Melchizedek Again

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

> Right ON!  If Melchizedek was Jesus manifested before his birth then we have
> a pre-existing Christ.

While I agree that Melchizedek was merely a man and that the writer
was writing methaphoricially in Hebrews 7 regarding his priesthood,
I don't agree that thinking of Melchizedek as a theophany violates
oneness thinking.  The LORD *appearing* as a man doesn't necessarily
equate to a pre-existant Christ.

> The entire passage of Hebrews must be taken into consideration!  Melchizedek
> had no tracable lineage yet he was considered a priest of God.

Let's wrap this discussion up, ladies and gentlemen.  We're getting
into the mode of repeating the same stuff again.  We'll give it until
Friday afternoon or so, okay?

Richard Masoner
Champaign Illinois