|
|
Post by Beck on Oct 12, 2006 11:06:11 GMT -5
I have a general question... If Melchisedec was christ... wouldnt that throw a problem into the "only begotton" born of a virgin view?
|
|
|
|
Post by giantsdodie on Oct 12, 2006 15:00:43 GMT -5
it wouldnt affect it at all because we are talking about the pre-incarnate Christ. These are what are often called my some as theophanies or appearances of God in the OT. Many times when u see the scripture say THE Angel of the Lord this is describing the pre incarnate Christ speaking to men.
We have to remember that Jesus did not BECOME the Son of God. He was ALWAYS the Son of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beck on Oct 12, 2006 15:14:49 GMT -5
it wouldnt affect it at all because we are talking about the pre-incarnate Christ. These are what are often called my some as theophanies or appearances of God in the OT. Many times when u see the scripture say THE Angel of the Lord this is describing the pre incarnate Christ speaking to men. We have to remember that Jesus did not BECOME the Son of God. He was ALWAYS the Son of God. I would humbly disagree with that statement... Jesus was FULLY God, and was made a SON...being made a little lower than the angels...The son was begotten..which means he has a beginning... The Term SON of God refers to God in human form, but never takes away from the fact that he was fully God.. |
|
|
|
Post by Jasmine on Oct 12, 2006 15:36:47 GMT -5
it wouldnt affect it at all because we are talking about the pre-incarnate Christ. These are what are often called my some as theophanies or appearances of God in the OT. Many times when u see the scripture say THE Angel of the Lord this is describing the pre incarnate Christ speaking to men. We have to remember that Jesus did not BECOME the Son of God. He was ALWAYS the Son of God. I would humbly disagree with that statement... Jesus was FULLY God, and was made a SON...being made a little lower than the angels...The son was begotten..which means he has a beginning... The Term SON of God refers to God in human form, but never takes away from the fact that he was fully God.. and I humbly disagree with you. Jesus has ALWAYS been the Son of God, even yet while FULLY GOD. Jesus Sonship is Eternal. In the beginning was the Word (Jesus) and the word (Jesus) with God, and the word (Jesus) was God. Jesus wasn't made a son, because the FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT have always Existed. |
|
|
|
Post by Jasmine on Oct 12, 2006 15:43:17 GMT -5
Need to add:
The reason why Jesus wasn't made a son, is because the Son Already existed.
When Jesus was Born, he became MAN.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beck on Oct 12, 2006 15:44:27 GMT -5
I would humbly disagree with that statement... Jesus was FULLY God, and was made a SON...being made a little lower than the angels...The son was begotten..which means he has a beginning... The Term SON of God refers to God in human form, but never takes away from the fact that he was fully God.. and I humbly disagree with you. Jesus has ALWAYS been the Son of God, even yet while FULLY GOD. Jesus Sonship is Eternal. In the beginning was the Word (Jesus) and the word (Jesus) with God, and the word (Jesus) was God. Jesus wasn't made a son, because the FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT have always Existed. Yes the plan of salvation has been in God from the very beginning, John 1 clearly states that.. To have an eternal sonship you would have to have an eternal mother... Since none of us believe that mary is a HOLY mother then..that wouldnt fly with us now would it? you have to remember sister jazz.. the bible says the the SON was begotten.. meanin he has a beginning point... The holy spirit is God.. not a seperate deity.the Deity of the Son IS the father.. not a seperate person in the Godhead. |
|
|
|
Post by Jasmine on Oct 12, 2006 15:58:09 GMT -5
We disagree. Jesus doesn't have to have an eternal mother, HE himself is eternal. He was is and will always be GOD, just as he is, and will always be the Son of God.
The Godhead Is simply that.. God is the father, God is the Son, and God is the Holy Spirit
Just something that goes back to Oneness & trinity..not a topic that I really want to get into.
|
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Oct 12, 2006 16:27:11 GMT -5
There are Trinitarians out there who believe in the eternality of the second person of the Trinity, but that He became Son at a certain period in time. It makes sense when you think about everything that Sonship is connected to, and all of that is contingent upon Jesus' humanity. Hebrews 1:5,6 says "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." Galatians 4:4 states, "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." The Sonship of Christ is predicated on time and humanity. I believe Christ has always been and ever shall be the eternal Word of God, but "Word" should not be equated with "Son."
|
|
|
|
Post by livinganewlife on Oct 12, 2006 16:42:14 GMT -5
I have a general question... If Melchisedec was christ... wouldnt that throw a problem into the "only begotton" born of a virgin view? Melchisedec has no lineage............. |
|
|
|
Post by Beck on Oct 13, 2006 5:51:39 GMT -5
I have a general question... If Melchisedec was christ... wouldnt that throw a problem into the "only begotton" born of a virgin view? Melchisedec has no lineage............. None recorded...that doesnt mean he didnt have any. It just mean that they have nothing recorded about him. |
|
|
|
Post by giantsdodie on Oct 13, 2006 8:16:22 GMT -5
Really helpful in all honesty is a study on the various theophanies in the OT. I simply believe that Melchisedec was one of them. The reality is there is no concrete proof either way. I say go and pray about and see what the Holy Spirit tells you  |
|
|
|
Post by Beck on Oct 13, 2006 8:19:40 GMT -5
Really helpful in all honesty is a study on the various theophanies in the OT. I simply believe that Melchisedec was one of them. The reality is there is no concrete proof either way. I say go and pray about and see what the Holy Spirit tells you amen to that bro.. |
|
|
|
Post by Beck on Oct 13, 2006 8:24:58 GMT -5
Really helpful in all honesty is a study on the various theophanies in the OT. I simply believe that Melchisedec was one of them. The reality is there is no concrete proof either way. I say go and pray about and see what the Holy Spirit tells you Could you kind of start something off dealing with Theophanies? |
|
|
|
Post by Beulah5 on Oct 13, 2006 14:23:26 GMT -5
Why do you want to know?  |
|
|
|
Post by livinganewlife on Oct 15, 2006 9:01:20 GMT -5
Need to add: The reason why Jesus wasn't made a son, is because the Son Already existed. When Jesus was Born, he became MAN. If that is the case how did Melchisedec become Christ in the flesh?>prior to the birth of the manchild (Jesus)< |
|
