.
Don't get me wrong I'm not hung up on the idea and if someone was to show me why I am wrong then so be it I'm wrong. It's just something that very early in my Christian walk after doing a study on Melchezedec I have come to believe.
But we do know that God was on earth in the flesh at least one other time.
But I also must agree with you if we go to far with traditions we are in the same boat as the RCC and the Jews of the world.
God bles
greg
--------------------
Acts9:18 And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized.
Posts: 183 | From: winder Ga | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
oneyearandcounting,
Thanks for your gracious response.
In answer-
The Roman comes with no scripture but only tradition, (something that is important) to prove transubstantiation.
Is this how we are to believe that Melchizedek is Christ?
Christ and Melchizedek are certainly comparable. But how far do we take this idea?
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
helpforhomeschoolers,
Even though we have had words, I would discuss your last post.
I am having a hard time accepting what you write. (Not for the sake of argument.) It just does not add up, (to me).
Abraham is a picture of the Father. That he would so willingly turn souls over after saving them is hard to accept, (do you see what I am saying).
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneyearandcounting
Advanced Member
Member # 4449
|
posted
Well AMH you had me for as second since I didn't know what transubstantiation ment so I looked it up.
I don't believe like the RCC that the bread and wine become Christ blood and body during the eucharist. I'm also not to proud to say I really don't know what you are saying by saying this when we were talking about my beliefs on if Christ was Melchizedek.
So if you would please inlightin me as far as that goes I would be thankful. Are you saying that Melchizedek wasn't Christ and if so why?
If thats not what you are saying then again I say I'm sorry for misunderstanding.
God bless
greg
--------------------
Acts9:18 And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized.
Posts: 183 | From: winder Ga | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
AMH
Advanced Member
Member # 4895
|
posted
oneyearandcounting,
That is ok; we are all just looking for answers.
Roman doctrine-Eucharist, wine, bread, transubstantiation.
I was just wondering how far?
AMH
Posts: 350 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
