If the Roman Catholic Church is so bad...

You are talking about totally different things, which is nonsense!
Heb 7:2-3 doesn't compare Jesus with leviticus yet.
That happens later in 7:21-24 as you said.

I am talking about 7:2-3 of Heb.
Please answer the following question:

1) Do you find Son of God in the sentences of Heb 7:2-3 ? Please answer by Yes or No

2) Does it say that Melchizedek has a Mother ? Please answer by Yes or No

3) Does it say that Melchizedek is like Son of God ? Yes or No

4) If yes, in what aspects Melchizedek is like unto Son of God? Only because Melchizedek is continual Priest ?

Your Greek grammar is wrong !
Μy Lexicon by Mounce, Zondervan says:
Agenealogetos (Αγενεαλογητοσ) - not included in a genealogy, independent of genealogy. Because Son of God is actually excluded from Human Genealogy. Do you understand this?


Who is this Melchizedek ? Is he an angel ? Is he still alive? v 3 says Melchizedek is endless (beginning-less). Who is that Melchizedek?
Is he disappeared since then ?
Does Melchizedek live no longer ?

I believe Melchizedek is Pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ. Hebrews 7:2-3 says Melchizedek has no Mother !

 

You are confused with the other thread, Transubstantiation, where you mentioned that you mentioned Baptism and Communion.

 

Chemnitz,

You didn't comment on the following Q:

You may be believing in 3 gods of monster.
Trinity was the very foundation for Theotokos, then Theotokos itself contradicts Trinity of God, because you have to deny Theotokos means another 2/3 of Godhead, or you have to insist that Theotokos is limited to only 1/3 of God. You may be believing in Incomplete Partial god

Are you splitting God ?

 

Friberg - avgenealo,ghtoj, on literally without genealogy or ancestral record; in the NT of holding an office independently of natural descent without (relying on) ancestral line, without (record of) descent (HE 7.3)

Melchizedek is a man, no more, no less. Now you are just grasping at straws trying to claim that he is God. If he was the Son of God don't you think that it would read he is not he is like.

Actually I am not confused I was referring to your post just prior to my statement about you needing to prove.

 

Can any MAN exist without the father, without mother, without beginning, without end, except Jesus Christ ?

Who is such MAN? Did he exist only in a dream ?

 

Matt Black,

Me...

You...

(historical records. evidence. It simply stuns the mind)

Matt...I was born again after the Holy Spirit convicted me, and after some of Gods born again people shared with me how Jesus Christ had changed their lives. In due time I took them up on their offer and embraced Christ through faith alone. Subsquently, my life was changed and God drew me into a community of believers.

And those who shared with me? They were born again after the Holy Spirit convicted them, and after some of Gods born again people shared with them how Jesus Christ had changed their lives. In due time they took them up on their offer and embraced Christ through faith alone. Subsquently, their lives were changed and God drew them into a community of believers.

And those who shared with the ones who shared with them? They too were born again after the Holy Spirit convicted them, and after some of Gods born again people shared with them how Jesus Christ had changed their lives. In due time they took them up on their offer and embraced Christ through faith alone. Subsquently, their lives were changed and God drew them into a community of believers.

And that process has been going on for 2000 years now. One believer at a time, from the day of pentecost until today.

Only someone whos thinking processes have been scrambled and discombobulated by the convoluted mess of contradictions, double-talk, and false teachings spewed out by Catholic apologists could make such an absurd statement.

.
.
Me...

You...

Because I lived my 1st 24 years as a Catholic. And because my eyes have been opened to truth since being born again. And by simply comparing what the Catholic Church teaches and practices up against the truth found in Gods scriptures, and what we find in the scriptures regarding true 1st century christian fellowships.

Dont have to be.

He would be very very much at home in evangelical, "in balance" charismatic, and pentecostal fellowships.

You from a following post...

The stunned mind now reels. So very sad.


God bless,

Mike

 

PLease see my response to Athanasian Creed (odd name given his views) on your last point. Are you denying that Jesus Christ was God incarnate?

On the 1st century church point, I think you will find that it was quite different to 21st century evangelical services. For a start, you forget that Christianity did not arise in a vacuum but in a Jewish and Hellenistic religio-cultural milieu. Thus any 1st century church service would have had a distinctively Jewish flavour to it (and I'm not just talking about the Jerusalem church here): there would have been liturgy (indeed we know this from Scripture because of the various proto-liturgies produced in the NT) and quite a bit of formalism generally (except possibly in Corinth - but there St Paul seeks to correct the anarchy to which that church was tending). The ECFs such as Justin Martyr also give pretty good accounts of an average service in the mid to late 2nd century which is similarly liturgical and centred on the Eucharist. So, far more resemblance to particularly the EOC than modern evangelicalism.

A word about this dreaded concept of Tradition. "Tradition" began as exegetical - if excessively creative in some early writings. As for 'praying to Mary,' that became very excessive during the past few centuries, but every doctrine about Mary was intended to both set forth a point of Christology (for example, his being both fully divine and fully human) and to show Mary as a representative of the Church.

One of the largest problems with both confusion within and misconceptions about Roman Catholicism is that writings, preaching, practises, and devotions often go far beyond actual doctrine or dogma (not that everyone would agree with the doctrines themselves.) Simple example: besides other large problems Martin Luther addressed, some of which were remedied at Trent, the sort of 'penitential system' (pardons, indulgences purchased, etc.) which existed in Luther's day were highly distorted (if very lucrative. I find Martin to have been far more Catholic than some of those whom he confronted.) Just about everything (ordinations in monasteries to have priests to say Masses for the dead, for example) centred on purgatory and the church's jurisdiction - where, actually, about all there is to the doctrine of purgatory is a concession that we do not know what lies between the earthly life and the last judgement, and that there may be purification after we die. (What Dante Alighieri and Thomas More made of it is poetic but in no way doctrinal.)

I personally think that certain dogmas, such as the Immaculate Conception, would best have never been declared. But excesses in devotion , some of which were still prevalent in my youth (when it seemed all that RCs thought about was Mary and purgatory...), though they date back several centuries, indeed could make it seem that Mary is honoured more than her son. Devotional preaching, intended to touch the heart but not necessarily theologically sound at all (I'll be forgiven for saying Franciscans did it well) could make it seem that one could not pray to God (only 'through Mary,' when she was not too busy distributing the indulgences to those in purgatory which one gave to her when making the 'heroic act of charity'), or that Mary had some sort of parental authority which meant Jesus had to obey her even now.

Another sad fact is that Roman Catholics, including priests, used to think that humble obedience (I believe that because it is what the Church teaches... it is true because it is a church teaching) was all that mattered - and apologetics were unnecessary because no one who was a good RC would ever question anything.

I'm not suggesting that every Christian should agree with Rome (or indeed Constantinople) on all counts. Yet I would suggest that one be certain of what the actual doctrine or teaching is (it normally will be related to Christology, and in that be perfectly sound) before assuming it is at odds with Christian essentials (in which I would class Christology, the Trinity, and the early creeds.)

 

Matt,

1.Would you comment on my previous post, even though it was addressed to Chemnitz?

I asked about Mechizedek, because I believe Mechizedek is Pre-Incarnate Son of God and Heb writer is talking about 2 personalities are the same.

Does any MAN exist without Father, Mother ?

Who is such man ?


2. Would you answer me about the other Q?
Is Mary Mother of 1/3 God?, Not the Mother of the other 2/3 God?

Are you splitting Godhead into 3 pieces ?

 

OK, crash-course in basic Trinitarian theology:

God is Three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in One Divine Nature (the Godhead). So He is split into three pieces whilst remaining essentially undivided.

Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ, God the Son/ the Second Person of the Triune Godhead made Incarnate. Or are you denying she gave birth to Him (the definition of a mother where I live)? She is not the mother of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. She is representative of the Church, to answer your second post because she is the non-divine model of obedience (Jesus of course being the divine model) for all Christians ("Let it be done to me in accordance with your will" ) and therefore hers is an example which we can and should follow.

Melchizedek - I agree that he is a type of Christ - an antetype if you like - but Christ Himself? The trouble is you are basing your theology in this area on such a small portion of Scripture (Heb 7:3) and as we all know, "a text out of context is a pre-text for a proof-text". For instance, you say, rightly, that Heb 7:3 says that Melchizedek had no record of a mother, but in that very same verse even it also says he was without a father. If Melchizedek is Jesus, does that mean that Jesus has no father and is therefore not Son of God??!!

 

Not sure I would have worded the first part the way you did, probably would have written something like this God has reveled himself to be three individual person yet one undivided essence. Otherwise well said.

 

"One undivided essence" is what I meant by "essentially undivided" (using 'essentially' with its less common meaning)

 

That I wasn't too concerned about, it was refering to persons as pieces. I guess you were just using Eliyahu's terms.

 

Yes I was. In his(?) vehement objection to 'pieces', he seemed to be straying into Sabellianism and I wished to correct that. It's nowhere near the sort of term I would normally use.

 

Ok.

For somebody who gets hung up over a couple of words you think Eliyahu would pick his words better.

 

Chemnitz and Matt,

Actually this is quite complicated issue as like splitting one hair.
Does anyone disagree that God is Only One and Godhead is undividable ? You may want to say Godheads are undividable.(plural) In any case, you cannot say that Mary is Mother of 1/3 Godheads, denying Maternity for the rest of 2/3 Godheads. If you retain this kind of splitting theory, it would be a big issue.

I believe that only once, such separation occurred at the Cross when He cried " Why hast thou forsaken me?" Other than that time, Jesus said:
John 8:29
And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone

John 10:30 I and Father are one

John 16:32
yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

John 3:13
even the Son of man which is in heaven

One of the problems is that RC or anyone who has the views similar to RC neglect that Jesus worked during OT times.

1) Melchizedek was Jesus Christ Gen 14
2) Malack shows up at the scene of Sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham Gen 22
3) Gen 31:13 Malack(Angel) says " I am God at Bethel"
4) Jacob confess the Malack was the Redeemer.Gen 48:16
5) Moses mentioned about the Stretched Arm

I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments (ex 6:6)

6) Manoah couple met the Malack whose name was mentioned as Peleh ( Wonderful) Judges 13
7) Isaiah mention about the Arm of Jehovah 53

There are much more than I can illustrate here.

Jesus worked during OT times and didn't become a new Jesus by coming out of Mary.

When Heb 7 describe about Son of God and Melchizedek, the writer was talking about the fact that both have no earthly father, no earthly mother, no genealogy, no beginning, no ending, perpetual priesthood, and therefore in those aspects, Melchizedek is like unto Son of God because they are similar each other ( Actually 2 persons are the same and Jesus took and became the continuation of Melchizedek's Priesthood)

In that sentence the writer doesn't mention about Son of God? Doesn't he say that Son of God has no mother, ignoring Mary?

 

Try the Nicene Creed, Eliyahu; you'll find the answers to your questions there.

 

And yet you continue to ignore the 1st chapter of John which establishes the context of the entire book. Your views are too short sided and limit God to limitations created by your reasoning. God is fully capable of having something affect one person with out it affecting the other two.

Your OT references while interesting do not prove anything. People have theorized for centuries concerning the "Angel of YHWH," it is entirely possible for the angel to be the Logos but that does not prove that Melchizedek is the Logos appearing as a man. There are other instances in Genesis where YHWH appeared as man and Abraham recognized him as YHWH, there is no such indication with Melchizedek.

Again Heb 7:3 means nothing concerning Mary as mother as this verse can be taken to refer only to the Logos

 

Can Nicene Creed supercede Bible or take authority over the Bible?

Do you claim the Infallibility of the Creeds ?

Why did the Creeds change from time to time?

One question: Do you believe that God created the heaven and earth thru Jesus Christ ( Eph 3:9)
Do you find such words in any Creeds?

I don't believe in the Whory Roman Catholic Church !