Melchizedek Again

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

Personally I thought we were paying our tithes to God through his
representative .
At least  it does say that the tithes belong to the Lord .
 The first fruits of all the increase of our household and every male that
openeth the womb (first born) wether man or beast.
As far as Melchizideck being a man....Well it also says that he was without
mother and without father so thus he would could not be begotten ( born )
and thus not conflicting with the only begotten status .
Unless you say that it does not mean what it says.
There is one God with one begotten (created through birth of the flesh) son
which is the only true now permenantly existing body that God dwells in.
All theophany's were temporary. 
Jesus Christ will be forever.
Though he (the flesh) had a beginning (only begotten) it will never have
and end.
THis is not dualism or  trinitarianism ......
But One God who is above all, in all, and without whom all things would not
exist.
God Is All In All.
He is The father in creation, the son in redemption, a provider to the
needy , a husband to the widow, Mother and Father to the Orphan, the
defender of the helpless, a rock, a hightower, our strength ,and a refuge ,
the chief Shepherd, The great Physician, The lamb slain before the
foundation of the world. ....So many things he has done and is...
The small still voice.
The Great I AM.

No conflict to me....
He's Alpha and Omega .
And everything in between.
God Bless.
Lynna


----------
> From: Cal <Calvin@clarityconnect.com>
> To: higher-fire@prairienet.org
> Subject: Re: Melchizedek Again 
> Date: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 8:56 PM
> 
> 
> -----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.