Melchizedek Again

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Lynna Lunsford wrote:

> The word states that Jesus Christ is the Only ***Begotten*****
> In My understanding, begotten means , inply's and iludes to the concept
> that he did have a natural parent of the flesh, born of woman, one who has
> actually experienced the miracle of being born.

I reply:

Exactly.  No problem.

> Jesus frequently referred to himself as the son of man. (referring to his
> fleshly heiritage from his mothers side).
> 
> When referring to Melchizidek as a theophany, you are not takeing away
> anything from the exclusiveness of the *only begotten 8 status of THe man
> Christ Jesus since it was only his flesh that was begotten anyway.
> A supernaturally created body that did not go through the birthing process
> and which was Not a seed of man would not be in conflict .
(snip)
> (THe birth of Jesus)
> We forget that the original Adam was a created body from dust.
> If God made yet another would that violate Jesus's preeminence as Being the
> only Begotten Son OF GOD?
> No.
(snip_
> Too me I see no conflict.
> I can still believe in One God, Jesus being his only begotten Son, and that
> he occasionally uses other forms to appear before mankind.


I reply:

There is only one problem here.  But it is a big problem.  Hebrews 7:4
says he was a "man".  If he was not "begotten" and his body was
"supernaturally created".  Then he was not a "man".  Remember, the word
man refers back to "Adam" and therefore a body created outside of that
parameter could never be referred to as "man".  He could look like a
man.  He could talk like a man.  He could act like a man.  BUT HE COULD
NOT BE A MAN.  Unless he was begotten.

Sorry, it still conflicts.:-)

Andy (Melchizedek you da man, but just a man) Gossett