Melchizedek Again

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Lynna Lunsford <lynnal@apostolic.net>
To: higher-fire@prairienet.org <higher-fire@prairienet.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: Melchizedek Again


>
>
>I'd like to insert a little thought here.
>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.
>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 .
>It is just a form God used to represent himself, before the fulness of time
>had come.


Your logic seems sound save fo the fact that the scripture does not affirm
your concept.  Let us refer to the Word of God hmmm (rustling of pages)
let's see ahh here it is.... Hebrew 7:3  "Now consider how great this
***man*** was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the
spoils.

When you have a pre-existing Christ (man) you cease to have a monotheistic
concept.  Dualistic or tritheistic but not monotheistic.  The problem with
the idea that 'Mel' was a theophany is exacerbated by the fact that Hebrews
is speaking of priesthood!  I.E. ministry, and the receiving of tithes.
Opps tithing to a theophany?  No, to the man whom no one could determine
lineage!  Of which lead us to the question, "Did Jesus recieve tithe?"
Again the affirmation of the scritptures as to the humanity of Mel must be
taken into consideration.