₦airaland Forum

You my friend, are not seeing the big picture.

Hebrews 7:15-16 KJV

And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

In the SIMILITUDE of Melchizedek there arose another Priest who is made after the power of an endless life- Jesus Christ.

vooks:
Theophanies came and went. Melchizedek was a King of a historical city Salem,was well known to Abraham

Heb 7:14
now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of his spoils.
What is stressed in Hebrews is the SIMILARITIES paralled in ministry not the nature of his being to that of Christ.

The Word became flesh when Jesus was born of Mary.This ought to put out of misery any belief in pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus. And don't take me to Daniel's fiery furnace

I heard Jews believed Melchizedek was Shem son of Noah. He outlived Abraham by 35 years and could have been the oldest guy at that time. Now, look at Job offering sacrifices for his kids. That was the order before Moses. The father was the priest and sometimes the grandfather....

vooks:
Not just a priest but a King over a certain Salem.

What if the three guys who visited Abraham were his neighbors with wives and kids? Would that be theophany?

That word 'salem' is English rendering for 'Shalom'. Melchizedek was King of Absolute peace and also King of righteousness. There is nothing to suggest that Salem was a real city. Also, Abraham never felt any King was greater than him enough for him to receive a blessing from such a king. This is an aside from the fact that scriptures called Jesus PRINCE of peace and righteousness whereas Melchizedek was called KING of peace.

I believe the little evidences prove that he was a Theophany and not a ChristoPhany as the case maybe.

Zikkyy:
The bit in blue and red font is proof that the Hebrew writer did not consider Christ and Melchizedek to be one and the same person.

I agree.

Zikkyy:
...and he was also a priest of the most high God. If truly he remains a priest forever, who is in currently serving as the high priest? Christ or Melchizedek?

Christ is.

Zikkyy:
If Melchizedek is not Jesus, then the belief/view that Melchi did not die cannot be correct. Hebrews 7 says Melchi remains a priest forever and we know there is only one High priest (Christ).

He can be Deity without being Jesus himself. The Holy Spirit appeared as a man a couple of times in the OT. That's what people call a theophany. I am tilting towards that.

Hebrews 7:3, 15-16 KJV

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

vooks:
Meaning there is no record of his birth nor death
Gr. apator, ametor, agenealogetos" translated. into without father, without mother without recorded genealogy.

vooks:
Was Melchizedek Jesus?

To me, No.

Goshen360:
Having neither beginning OF DAYS = The day one is born
nor end of life = The day someone dies

So, put it together, the day he was born wasn't records in the genealogy\missing, so also the day he died. But we all know Christ had a day he was born and also the day he died. So, he is not Melchizedek.

Meaning: he wasn't born and he didn't die. Period.

vooks:
1. Without father nor mother means we have no record of his family
2. Without genealogy means we have no record of his tribe
3. Having neither beginning of life nor end of life means we have no record of his birth or death

These three things can equally be said of MANY OT characters. Why the author of Hebrews dwells on the absence of records concerning Melchizedek is because he called a Priest and Psalms confirms that. When God gave the Levitical priesthood, those three records were of paramount importance lest a non-Levite undertakes priestly work. Recall service began at a specific age so DoB is concerned.

Hebrews is simply magnifying th fact that Melchizedek was the furthest from a Levite. In fact on this basis he concludes change of the Mosaic covenant whose hallmark was the Levitical Priesthood.

The absence of Melchizedek records don't make him supernatural any more than that of other characters without the same. This is a curiously beautiful argument from silence

Having neither beginning of days nor end of life means what it means. After all, the bible says Jesus came after his order and is forever a priest after an endless life.

Goshen360:
Ignorance in 3D, BOTH DIDN'T OCCUPY ONE AND SAME ETERNAL OFFICE. One was likened to another and the function of one was hidden in one, revealed in the other. Is Melchizedek as a man interceeding for you as a priest today or Christ? There's only ONE mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus. Melchizedek long died. Christ died and resurrected and herein he lives and we have hope he intercedes for us.

Scripture said he neither had beginning of days nor end of life and remains a priest forever. How did you come about his death?

vooks:
First Melchizedek is not called High Priest but Priest. Jesus is the High Priest.
They can't hold the same office at the same time. Who said they did?

Melchizedek was called Priest of the Most High God because for one to qualify as high priest, they would need other priests to come after their order and there was no other priest under him at the time.

^^
Very apt.

trustman:
I hear you!
Given where we have been through with this matter it's statements
Mbaemeka made like:


and:


that made one go all these routes.

I guess i'll rest my case on this matter, for now.

Notice the terms 'unnecessary' and 'dismissed'. I was saying the latter was wrong.

vooks:
mbaemeka,
Please sheath your sword,claws and fangs let's chat. I need your thoughts. No fight, just exchanging opinions.

I saw Hagin struggle to distinguish between prophesying and 'office of the prophet'
Is there a difference between these? I thought a teacher is somebody who teaches, a prophet one who prophesies and so forth.

Sure, no qualms.

Yes, there is a difference between Prophesying and the office or the ministry of a Prophet. According to the scriptures, 'Telling forth' and 'Foretelling' are essentially the meanings of the word 'Prophesy' but both roles do not belong to everyone. How do I mean?

In 1 Corinthians 14 vs 29 he talked about the Office of a prophet and in vs 31 he spoke about the use of prophecy which he then said was available to everyone. He could say this because of the following:

1. In the Ministry gift or office of a prophet, one who occupies such a role MUST be called of God and his primary role is to FORETELL the mind of God. Such a person will be able to see things in the future or PAST (things that God shows him/her) and he might be obligated to tell the people. For example, Agabus was told about Paul's impending arrest in Jerusalem and the famine. Agabus functioned in that office of a prophet.

Let me also add here that scriptures tell us the office is for exhortation, edification and comforting the brethren so whenever a prophet sees something in the realm of the spirit (by the agency of God), it is all in a bid to exhort, edify and comfort the brethren. Which is similar to what Agabus did. The office of the prophet is not star-gazing, fortune telling etc. The prophet only sees or says what God has shown and allowed him/her to foretell. So if God says "there would be a bombing in this place, do not go there", the prophet simply foretells it so that none of the brethren or their loved ones will be there.

2. In the use of the gift of prophecy, this is still for edification, exhortation and comforting thr brethren as the office but it differs from it in the sense that IT IS NOT a revelation from God. It is just the Christian (whoever it is) 'telling forth' God's word based on faith (Romans 12:6). Even those who are Prophets I.e they are called into the office can still operate this forth-telling gift without a revelation. All that matters is that it should be word-based and meet the conditions above - exhortation, bla bla. An example can be, I could meet a fellow Christian who maybe going through one challenge or the other and I can say "God's word says he will never leave us nor forsake us, so I prophesy to you that whatever you are going through now, God is with you and it would all pan out for your good".

Now, I didn't hear anything directly from God, neither did I see any vision or revelation. But I am just telling forth the word of God in faith (I.e without doubting) so as to comfort the brother. I am using the gift of prophecy without necessarily being a Prophet and it is valid according to the word of God.

So if I tell someone "it is well with you!" Or I say to a barren woman " You would give birth to a child" I am just prophesying by faith to comfort her. I may not have heard such words from God. Paul says it is still not wrong since it is word based.

Sorry if it is too long. If you havr further questions and I have the answers to them I will attempt them.

vooks:
Let me try.
1. You agree that 'everlasting' can be qualified,and the Levitical Priesthood and Atonement proves that.
2. You reject any suggestion of the 'everlasting' in Abrahamic covenant being qualified.

To support your position on 1 & 2, you have to step outside the verses mentioning 'everlasting'. You only need to look to Hebrews to dismiss the argument that Levitical Priesthood and Atonement are permanent.

What I ask is, is it in order to test the permanence of Abrahamic covenant by looking at other scriptures? This is not too much to ask. But before we do that, we may want to ask ourselves exactly what the contents of the covenant are,whether they were recorded as permanent/everlasting, whether this is the case, and whether we can explain the absence, if at all,of some components of the covenant as result of the covenant ceasing.

Everlasting is determined by the one who has existed from Everlasting (past) to Everlasting (future)- God and by his word (fot they are one and the same). So yes, for one to understand what God meant as everlasting in any aspect that it was used, we have to compare scripture with scripture. This is why the book of Hebrews for instance, is very useful. Without the book, the Jews would have held unto their 'everlasting Levitical priesthood' and they would have been right, but Paul showed us why that priesthood (like all the statutes of the OT) wasn't 'everlasting' outside the law.

Now when he came to the Abrahamic covenant, he didn't tell us it was abrogated. Instead he said God swore that it would always be and God proved it by making his son, the savior to come as part of the blessings or the promise.

In a synopsis, the covenant brought all the blessings of Abraham to us. Wealth, health, security, fecundity, wisdom, etc. It is also brought the saviour, forgiveness and remission of sins, righteousness, non-imputation for sins etc. All these things Abraham nominally enjoyed until Jesus came to consummate it for us. So now we have the full package by the Holy spirit (which is something Abraham didn't have). That's why our covenant is far better than the OT and why we received the blessings he and co waited for Hebrews 11.

BabaGnoni:
I dont think mbaemeka disagrees that heart circumcision superseded physical circumcision,
just as giving with a cheerful heart & without compulsion superseded paying tithe or tithe giving
I think mbaemeka agrees that physical circumcision & paying tithe or tithe giving albeit no longer mandatory for the Christian, can be optional
- though unnecessary, nothing stops the Christian having physical circumcision or paying tithe (i.e. giving tithe)

Thank you.

trustman:
I believe on my part it's ok, Vooks. At the end of the day it is for us all to have a better grasp of the whole thing. 

I'm really trying to understand Mbaemeka's position. 

On the one hand he seem to advocate that circumcision is no longer required. 
But on the other hand he appears to be emphasizing that because it is pre-law, the covenant it 'marks' still exists, and there is no NT verse abrogating it, then it has not been 'dismissed'. 

If it has not been dismissed, what does that mean? That it is still operational? That it is merely optional? That in fact it is still necessary, in which case it is in essence still required - perhaps to have the 'full benefit' of the covenant? If so, which covenant? Is it the same as the better one of which Jesus is the guarantor (Hebrews 7 & eight) or a different covenant? Which covenant is the Christian under? 

The questions can go on and on I suppose but let's await his clarifications.

BBG gave a good analogy and I believe I have also done something similar above. If one is married to a woman, they are already married so the need for a ring is optional. Yes in the spiritual sense even Angels and demons know such a person is married but a beautiful spinster may not. So the ring on your finger should be like a mark to identify with the married folks. That's another way to look at it.

Also, like I said before; the Abrahamic and New covenants are interlinked and are away from the OLD. So the Christian is a product of the NT.

vooks:
I believe the point in this is the word everlasting can be qualified. We are not advocating for an eternal Levitical priesthood, just saying the word everlasting may be qualified

Here is another usage of the word.
Leviticus 16:34 (KJV)
And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses.

If this is the case, the covenant with Abraham though reckoned as everlasting,it is quite possible that it is no longer in place and we should not merely resort to the usage of the word 'everlasting' there to defend the permanence of the covenant anymore than we can for Levitical Priesthood and Atonement

Sorry trustman and mbaemeka if I missed the context

I understand you perfectly but you do not seem to understand me as well. In this verse you quoted again God said the duty of Aaron and other Levitical priests after him to offer sacrifices for the sins of the whole of Israel will be everlasting ACCORDING TO THEIR GENERATION (S) {OF THE LAW OF MOSES}. In other words, it was everlasting as long as the LAW WAS INTACT- because the law created such statute(s). This is totally different from the covenant God had with Abraham because God said the covenant was everlasting according to himself. In other words, God swore by himself to himself (as there was no law binding him to neither was there a higher authority than him) that as long as he exists the covenant with Abraham concerning Christ and his church will be everlasting Hebrews 6:13. So there was nothing that could annul it. Absolutely nothing.

Not the law that came 430 years after the promise nor the NT because the Abrahamic covenant gave birth to the NT.

Hope you understand.

trustman:
[size=6pt][/size]

How do you reconcile:


With:

?

What it means is; Nobody is mandated to get circumcised physically if they are already circumcised in the spirit BUT it doesn't mean that if they choose to do it, they are wrong or amiss. Just like Tithing. So it is therefore wrong for anyone to claim that circumcision has been dismissed EXCEPT they mean it in the context of salvation.

Galatians 2:14 KJV

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

vooks:
My broda,
I know that James had no business sending unsaved Jews to Peter. What I meant was, Peter just saw them and panicked and as such he was the ONLY person at fault not the messengers.
It is difficult to fathom James sending Peter some mean staunch circumcision guys right after Acts 15 Council. Peter feared the guys from James would report back in Jerusalem and word would reach the bad guys. He is the only guy who withdrew. This is why the rebuke was directed at him.
Who is Mr. Sura?

Peter was as guilty as the rest of them. Paul spoke directly to Peter because he expected more from him. Besides, James may not necessarily have sent them with those intentions. But that they came from James' church made them 'men from James' (even though they obdurately held unto the circumcision-for-salvation theology. Something James had agreed together with the rest, was now unnecessary)


BTW, Sura is the renowned cessationist on that other thread.

Trustman,

1. Circumcision is not required by anyone.

2. What you quoted from Leviticus said Levites would forever be priests through out their generations. I said 2 things in response:

a) This was according to the law, and the law has been abolished. That is why we know it is no longer binding.

b) God already knew the law will not be everlasting but that verse may confuse you until you read Hebrews amd what I have been saying. God was only saying that verse for e.g, that ONLY the Levites will forever be the priests in THIER GENERATIONS. What Generation? The Generation or Era of the Law. That's what Paul explaines in Hebrews 7.

From the foregoing, I wasn't saying that circumcision remains in tact ONLY because it is pre-law. I said it has not been dismissed because 1) It is pre-law 2) the covenant it marks still exists 3) there is NO NT verse saying it has been dismissed (neither can there be).

Also, my post to you above was to show you that is erroneous to claim that Abrahams covenant with God was for ONLY ISRAEL. I hope it didn't pass you by.

Galatians 2:12 KJV

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

vooks:
Did they intimidate Peter to stay away from Gentiles?

the certain that came from James were "of the circumcision". If you read the preceding verses you would have seen how Paul said while he ministered to Gentile Christians, Peter on the other hand ministered to Jewish Christians. It follows logically that "of the circumcision" referred to NO ONE ELSE but Jewish Christians.

If you would not see it, then let it rest.

BTW, you are bullying Mr. Sura o. . .

^^

I believe the ignorant one points at those who make non-sequitor arguments or statements such as the ones you have been making on the subject matter.

Shalom.

Acts 3:25 KJV

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Trustman,

You are the one who seems to mixing things up. The JEWS (like you) THOUGHT that the covenant was their exclusive preserve but they were wrong. Paul said so in Galatians 3 but even if that confuses you listen to Peter teach his fellow Jews in the above verse. Please read it slowly. You will understand it.

Peter says; you my fellow Jews are the CHILDREN of the covenant which God had with Abraham. . . So that ALL the nations of the earth will be blessed through his SEED.

I want you to notice his language. He didn't say the JEWS had a covenant with God THROUGH Abraham. He said God had a covenant with Abraham and the JEWS (like the rest of the world) are the products; offspring; offshoot; children of that covenant. And Peter said this was possible through Abraham's SEED. Good.

Now, Paul told us in Galatians 3 that the seed God was referring to was CHRIST and not ISRAEL or Isaac or whoever. So the underlying questions will be:

1. Is Christ present or Past?
2. Does that covenant still exist?

The answer to the above posers shows us why without a doubt that the Abrahamic covenant still exists and that is because the SEED is what was produced from the covenant. That seed was Christ and nothing else.

Isaac and Israel are what you call Abraham's fleshly seed or children of the flesh while (in thist context), Christ is that spiritual seed. Why is this important? It is because it shows us what circumcision really is, which is a fleshly way of identifying with the promise of the blessings which came though Christ, same way Isaac and by that Israel, were just a fleshly way of saying Abraham's seed. They were NOT what God was referring to. God was referring to Christ and Christ is the WHOLE BODY of the Church including Gentiles AND NOT ONLY JEWS.

So the verse about Paul saying if you are circumcised Christ will not benefit you, should be studied IN CONTEXT. He was saying if you get circumcised because you feel that it adds to your salvation then Christ will not benefit you. Why? Because salvation is not a mixture of law and grace. It is by grace only (recall that the Christian jews were insisting on circumcision According to the LAW of Moses).

Sorry if the post is too lengthy.

vooks:
Paul was the MOST influential perverter. Of course everybody did but you can't possibly explain why Paul persecutions were overboard otherwise can you? Who told you the men from James were any threat to Peter? Peter THOUGHT / IMAGINED so and he misbehaved accordingly. Nobody tells you they were pro-circumcision. In fact if they were pro-circumcision, Paul would have rebuked them plus Peter. He just rebuked Peter because Peter was the ONLY confused guy

Any value you see in circumcision, Paul must have missed it by suffering Gentile Christian Titus and others to go uncircumcised

Am not God, I work on coherent questions and thought processes. You know that

This makes zero sense and there's no quibbling over all the debatable points you are making. In the book of Galatians, Paul talked about men from James and referred to them copiously as pro-circumcision. If you can not see it, I cannot help you or your bovarism.

vooks:
My brother,
Quit dancing around your confusion.
1. Define generations
2. Explain when generations ceased

CAVEAT: I am responsible for what I say, not how you choose to interpret it.

Now (armed with this), go back and read the verses he posted and what I said in relation to them. All that rubbish talk about generations will be nullified when you do.

Thanks.

trustman:
I may respond more fully to your post.

But for now let me give you additional information that may help you appreciate things better.

Let me make it clearer: circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Genesis 17).  This covenant was later extended to Abraham's descendants through Isaac (Genesis 17:19).  Not including Ishmael but only Isaac (Genesis 17:21). In Genesis 26 God again reestablished the oath he made to Abraham with Isaac. And then with Jacob who was renamed Israel (Genesis 35). The twelve sons of Jacob later became the NATION ISRAEL. God again reinstated his covenant with the nation Israel (Exodus 22,19,ff).  
God did not make any similar covenant with any other nation. Only Israel was his special people. Circumcision was therefore a sign between God and his special people alone. Anyone other people who wished to identify with Israel under the covenant had to be circumcised.

Many things are right with this post but let me show you the absolute lies:

1. Ishmael was circumscised Genesis 17:23 and he was NOT ISRAEL OR CONNECTED TO ISRAEL IN ANY WAY.

2.The covenant was between God and Abraham concerning Abraham and his SEED which referred anyone that hailed from or was connected to him. Paul said that SEED was Christ and his church (present day) and we are still connected to him according to Galatians 3.

I however, do agree with last aspect of your write-up. The anyone who wished to identify with the COVENANT and not ISRAEL had to be circumcised. It is a fleshly way of saying I am part of the Abrahamic covenant. Look at the proof. Period. Nobody ever said it was spiritually valuable.

vooks:
So the generations have ceased and we no longer have Jews? Brilliant

Fallacy of reducing facts to your own ill-conceived absurdities. Whatever I was referring to there had to with whatever thing God said would thrive during THEIR generations so I wonder how you reduced it to Jews.

All because you made a totally unbiblical remark that the seal of the Abrahamic covenant (and therefore the covenant itself) was TOTALLY DISMISSED.

vooks:
1. You have learnt. Thanks
2. The same reason they accused him of perverting their traditions.
3. Dismissed vs totally dismissed nonsense, it has no value. Educate Gombs on the idiocy of 'identifying with the promises'
4. Spare me mishmash and I will gladly respond

Your case is pathetic. Is any Christian not perverting Jewish tradition? Did Peter not also pervert Jewish traditions? Haha ha. Tell us if it wasn't Christian Jews that attacked Peter. The most inane remark I have seen on this issue is that 'unsaved Jews' would attack Paul for not circumcising gentiles. People Paul referred to as 'Men from James' in his writ to the Galatians.

I also thought you claimed circumcision was valueless in all ramifications? Did Paul not say it still had value? I thought you said it was dismissed in any form whatsoever? Did Paul agree with you?

As per mishmash, as it pleases you. Any scripture that exposes the flaw in any area of your beliefs is mishmash. It is the usual stock-in-trade of those who cannot learn.

trustman:
Circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Israel only. God did not make any similar covenant with any other nation.
Now that you've got my answer I await yours to my question:
Leviticus 23 stated many things God said were to be done forever or 'throughout your generations' or words to that effect.
How many of them do you or your church still follow today?

Ishmael wasn't Israeli, Abraham wasn't Israeli either. In fact, post a scripture that says the Abrahamic covenant was with Israel. The bible ONLY said God made a covenant with Abraham that he and his seed will receive the promise. The seed in question wasn't Israel. It was Anyone who was to believe in God's son.

As for your question. I have answered them and will do so again: God didn't say those things were to be done forever or throughout ALL generations. He said they would be done thoughout THEIR generations. He knew what he meant when he said it but they didn't comprehend him. He knew that those ordinances that came WITH THE LAW were only as a schoolmaster till the substance came- Christ.

Now that Christ has come those generations have been put to stop. Christ has come to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant that was before the law. For starters, that Abrahamic covenant was what promised and later produced the savior- Jesus Christ.

trustman:
Your response has not really answered the question.
BTW, i already answered Gombs when i pointed him to my response to another post by
i think Goshen360 on the issue.

In summary, was circumcision for ISRAEL AND ONLY ISRAEL?

vooks:
A few facts.
1. Circumcision is not necessary for the Jew nor the Gentile. There is no requirement whatsoever to 'identify with the covenant' and there never has been. All the merits of circumcision are therefore nonexistent. wedding rings at least there is a tradition for those. There is no tradition for circumcision nowhere. A rite that was once a command, now deemed a burden,A rite Paul felt was unnecessary for Titus and one which he performed on Timothy out of pressure has zero value to nobody. God does not require any for of identifying with the covenant.
2. Circumcision was the true mark of a proselyte, a gentile convert to Judaism. Paul was accused of preventing the traditions of the Jews and if he walked with a circumcised Gentile, none of that would possibly be raised. Once again, the Council had just ruled that Gentiles needed not be circumcised. I don't see how they would still demand Timothy circumcision after this, that's why I stick to unsaved Jews. Any pressure to conform to Jewishness after Acts 15 could ONLY have come from unsaved Jews not circumcision party
3. The rest of your mishmash is unworthy of my response. Hope you don't mind

1. Hogwash. Can't repeat myself.

2. More Hogwash. What would unsaved Jews gain by demanding circumcision from someone who was a believer in something totally antitethical to their own beliefs. This makes no iota of sense. Just stick to the scriptures.

3. Hahahaha really funny bit. At least you won't go anywhere else to assert that circumcision is TOTALLY DISMISSED AGAIN.

PS: you didn't answer ANY of my questions but I understand why. . .