Featured The Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees

You seemed to be saying that the Decalogue (in its entirety, I assume) applies to the heathen. That assumes their needing to observe the Jewish Sabbath.

My point is that Sabbath observance is a non-moral law. It was purely didactic and prophetic. And for the Jews only.

Certainly the heathen cannot be faulted for non-observance of a law that has nothing to do with them. (I am not speaking of the other nine. Clearly these all have universal application beyond the Judeo-Christian world.)

 

These are Gentiles in the passage. Non-Jews. Why do you keep referring to Gentiles with THE LAW written in their hearts as heathen?

 

Paul stating that even Gentile who do not know God live better than Jews who claim they did, neither one were saved though!

 

You again miss the point.

Each part of the decalogue can be found in all heathen cultures. The worship of god, the having a certain day for that worship, the rules concerning taking life, violating persons, ... are all part of the pattern of that culture and groupings views.

It is such, because it is written upon the hearts.

Such keep what they consider a sabbath. Some even known to bring sacrifices (animal, human, vegetable, mineral) to appease the god they worship as the one true god.

The decalogue was not just delivered to Moses but already a part of the human core of understanding.

The Decalogue and all Scripture laws were given so that a written standard could be shown, and it not be claimed that a standard of conduct was established by someone for personal gain. Murder was murder not because someone thought it a good standard, but because it was written down and further explained as given to Moses. However, murder was murder already a standard recognized as evil from the time Able succumbed to Cain's assault.

 

Because, these Gentiles with the law written on their hearts, as ALL people have who were ever born, were not saved.

All unsaved are heathen hearted.

 

As well they should

Hebrews 7:3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

An eternal being who else could it be?

"made like the Son of God" - that is - in the Genesis theophany account.

HankD

 

I had an Hasidim Jew tell me adamantly "Gentiles are not allowed to keep the Sabbath!".

HankD

 

Yes, but notice that this eternal being was "made like the Son of God" is also part of the creation statement made by God, "Let us make man in our image" and so all who are made in the image of God are "made like (the Son of) God."

Because time and space are mere tools of the creator, there is no certain accountable way of assigning exactly who this Melchizedek really was, so I leave it all open to either it being the Christ, or one that represented the Christ at that time.

A professor at one time posited that this was perhaps a pre-incarnated form of David or some other. That was going farther then I thought the Scriptures would allow.

 

Never met a 7th day adventist?

"Free from the law,
Oh happy condition,
Jesus hath bled,
And there is remission..."

 

- made like the Son of God - refers to the presentation account of Melchizedek (an eternal being) in Genesis.

But believe what you will.

HankD

 

They are not allowed to keep the Sabbath.

 

Scripture please.

 

I presented the Scriptures, and you desire not to attend to them.

Argue with the writer of Romans (2).

 

Can Jesus be made "like" the Son of God when He was, is, and remained the Son of God?


Hank,

I really am not making a definitive judgment, but establishing that there is room for allowing God to impress upon the heart what render as He desires to make prominent.

 

Maybe in your imagination. No where have you presented scripture that supports your claim, "the law written on their hearts, as ALL people have who were ever born".

 

Well, all that is available in Romans 1 and 2 that should allow you to come to terms with what I have presented as the truth.

But, because it seems that you would rather assume something else, I will remain as unimpressed with your thinking as much as you must be with mine.

 

Some take that view, but I do not. Melchisadec was a flesh and blood Priest in Abraham's day, nothing more.

I think it borderline heresy to equate Christ with a man.

You need to understand that prior to that body being created in Mary's womb...there was no Jesus Christ. He has, as the Savior of the World, a beginning in time.

It is the Son of God that is Eternal, and in fact the Creator. And even if Melchisadec was a Christophany, that is no more Jesus Christ than the body He took upon Himself when He visits Abraham in Genesis 18.

I might suggest the same.

It is a Theological wonder, and in my view, the crown jewel of the New Testament. This book enlightens one to an understanding of the Old Testament, and bridges figure with reality, the giving of Promise and the bestowal of those Promises. It is a straightforward declaration of the necessity to embrace the New Covenant, and to understand the more complete knowledge of Christ.

Agreed.

If you would like to start a thread and present why you make Melchisadec Christ, I'll be happy to participate. But I think it better not to depart further from the scope of the OP oif this thread.


God bless.

 

Sorry, Jesus Christ did not appear as the Angel of the Lord.

That was the Son of God prior to His Incarnation.




God bless.