If the Roman Catholic Church is so bad...

Heb 7:2-3 must be the most difficult to be answered by you.

Where is Melchizedek gone?
Why did Jesus become the Priest after Melichzedek ?

YOu cannot escape from that verse, because Heb 7:2-3 will remain even after the heaven and earth pass away.

 

The RCC didn't exist at the time the Nicene Creed was formulated.

BTW maybe we should start refering to you as luny eliyahu. Please stop being so insulting, we know you don't like the RCC. You can show your distaste without stooping to degrading insults.

I am beginning to wonder if this is the response you give when you realize you have been outmaneuvered. Besides, I have no need to escape it, it simply just doesn't say what you claim it says. If is said what you claim then there would be no incarnation and if there is no incarnation there is no salvation.

Where does it say that? It says that the Son of God, the Logos, was High priest with out time.

Where has Melchizedek gone? Who knows, and speculation should be kept to an absolute minimum as Scripture is silent on what happened to him after meeting Abraham.

 

Chemnitz !

Have you ever read this before?

Heb 7:17
For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

 

It seems your zeal has overridden your sense of personal decency. If you don't like being insulted what makes you think the people in the RCC are going to like you calling them whory, any more than you like being called luny. Generally, being RCC is a part of their self image and an insult to the RCC in general is an insult to them personally. So please stop, it only makes you look childish.

Yes I have read it. It doesn't say that Christ was a priest after Melchizedek was a priest, otherwise He could not be called priest with out time. It is telling us He like Melchizedek is not of the Levitical order.

 

If you don't find the word "Son of God" in Heb 7:3, you are blind.

If you do not know Mechizedec was Jesus before He was incarnated, your knowledge about the Bible is too poor to discuss about the Bible truth.

Why did Abraham pay tithe to Melchisedec?

Is he an angel ?
Is he a man ?
Where is he gone now ?

Why does Bible say that Melchisedec has NO Mother?

 

Eliyahu what would you do if you didn't have something to be against?

 

Actually outside of my proposal I don't think I have ever addressed you as luny eliyahu, but what ever floats your boat. It isn't going to bother me, you'd only be acknowledging what my wife already knows about me.

My point still stands if you don't like being insulted, what makes you think others will?
Maybe you should take to heart the command "Love your neighbor." Loving your neighbor means you don't spend your time insulting him. You can love your neighbor through correcting him when he is wrong but never through insults.

Do you even know what the Logos is? I am thinking you don't because if you did, you wouldn't have responded so. The Logos refers to the Pre-incarnate God the Son and has been used in theological circles to mean the divine nature.

But still this verse means nothing concerning Mary. As it merely goes on to illustrate they were both priests regardless of their non-Levitical parentage.

Where does it ever say Melchizedek is the Logos? Don't bother looking because it is not there, it is only a figment of your imagination.

Melchizedec was a priest, seems kind of selfexplanatory to me.

 

Chemnitz,

Heb 7: 2-3 ignores Mother of God theory !

Melchizedek( Melchisedec) is like unto Son of God in the similartude of
No earthly father, No earthly mother, no genealogy...

This ignores the concept of Mother of God.

Have you ever answered " Do you say that God is Son of Mary?"

Please answer by Yes or No.

 

Melchizedec was a priest, seems kind of selfexplanatory to me. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Do you believe that Logos is living?

Where is Melchisedec now ?

Doesn't Heb 7 say that he is the endless and continual priest ?

 

Who knows? Who cares? The Bible doesn't say, so any thing anybody came up would be pure speculation.

Yes it does say continued as priest but at the same time it says that he only resembles the Son of God not that he is the Son of God.

Well yes, and since the incarnation has gone by the name Jesus.

 

No but it explains parts of the Bible relating to the Trinity and if you read it you wouldn't be in such a muddle.

Yes to both. Nicene Creed: "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ...God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God...through Him all things were made."

 

Matt,

I understand what you mean.
But the Creeds omitted -thru (or by) Jesus Christ- God the Almighty who created the Heaven and Earth (thru Jesus Christ)

This weakens the Pre-existence of Jesus before Mary.

In my childhood, I believed that the Creeds( Apostles) affirms what Bible says.

However, as times goes on after my salvation, I noticed certain problems or negligence there.

Some examples:
1) God who created the heaven and earth (thru Jesus Christ),

2) Creator of Mary is weakened to be just a son of Mary

3) Suffered under Pilate- Pilate was the person who tried to release Jesus and it was not necessary to mention there in the short Creeds.

4) Believe in Holy Catholic Church can cause the misunderstanding

5) Communication with the saints sound different.
Saints of RC may mean the dead people.

6) believe in the forgiveness of sins is not clear because it doesnt say that Believe that the sins were forgiven already, but sounds that if we pray much or do a good job or do good works, then the sins may be forgiven, because it doesn't have the tense clearly.

There are some more things objected by the believers and furthermore, we don't repeat the same prayer as the heathens repeat the prayers by vain repetition.

Our prayers and confessions are always fresh, vivid, living and earnest in the presence of God.

Moreover, I find the Creeds differ from each other, Nicene, Athanasian, Apostles, Medieval Catholic etc. They evolved often depending on the situations as the charters of the denominations have changed from time to time.

Therefore I believe Bible is more than enough and more than perfect. Bible expplains so many things as long as we kneel down humbly in front of God. I don't think Bible is imperfect to discern the things as long as we follow the guidance of H.S.

 

OH, come on, that is all pure speculation and false speculation at that, Hebrew 7 specifically states that he resembles not that he is the Son of God.

 

That's right. The only thing Scriptures indicate is that Melchizedek is a type of Christ--no more, no less.

 

No they didn't. The Nicene Creed explicitly affirms that Jesus is "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made" and that He is "eternal". So no weakening of the pre-existence of the divine Logos there at all

 

I believe what the Bible teaches, that the Word, who was (and is) with God and was (and is) God Himself. I believe the Word took on flesh and dwelt among us as the Apostle John wrote. Therefore, i'm hardly a Docetist!

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,even the Son of man which is in heaven

What, according to you, is Jesus saying in this verse. To me it is clear, while Jesus walking on earth as a man, He was also (present tense) IN heaven.

Barnes Commentary -

Which is in heaven This is a very remarkable expression. Jesus, the Son of man, was then bodily on earth conversing with Nicodemus; yet he declares that he is at the same time in heaven. This can be understood only as referring to the fact that he had two natures--that his divine nature was in heaven, and his human nature on earth. Our Saviour is frequently spoken of in this manner. Comp. Joh 6:62,62; 17:5; 2Co 8:9.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes -

...though he took upon him the human nature, and was then man upon earth yet was he at the same time in his divine nature actually in heaven as God. This text evidently proves two distinct natures in Christ; namely, a divine nature as he was God, and an human nature as man. In his human nature, he was then upon earth, when he spake these words; in his divine nature, he was at that instant in heaven.
Here observe, That the Son of God hath taken the human nature, into so close and intimate a union with his God-head, and what is proper to either nature is ascribed unto the person of our Saviour. The same person who was on earth as the Son of man, who was then in heaven as God, and yet but one person still.

Mary is the mother of the Son of God in His incarnation - of His humanity, NOT His deity, which is from all eternity. God has neither father nor mother - God is Spirit!


Ray

 

Athanasian Creed,

You said this to Matt Black...

Its just the weirdest thing. The Catholic Church has all these little heresy labels they like to throw out at any opportunity...

...and yet in the professing Christian world the Catholic Church is the world wide undisputed King of blasphemy, heresy, idolatry, "christianised" paganism, superstition, and magic being promoted as Gods "religion".

The Hierarchial organisation that trains it apologists to supposedly "identify" all of these errors in all of these supposedly so very "erring" groups...is an organisation that more than likely has about 99% of its members no more saved that Satan himself.

Like I said earlier in this or another thread, if the Catholic Church accuses you of being one of the many "ists" that are so much in error in their view...its probably a very good sign.

You are doing something right.

If you get the "everything is well" pat on the back from Catholic apologists...you more than likely have something to repent of.

Grace and peace,

Mike