henryrna@juno.com (HENRY L BUNCH): Re: Melchizedek

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert J. Brown <rj@eli.elilabs.com>
To: higher-fire@prairienet.org <higher-fire@prairienet.org>
Cc: higher-fire@prairienet.org <higher-fire@prairienet.org>
Date: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: henryrna@juno.com (HENRY L BUNCH): Re: Melchizedek

>
>
>Note that Ge 19:1 calles these beings "angels", yet v5 calls them
>"men".
>
>Come on, Bro. Gossett, you can't have it both ways; which is it?  Were
>they angels, or were they men?  And was Melchizedek a man, yet without
>controversy even like unto a theophany?  I think so.
>
>Please take the tone of this post as a good natured challenge, not an
>attack.  I did not mean it to sound quite as it turned out.  :-)
>
Bro. G. is a very capable student of the scriptures and can reply for
himself but I would like to point out that Brother Gosset is quoting from
Hebrews a book that is attributed to Paul.  The strength of the statement of
Paul is founded in the fact that He had a revelation of the O.T. scriptures.
Notice that Paul also writes in 1 Tim 2:5 "For there is one God, and one
mediator between God and men, the **man** Christ Jesus;"  Made of a woman.
So likewise in the reference to the **man** Melchizedek we have a perfect
understanding in the New Testament's revelation of the Old Testaments
truths.

In my way of reasoning to make ol Mel a theophany is to detract from the
truth of the priesthood i.e. ministry of men!  Hebrews 7:14  For it is
evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing
concerning priesthood.

I am ready to let it rest!  Thanks for the challenge!