Nazarene Space

What can we prove from the Scripture; that He is fallible or infallible? -Ed

Views: 183

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

As Paul says, Melchizedek had no father nor mother, NO BEGINNING OF DAYS NOR END OF LIFE, which obviously means that Melchizedek was/is an immortal being, NOT a human priest! Shem had a father (Noah) and mother, so he could not have been Melchizedek, nor could any other mortal be Melchizedek. The Scriptures your stating prove this. -Ed

Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
Hebrews 7:3 "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever." It says like. Melchizedek is like the Son of God. He is not the same as the Son of God.

Hebrews 7:15-16 "And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life."
When Paul says Melchizedek had no father nor mother, NO BEGINNING OF DAYS NOR END OF LIFE he is only referring to the text of Genesis. He is using the fact that Genesis does not mention these things about Melchizadek (under that name) to draw an allegory between Melchizadek and one who was immortal, Messiah.
"Paul shows us in Hebrews 7 that the preincarnate Yeshua was/is Melchizedek. Also if we read John 1:1 and especially John 8:56-58 we see Yeshua's confirmation of this. Those of us with the Ruach Ha Kodesh can see this. -Ed"

Those with Ruach Ha Kodesh do not go about making arguments like this, designed to find ONE flaw in their opponents position, so that they are forever discredited as unholy.

Isaiah 29:21
"(They) That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought."

Yahushua has obviously met Abraham.
He has met everyone else, by existing from before the creation of time and space.
James, Paul says in the DIRECT SENSE that Melchizedek had no father nor mother and no beginning nor ending of life. The context of the Scriptures is obvious. No allegory here. -Ed

James Trimm said:
When Paul says Melchizedek had no father nor mother, NO BEGINNING OF DAYS NOR END OF LIFE he is only referring to the text of Genesis. He is using the fact that Genesis does not mention these things about Melchizadek (under that name) to draw an allegory between Melchizadek and one who was immortal, Messiah.
Christian, those with the Ruach stand by the truth of a matter and will not yield to those who deny the truth, even with well-meaning opponents like yourself. : ) -Ed

Christian said:
"Paul shows us in Hebrews 7 that the preincarnate Yeshua was/is Melchizedek. Also if we read John 1:1 and especially John 8:56-58 we see Yeshua's confirmation of this. Those of us with the Ruach Ha Kodesh can see this. -Ed"

Those with Ruach Ha Kodesh do not go about making arguments like this, designed to find ONE flaw in their opponents position, so that they are forever discredited as unholy.

Isaiah 29:21
"(They) That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought."

Yahushua has obviously met Abraham.
He has met everyone else, by existing from before the creation of time and space.
It was the PRE-INCARNATE Yeshua whom Paul is referring to here, who was an immortal Spirit-being as Melchizedek. When He came in the flesh, He temporarily forfeited His immortality to fulfill what He had to do in the flesh, and then afterwards YHWH reconstituted Him as an immortal Spirit-being again. -Ed

Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
I see it referring to he had no father and mother as saying there was no father or mother through which his priesthood was established. He had no genealogy. Why do I think this is the case? Because, Yeshua himself DID have a father and a mother, but he had not father or mother through which his priesthood could be authentically established. He had no priesthood genealogy. What is interesting however, is that Yeshua was from both the Tribe of Judah and the Tribe of Levi, but since only his mother was from the Tribe of Mary, he was considered by the law of Moses as to not fulfill the requirements for the Levitical Priesthood, even though he had levitical blood in Him from his mother's side, but the tribe was determined by the Father, not by the Mother. Thus, Jesus was from the Tribe of Judah, even though his blood was fully of a Levite. If Mary had married some other Levite, Jesus could have been an authentic Levitical Priest, but a major reason Mary married a Judahite, and not a Levite was so that there would be no confusion that Jesus did not come to be a Levitical Priest but a Priest of the order of Melchizedek.
Either Barnabus didn't understand about Melchizedek/Yeshua, or else the RCC tampered with his letter, or else the RCC wrote it as a bogus letter and attributed it to Barnabus. And yes, Yeshua can be both Melchizedek and be like Melchizedek as High Priest for us now just as He was the High Priest anciently for Abraham and the others who were called out by YHWH during that time. "They" are one and the same person, undoubtably, according to all of the relevant Scriptures about it. If the book of Jasher claims that the order of Melchizedek was Shem and his descendants, that right there proves that Jasher is not legitimate Scriptures, for, AGAIN, as Paul rightly describes Melchizedek in Heb. 7, MELCHIZEDEK HAD NO FAMILY LINE WHATSOEVER, for He was not a human being, but an immortal being. Shem did have a family line, for he was a human being. Immortal spirit-beings cannot reproduce, so they cannot create family lines. Only mortals of the flesh can. -Ed

Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
The context in this passage is that genealogically he had no mother and no father of which priesthood could come from. The context is identified when we see Barnabas tell us that Melchizedek is LIKE the Son of Man. If someone is like someone else, they are not that person, they are just similar to that person. He’s demonstrating that Melchizedek was himself a priest without genealogy, so Yahushua could also have the same priesthood that Melchizedek. He was arguing that Yahushua did not need a genealogy for his priesthood. Claiming that it was indeed pre-incarnate Yahushua is not really directly supported by the text, and kind of loses meaning and value when applied. Yahushua was a priest in the order of himself? Yahushua is like Melchizedek. Why would the multiple people in the Scriptures say Yahushua is like Melchizedek if he was actually Melchizedek. If he is like Melchizedek, then he can’t be Melchizedek. Like implies that there is a difference. Therefore, its one or the other. Yahushua is like Melchizedek, or he is Melchizedek. Take your pick. I for one, however will pick that Yahushua is like Melchizedek, which is what Scripture teaches. Furthermore, Jasher corroborates this by revealing to us that the priesthood was that of Shem’s, and even the Orthodox Jews agree.
Thanks for your support, Debbie. I'm glad you have the insight to see this. Now we have to convince the others, which is an uphill battle. LOL : ). -Ed

Rick & Debbie Toole said:
I agree with you on this one ED. I also feel Sha'ul wrote the book of Hebrews and has the correct impression of
Melchizedke .I also think the book of Hebrews is a form of Mishnah .With the coming destruction of the Temle , Sha'ul was pointing to Messiah .
The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary gives this interpretation of the seventh chapter of Hebrews:

"Within the interpretation of Ps. 110 that occupies much of the epistle to the Hebrews, Heb. 7 builds on Gen. 14:18-20. Abraham's acknowledgment of the legitimacy of Melchizedek's priesthood becomes an argument for the priority of that priesthood over the "descendants of Levi" (vv. 4-10). The messianic ruler of Ps. 110 is, therefore, a priest of a line prior to the levitical priesthood ("after the order of Melchizedek"; Heb. 7:11-19; KJV "Melchisedec"; cf. 5:6, 10; 6:20). That the narrative of the king-priest Melchizedek is introduced so abruptly into Genesis becomes an argument for Melchizedek's being "without father or mother or genealogy," i.e., beginning or end (7:3), and so not only a predecessor but also a type of Christ as "a priest for ever" (cf. Ps. 110:4). The legitimacy of the levitical priesthood depends on its descent from Levi; as it has a beginning, so it has an end in the understanding of the author of Hebrews." (p. 707, "Melchizedek")


The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) comments about this statement in the seventh chapter of Hebrews:

"The argument of He. 7 is similar to the rabbinic argument from silence, which assumed that nothing exists unless Scripture mentions it. Since Genesis says nothing of Melchizedek's parents, genealogy, birth, or death, he serves as a type representing the eternal Son of God (v. 3)." (p. 313, vol. 3,"Melchizedek")


Harper's Bible Commentary says of this passage:

"Formally, the chapter [Hebrews 7] constitutes an exegetical discussion of Ps. 110:4 based upon the only other OT text that mentions Melchizedek, Gen. 14:17-20. This exegesis, emphasizing the heavenly character of Christ's priesthood, may have been inspired by the abundant contemporary speculation on Melchizedek as a heavenly figure, examples of which are found in the Alexandrian Jewish writer Philo, at Qumran, and in Gnostic sources. Whatever the inspiration, Hebrews is quite restrained in its comments on Melchizedek, utilizing only what is necessary to make the Christological point" (p. 1265).


Harper's goes on to say that "from the pregnant silence of Scripture is deduced Melchitzedek's status as 'fatherless, motherless, without genealogy' (v. 3)" (p. 1265).
Thus, Melchitzedek could be said to be "without father, without mother, and without genealogy" because the Scriptures didn't identify his lineage. While this argument might seem unconvincing to the modern mind, it would certainly have been understandable and reasonable to a religious Jew in the 1st century CE.
Quote:
Why would the multiple people in the Scriptures say Yahushua is like Melchizedek if he was actually Melchizedek. If he is like Melchizedek, then he can’t be Melchizedek. Like implies that there is a difference. Therefore, its one or the other. Yahushua is like Melchizedek, or he is Melchizedek. Take your pick. I for one, however will pick that Yahushua is like Melchizedek, which is what Scripture teaches.


Agreed. The logic is inescapable!
Intrinsic spiritual rightness (true righteousness) is based on what is objectively and obviously right to do, as opposed to what is true evil. As one true minister of YHWH'S put it, "How can we tell if we are sinning or not? We can know by the RESULTS of what we do". I.e., if we do what is intrinsically right and good towards others, everyone benefits in the real sense of the term (peaceful living); but if we do what is intrinsically wrong and evil, evil results from our actions, and a disturbance of our peaceful relations is the result. This is an intrinsic matter because what was said here about it cannot be based on anyone's personal opinions about it. Intrinsic good is true goodness whether one believes this or not. The concepts of true good vs. true evil are not debatable, these concepts are the OBJECTIVE REALITY of the terms used, thus they are intrinsic, which means "of itself". -Ed

Ed said:
zahav, Haven't you read in Genesis where YHWH kept the way to the Tree of Life, to prevent anyone having access to it after Adam refused to obey YHWH? Do you understand that the Tree of Life represents receiving the Ruach Ha Kodesh? Do you understand that one cannot convert to YHWH'S Torah spiritually without the Ruach, which means we cannot enter into eternal life without the Ruach and genuine conversion to Torah, spiritually? I don't think you understand these things, so there's no point in going on with this conversation. No hard feelings, mind you. And do you understand what Paul means when he says that EACH WILL BE CALLED OUT IN HIS OWN TIME; first Yeshua, then His firstfruits, and the rest [of mankind] later? The spring Feasts foreshadow the calling out of Yeshua and the firstfruits. The autumn Feasts have to do with everyone else being called out for the true salvation. Yeshua Himself says that no one can come to Him unless the Father (YHWH) draw him. You don't just simply receive the holy spirit when you want to; it's up to YHWH, not us. YHWH'S plan for mankind's salvation entails a 7,000-year period, a Milennial Week, with each 1,000 years as a "day", as Kefa teaches. And YHWH is ONLY calling out those He chooses to be of the firstfruits during the first 6 "days", the first 6,000 years. ONLY those called out by YHWH to be of the firstfuits can receive the Ruach at this time, with a few exceptions that YHWH has a certain purpose for. The first 6 "days" are just about up, and the 7th "day", the Milennial Sabbath, (the upcoming 1,000-year rule of Yeshua and His firstfruits) will begin when Yeshua returns and gathers His firstfruits to begin ruling over this earth, to teach the whole world the way of YHWH, the Torah. Yeshua's return is VERY NEAR, now, which means the Great Tribulation is about to begin, during which the Father (YHWH) will send Yeshua back to this earth lest no flesh be saved alive because of the Tribulation (WW3). -Ed
zahav peretz said:
:
Ed:

Q-1--"the only Israelites of the Old Covenant period who were able to keep Torah in spirit and in truth were those to whom YHWH gave the (holy spirit) Ruach Ha Kodesh."--

Reply:
Ergo, the Ruach Haqodesh was indeed with G-d's people before Yeshua'. Todah rabah for strengthening my position.
-----------

Q-2--"The majority of Israel did not receive the Ruach, and thus were left carnal and unable to keep His Law spiritually and perfectly. Show me a carnal Israelite or Gentile who is capable of keeping YHWH'S Torah and not break it!You could not produce such a person, as Paul plainly tells us."--

Reply:
This argumentum khal ve-chomer cannot apply because in the first place it contradicts your statement in Q-1: whereof, if G-d gave the Ruach to some there is no Justice if He did not give it to all. You have no basis to prove it except your misunderstanding of Paul. Paul did not mean the Jews were carnal, it was the gentiles whom he meant! Read again your Paulinian letter.

Your tailing line says: "You could not produce such a person, as Paul plainly tells us."

I answer that: History testifies there were many pre-Yeshua and post-Yeshua Law perfect keepers, read a little about Judeo-Chrisitan history. Your fallacy is argumentum ad vericundiam: you are mainly relying by "quoting" Paul whom you misinterpret. On the contrary even in the past, before Yeshua, many people kept all that G-d commanded them, this is declared in Torah, allow me to quote:

=Bamidbar 1:54 " וַיַּעֲשׂוּ, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְה-, אֶת-מֹשֶׁה--כֵּן עָשׂוּ." --And the children of Israel did according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so did they.=

If the children of Israel did according to "all" (kakhol asher tzivah) what Adonay commanded,... they were able to do it not because they were carnal but because of the Ruach Haqodesh in their midst. Of course! Torah always has a mate, the Ruach Haqodesh.

Note: If you insist in your interpretation of Paul, logic demands that either Paul was lying or this Torah pasuq is not true.
-----------

Q-3--"We need to receive the Ruach IN ORDER TO be able to keep Torah in spirit and in truth, and not break it."--

Reply:
Theoretically this is the Divine intention in order to make both the Jew and Gentile shomeyr mitzvot. Now that the "christians" received the Ruach through baptism in Yeshua, the natural query is this: "ARE THE CHRISTIANS SHOMEYR ?" If you survey the biggest prison colonies in the U.S. you will discover that 80% of the criminals are baptized christians one way or the other, only 10% is either uninitiated or de-facto unbeliever. Now, how does your interpretation of Paul applies to that? Let us not be hypocrite.
-----------

Q-4--"For instance, Paul says that some people by nature keep the things contained in the Law. Now since no one is born with the knowledge that YHWH exists, no one is born with the knowledge of His Law. So what can Paul be talking about?"--

Reply:
CONSCIENCE.............. nothing else.
Are you a theologian or not?
-----------

Q-5--"This rightness of behavior is the BASIS of Torah, which means INTRINSIC spiritual rightness."--

Reply:
Aristotle advanced well enough the validity of theory: That in every effect there is a cause.

Now, what causes your "intrinsic spiritual rightness" to exist?

and what is its "essence" if it is not Torah?
---------

I hope this will help everyone.

zahav peretz
+++
Orthodoxy must lead to orthopraxy. The best argument for Torah is by keeping kosher.
+++
No, zahav, it is not conscience, here. Paul says "some people BY NATURE keep the things contained in the Law", which can only mean that some people are born with natures that automatically show fairness to others. They don't do this by conscience; it is the very nature they were born with that causes this good attitude toward others. Other people aren't born with this, at least as strongly as those that Paul is talking about. Haven't you seen some very young children who are glad to share their toys with others, while other children are very selfish about it? They are going by the natures they were born with, obviously, being too young as yet to be taught to share their things. -Ed

Ed said:
Intrinsic spiritual rightness (true righteousness) is based on what is objectively and obviously right to do, as opposed to what is true evil. As one true minister of YHWH'S put it, "How can we tell if we are sinning or not? We can know by the RESULTS of what we do". I.e., if we do what is intrinsically right and good towards others, everyone benefits in the real sense of the term (peaceful living); but if we do what is intrinsically wrong and evil, evil results from our actions, and a disturbance of our peaceful relations is the result. This is an intrinsic matter because what was said here about it cannot be based on anyone's personal opinions about it. Intrinsic good is true goodness whether one believes this or not. The concepts of true good vs. true evil are not debatable, these concepts are the OBJECTIVE REALITY of the terms used, thus they are intrinsic, which means "of itself". -Ed

Ed said:
zahav, Haven't you read in Genesis where YHWH kept the way to the Tree of Life, to prevent anyone having access to it after Adam refused to obey YHWH? Do you understand that the Tree of Life represents receiving the Ruach Ha Kodesh? Do you understand that one cannot convert to YHWH'S Torah spiritually without the Ruach, which means we cannot enter into eternal life without the Ruach and genuine conversion to Torah, spiritually? I don't think you understand these things, so there's no point in going on with this conversation. No hard feelings, mind you. And do you understand what Paul means when he says that EACH WILL BE CALLED OUT IN HIS OWN TIME; first Yeshua, then His firstfruits, and the rest [of mankind] later? The spring Feasts foreshadow the calling out of Yeshua and the firstfruits. The autumn Feasts have to do with everyone else being called out for the true salvation. Yeshua Himself says that no one can come to Him unless the Father (YHWH) draw him. You don't just simply receive the holy spirit when you want to; it's up to YHWH, not us. YHWH'S plan for mankind's salvation entails a 7,000-year period, a Milennial Week, with each 1,000 years as a "day", as Kefa teaches. And YHWH is ONLY calling out those He chooses to be of the firstfruits during the first 6 "days", the first 6,000 years. ONLY those called out by YHWH to be of the firstfuits can receive the Ruach at this time, with a few exceptions that YHWH has a certain purpose for. The first 6 "days" are just about up, and the 7th "day", the Milennial Sabbath, (the upcoming 1,000-year rule of Yeshua and His firstfruits) will begin when Yeshua returns and gathers His firstfruits to begin ruling over this earth, to teach the whole world the way of YHWH, the Torah. Yeshua's return is VERY NEAR, now, which means the Great Tribulation is about to begin, during which the Father (YHWH) will send Yeshua back to this earth lest no flesh be saved alive because of the Tribulation (WW3). -Ed
zahav peretz said:
:
Ed:

Q-1--"the only Israelites of the Old Covenant period who were able to keep Torah in spirit and in truth were those to whom YHWH gave the (holy spirit) Ruach Ha Kodesh."--

Reply:
Ergo, the Ruach Haqodesh was indeed with G-d's people before Yeshua'. Todah rabah for strengthening my position.
-----------

Q-2--"The majority of Israel did not receive the Ruach, and thus were left carnal and unable to keep His Law spiritually and perfectly. Show me a carnal Israelite or Gentile who is capable of keeping YHWH'S Torah and not break it!You could not produce such a person, as Paul plainly tells us."--

Reply:
This argumentum khal ve-chomer cannot apply because in the first place it contradicts your statement in Q-1: whereof, if G-d gave the Ruach to some there is no Justice if He did not give it to all. You have no basis to prove it except your misunderstanding of Paul. Paul did not mean the Jews were carnal, it was the gentiles whom he meant! Read again your Paulinian letter.

Your tailing line says: "You could not produce such a person, as Paul plainly tells us."

I answer that: History testifies there were many pre-Yeshua and post-Yeshua Law perfect keepers, read a little about Judeo-Chrisitan history. Your fallacy is argumentum ad vericundiam: you are mainly relying by "quoting" Paul whom you misinterpret. On the contrary even in the past, before Yeshua, many people kept all that G-d commanded them, this is declared in Torah, allow me to quote:

=Bamidbar 1:54 " וַיַּעֲשׂוּ, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְה-, אֶת-מֹשֶׁה--כֵּן עָשׂוּ." --And the children of Israel did according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so did they.=

If the children of Israel did according to "all" (kakhol asher tzivah) what Adonay commanded,... they were able to do it not because they were carnal but because of the Ruach Haqodesh in their midst. Of course! Torah always has a mate, the Ruach Haqodesh.

Note: If you insist in your interpretation of Paul, logic demands that either Paul was lying or this Torah pasuq is not true.
-----------

Q-3--"We need to receive the Ruach IN ORDER TO be able to keep Torah in spirit and in truth, and not break it."--

Reply:
Theoretically this is the Divine intention in order to make both the Jew and Gentile shomeyr mitzvot. Now that the "christians" received the Ruach through baptism in Yeshua, the natural query is this: "ARE THE CHRISTIANS SHOMEYR ?" If you survey the biggest prison colonies in the U.S. you will discover that 80% of the criminals are baptized christians one way or the other, only 10% is either uninitiated or de-facto unbeliever. Now, how does your interpretation of Paul applies to that? Let us not be hypocrite.
-----------

Q-4--"For instance, Paul says that some people by nature keep the things contained in the Law. Now since no one is born with the knowledge that YHWH exists, no one is born with the knowledge of His Law. So what can Paul be talking about?"--

Reply:
CONSCIENCE.............. nothing else.
Are you a theologian or not?
-----------

Q-5--"This rightness of behavior is the BASIS of Torah, which means INTRINSIC spiritual rightness."--

Reply:
Aristotle advanced well enough the validity of theory: That in every effect there is a cause.

Now, what causes your "intrinsic spiritual rightness" to exist?

and what is its "essence" if it is not Torah?
---------

I hope this will help everyone.

zahav peretz
+++
Orthodoxy must lead to orthopraxy. The best argument for Torah is by keeping kosher.
+++

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service