Christianity

[Veteran1990]

I think it would be conceptually easier if the Bible emphasized when it is referring to God The Father and when referring to God in the Context of the others who are reffered to as God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I want you to understand this.Jacob: I have met God face to Face. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus: no one has ever seen Yahweh god.

The Evangelist writes "No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten God*, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known."

*variant manuscripts read "Son" rather than "God"

Jesus said "if you have seen Me you have seen the Father".

No one has seen God (the Father), because the Father is known and encountered through His Son, who became flesh.

The Prophet Hosea calls the figure Jacob wrestled with an angel (Hosea 12:4).

Genesis says "man", Hosea says "angel"; Jacob declares after this encounter, "I have seen God face to face".

Man? Angel? God? Which is it?

In the historic Christian interpretation the answer is straightforward: it's all the above, because it's Jesus. The Angel of YHWH, the Malakh YHWH, is a figure seen in several places in Old Testament literature. What is often fascinating is how encounters with this figure are often described as encounters with God, with YHWH Himself, rather than a mere intermediate creature, an angel. This has led Christians down through the ages to perceive here in the figure of the Malakh YHWH the pre-Incarnate Christ, the eternal Son of God. For this reason the encounter with God's Messenger is an encounter with God, because it is God. These appearances of Christ which the Church has seen throughout the Old Testament literature are known as Christophanies, a kind of Theophany but very specifically that it is Christ.

For this reason the discrepancy between the story of Jacob and what the Evangelist writes in his Gospel are not considered problematic. Because Christian theology insists that one does not meet God unmediated--God is, as described by St. Paul dwelling in "unapproachable light"; indeed Christian theology maintains that the Divine Essence is ineffable, unknowable, and incomprehensible. God can only be known by revelation, God reveals Himself in Jesus. The Father encountered through the Son. This is why the Second Council of Nicea ruled that while icons of Christ were orthodox, icons of the Father were heterodox. We don't behold the Father in Himself, we behold the Father in His Son. His Son who became flesh.

And therefore, "No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.". What Jacob beheld wasn't the unmediated direct encounter with God the Father, what Jacob encountered was God the Son with human appearance. Now this raises a lot of questions, in particularly it raises questions concerning how we speak of the Logos Asarkos. Indeed, the Eastern Orthodox, as I understand it, see in the story of the Garden of Eden that God walking in the midst of the garden is none other than Jesus Christ Himself in the flesh.

Now this interpretation presumes Christian faith. And this is important, because the operation of faith is going to be essential in any analysis of the Bible. The skeptical critical analyzer of the Bible isn't going to be reading the Bible as a Christ-bearing text; and that isn't to dismiss the scholarly work and acumen which such analysis provides us with. I'm not an inerrantist, I don't have a problem with critical analysis of Scripture. But I am still a Christian, and that means I do read the Bible as a Christ-bearing text. I read the Bible because, in faith, I believe Christ is there, in the text.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Christianity

If you are lazy this post is not for you

Isince i have been here apparently aggravated certain people despite God himself seeming completely fine with someone Evaluating The Scriptures:

1.) and examined the Scriptures(U) every day to see if what Paul said was true.

I would assume that if the pattern of those who came into Contact with the apostles were not rebuked or met with such aggravation from the apostles, where God has no problem with Testing Scripture that it is paradoxically uncalled for, when Scripture is Tested for christians to respond aggressively or insinuate things about my person.

Based on what it does say in The Bible, The Bible is open to Scrutiny to which God Himself has no problem.

MY EVALUATION OF SCRIPTURE:

From Everything I have heard, Studied on my own in the form of an anthropology of The Bible, Examining its compilation, and based on verses I have Still decided to Truth God while allowing for myself to question and Examine everything said or stated by every Biblical author to ensure and determine they even knew anything about God.

In my Studies I have found large internal inconsistencies and literary problems that I can not ignore and can not do anything but question because of such problems.

1.) Overview of The Bibles Compilation and Historical Analysis:

Based on analysis and research

OLD TESTAMENT

The Old Testament is the first section of the Bible, covering the creation of Earth through Noah and the flood, Moses and more, finishing with the Jews being expelled to Babylon.
The Bible | HISTORY

HEZIKIAH

It was during the reign of Hezekiah of Judah in the 8th century B.C. that historians believe what would become the Old Testament began to take form, the result of royal scribes recording royal history and heroic legends.

During the reign of Josiah in the 6th century B.C., the books of Deuteronomy and Judges were compiled and added. The final form of the Hebrew Bible developed over the next 200 years when Judah was swallowed up by the expanding Persian Empire.

SEPTUIGENT

Following conquest by Alexander the Great, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek in the 3rd century B.C.

Known as the Septuagint, this Greek translation was initiated at the request of King Ptolemy of Egypt to be included in the library of Alexandria. The Septuagint was the version of the Bible used by early Christians in Rome.

The Book of Daniel was written during this period and included in the Septuagint at the last moment, though the text itself claims to have been written sometime around 586 B.C.

NEW TESTAMENT

The New Testament tells the story of the life of Jesus and the early days of Christianity, most notably Paul’s efforts to spread Jesus’ teaching. It collects 27 books, all originally written in Greek.

The sections of the New Testament concerning Jesus are called the Gospels and were written about 40 years after the earliest written Christian materials, the letters of Paul, known as the Epistles.

Paul’s letters were distributed by churches sometime around 50 A.D., possibly just before Paul’s death. Scribes copied the letters and kept them in circulation. As circulation continued, the letters were collected into books.

Some in the church, inspired by Paul, began to write and circulate their own letters, and so historians believe that some books of the New Testament attributed to Paul were in fact written by disciples and imitators.

As Paul’s words were circulated, an oral tradition began in churches telling stories about Jesus, including teachings and accounts of post-resurrection appearances. Sections of the New Testament attributed to Paul talk about Jesus with a firsthand feeling, but Paul never knew Jesus except in visions he had, and the Gospels were not yet written at the time of Paul’s letters.

GOD GOSPEL

The oral traditions within the church formed the substance of the Gospels, the earliest book of which is Mark, written around 70 A.D., 40 years after the death of Jesus.

It is theorized there may have been an original document of sayings by Jesus known as the Q source, which was adapted into the narratives of the Gospels. All four Gospels were published anonymously, but historians believe that the books were given the name of Jesus’ disciples to provide direct links to Jesus to lend them greater authority.

Matthew and Luke were next in the chronology. Both used Mark as a reference, but Matthew is considered to have another separate source, known as the M source, as it contains some different material from Mark. Both books also stress the proof of Jesus’ divinity more than Mark did.

The Book of John, written around 100 A.D., was the final of the four and has a reputation for hostility to Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries.

All four books cover the life of Jesus with many similarities, but sometimes contradictions in their portrayals. Each is considered to have its own political and religious agenda linked to authorship.

For instance, the books of Matthew and Luke present different accounts of Jesus’ birth, and all contradict each other about the resurrection.

BIBLICAL CANON

Surviving documents from the 4th century show that different councils within the church released lists to guide how various Christian texts should be treated.

The earliest known attempt to create a canon in the same respect as the New Testament was in 2nd century Rome by Marcion, a Turkish businessman and church leader.

Marcion’s work focused on the Gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul. Disapproving of the effort, the Roman church expelled Marcion.

Second-century Syrian writer Tatian attempted to create a canon by weaving the four gospels together as the Diatessaron.

The Muratorian Canon, which is believed to date to 200 A.D., is the earliest compilation of canonical texts resembling the New Testament.

It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon. The books that eventually were considered canon reflect the times they were embraced as much the times of the events they portray.

During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, books not originally written in Hebrew but Greek, such as Judith and Maccabees, were excluded from the Old Testament. These are known the Apocrypha and are still included in the Catholic Bible.

Gnostic gospel

Additional Biblical texts have been discovered, such as the Gospel of Mary, which was part of the larger Berlin Gnostic Codex found in Egypt in 1896.

Fifty further unused Biblical texts were discovered in Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945, known as the Gnostic Gospels.

Among the Gnostic Gospels were the Gospel of Thomas—which purports to be previously hidden sayings by Jesus presented in collaboration with his twin brother—and The Gospel of Philip, which implies a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The original texts are believed to date back to around 120 A.D.

The Book of Judas was found in Egypt in the 1970s. Dated to around 280 A.D., it is believed by some to contain secret conversations between Jesus and his betrayer Judas.

These have never become part of the official Biblical canon, but stem from the same traditions and can be read as alternative views of the same stories and lessons. These texts are taken as indications of the diversity of early Christianity.

KING JAMES BIBLE

The King James Bible is possibly the most widely-known edition of the Bible, though in England it is known as the “Authorized Version.”

First printed in 1611, this edition of the Bible was commissioned in 1604 by King James I after feeling political pressure from Puritans and Calvinists demanding church reform and calling for a complete restructuring of church hierarchy.

In response, James called for a conference at Hampton Court Palace, during which it was suggested to him that there should be a new translation of the Bible since versions commissioned by earlier monarchs were felt to be corrupt.

King James eventually agreed and decreed the new translation should speak in contemporary language, using common, recognizable terms. James’ purpose was to unite the warring religious factions through a uniform holy text.

This version of the Bible was not altered for 250 years and is credited as one of the biggest influences on the English language, alongside the works of Shakespeare. The King James Bible introduced a multitude of words and phrases now common in the English language, including “eye for an eye,” “bottomless pit,” “two-edged sword,” “God forbid,” “scapegoat” and “turned the world upside down,” among many others.

MY PROBLEM WITH CANON

The books that make up the Bible were written by various people over a period of more than 1,000 years, between 1200 B.C.E. and the first century C.E. The Bible contains a variety of literary genres, including poetry, history, songs, stories, letters and prophetic writings. These were originally written on scrolls of parchment, as opposed to being encapsulated in "books" as we think of them today. (Remember, the printing press wasn't invented until 1440.)

Over time, the books that were deemed authentic and authoritative by the communities who used them were included in the canon and the rest were discarded. Although the bulk of that editing work ended in the late 300s, the debate over which books were theologically legit continued until at least the 16th century when church reformer Martin Luther published his German translation of the Bible.

Who Decided Which Books to Include in the Bible?

Research from the web

In truth, there was no single church authority or council that convened to rubber stamp the biblical canon (official list of books in the Bible), not at Nicea or anywhere else in antiquity, explains Jason Combs, an assistant professor at Brigham Young University specializing in ancient Christianity.

"Dan Brown did us all a disservice," says Combs. "We don't have evidence that any group of Christians got together and said, 'Let's hash this out once and for all.'" (The Council of Nicea was convened to resolve a religious matter unrelated to the books of the Bible.)

What evidence scholars do have — in the form of theological treatises, letters and church histories that have survived for millennia — points to a much longer process of canonization. From the first through the fourth centuries and beyond, different church leaders and theologians made arguments about which books belonged in the canon, often casting their opponents as heretics.

The books that make up the Bible were written by various people over a period of more than 1,000 years, between 1200 B.C.E. and the first century C.E. The Bible contains a variety of literary genres, including poetry, history, songs, stories, letters and prophetic writings. These were originally written on scrolls of parchment, as opposed to being encapsulated in "books" as we think of them today. (Remember, the printing press wasn't invented until 1440.)

I don't believe a person can be a believer in Jesus Christ and yet also attack the Bible. You either believe the Bible or you don't believe it. It's either all true, or all false. I don't choose to believe in what men write about the Bible. The Bible is about having a relationship with God. If you missed that part of the Bible, and all you want to do is doubt the Bible, there are plenty of people out there that do that.

Remember, Jesus said if we do not receive His words, those words will judge us on the last day (John 12:48). Remember, faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). It does not sound like you are doing that. But if you want to doubt God's Word, that is your free will choice. I know it will not give you any true comfort or joy in this life or the next if you persist in that kind of thinking. So I beg you to come back to the Bible and believe it.

For there are many evidences that back up the Bible as being divine in origin.

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

Side Note:

Oh, and by the way it has nothing to do with how much research you have done. A person can find tons of false information on why they think the vaccine is evil (when it is not), or they can find tons of false information on how the Earth is flat. Posting tons of information that attacks the faith does not mean we are obligated to read what you have wrote by any means. It does not mean we are lazy, either. For do you bother to read page length write ups on things you know are false or that goes against what you hold dear? I sure hope not. Then don't expect believers in the Bible to read what you write on your doubting the Bible. Christians are followers of God's Word. I don't think they are going to take kindly in you attacking one of the most important things of God they hold close to their heart and life.

“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” (Psalms 119:105).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Christianity

If you are lazy this post is not for you

Isince i have been here apparently aggravated certain people despite God himself seeming completely fine with someone Evaluating The Scriptures:

1.) and examined the Scriptures(U) every day to see if what Paul said was true.

I would assume that if the pattern of those who came into Contact with the apostles were not rebuked or met with such aggravation from the apostles, where God has no problem with Testing Scripture that it is paradoxically uncalled for, when Scripture is Tested for christians to respond aggressively or insinuate things about my person.

Based on what it does say in The Bible, The Bible is open to Scrutiny to which God Himself has no problem.

MY EVALUATION OF SCRIPTURE:

From Everything I have heard, Studied on my own in the form of an anthropology of The Bible, Examining its compilation, and based on verses I have Still decided to Truth God while allowing for myself to question and Examine everything said or stated by every Biblical author to ensure and determine they even knew anything about God.

In my Studies I have found large internal inconsistencies and literary problems that I can not ignore and can not do anything but question because of such problems.

1.) Overview of The Bibles Compilation and Historical Analysis:

Based on analysis and research

OLD TESTAMENT

The Old Testament is the first section of the Bible, covering the creation of Earth through Noah and the flood, Moses and more, finishing with the Jews being expelled to Babylon.
The Bible | HISTORY

HEZIKIAH

It was during the reign of Hezekiah of Judah in the 8th century B.C. that historians believe what would become the Old Testament began to take form, the result of royal scribes recording royal history and heroic legends.

During the reign of Josiah in the 6th century B.C., the books of Deuteronomy and Judges were compiled and added. The final form of the Hebrew Bible developed over the next 200 years when Judah was swallowed up by the expanding Persian Empire.

SEPTUIGENT

Following conquest by Alexander the Great, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek in the 3rd century B.C.

Known as the Septuagint, this Greek translation was initiated at the request of King Ptolemy of Egypt to be included in the library of Alexandria. The Septuagint was the version of the Bible used by early Christians in Rome.

The Book of Daniel was written during this period and included in the Septuagint at the last moment, though the text itself claims to have been written sometime around 586 B.C.

NEW TESTAMENT

The New Testament tells the story of the life of Jesus and the early days of Christianity, most notably Paul’s efforts to spread Jesus’ teaching. It collects 27 books, all originally written in Greek.

The sections of the New Testament concerning Jesus are called the Gospels and were written about 40 years after the earliest written Christian materials, the letters of Paul, known as the Epistles.

Paul’s letters were distributed by churches sometime around 50 A.D., possibly just before Paul’s death. Scribes copied the letters and kept them in circulation. As circulation continued, the letters were collected into books.

Some in the church, inspired by Paul, began to write and circulate their own letters, and so historians believe that some books of the New Testament attributed to Paul were in fact written by disciples and imitators.

As Paul’s words were circulated, an oral tradition began in churches telling stories about Jesus, including teachings and accounts of post-resurrection appearances. Sections of the New Testament attributed to Paul talk about Jesus with a firsthand feeling, but Paul never knew Jesus except in visions he had, and the Gospels were not yet written at the time of Paul’s letters.

GOD GOSPEL

The oral traditions within the church formed the substance of the Gospels, the earliest book of which is Mark, written around 70 A.D., 40 years after the death of Jesus.

It is theorized there may have been an original document of sayings by Jesus known as the Q source, which was adapted into the narratives of the Gospels. All four Gospels were published anonymously, but historians believe that the books were given the name of Jesus’ disciples to provide direct links to Jesus to lend them greater authority.

Matthew and Luke were next in the chronology. Both used Mark as a reference, but Matthew is considered to have another separate source, known as the M source, as it contains some different material from Mark. Both books also stress the proof of Jesus’ divinity more than Mark did.

The Book of John, written around 100 A.D., was the final of the four and has a reputation for hostility to Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries.

All four books cover the life of Jesus with many similarities, but sometimes contradictions in their portrayals. Each is considered to have its own political and religious agenda linked to authorship.

For instance, the books of Matthew and Luke present different accounts of Jesus’ birth, and all contradict each other about the resurrection.

BIBLICAL CANON

Surviving documents from the 4th century show that different councils within the church released lists to guide how various Christian texts should be treated.

The earliest known attempt to create a canon in the same respect as the New Testament was in 2nd century Rome by Marcion, a Turkish businessman and church leader.

Marcion’s work focused on the Gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul. Disapproving of the effort, the Roman church expelled Marcion.

Second-century Syrian writer Tatian attempted to create a canon by weaving the four gospels together as the Diatessaron.

The Muratorian Canon, which is believed to date to 200 A.D., is the earliest compilation of canonical texts resembling the New Testament.

It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon. The books that eventually were considered canon reflect the times they were embraced as much the times of the events they portray.

During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, books not originally written in Hebrew but Greek, such as Judith and Maccabees, were excluded from the Old Testament. These are known the Apocrypha and are still included in the Catholic Bible.

Gnostic gospel

Additional Biblical texts have been discovered, such as the Gospel of Mary, which was part of the larger Berlin Gnostic Codex found in Egypt in 1896.

Fifty further unused Biblical texts were discovered in Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945, known as the Gnostic Gospels.

Among the Gnostic Gospels were the Gospel of Thomas—which purports to be previously hidden sayings by Jesus presented in collaboration with his twin brother—and The Gospel of Philip, which implies a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The original texts are believed to date back to around 120 A.D.

The Book of Judas was found in Egypt in the 1970s. Dated to around 280 A.D., it is believed by some to contain secret conversations between Jesus and his betrayer Judas.

These have never become part of the official Biblical canon, but stem from the same traditions and can be read as alternative views of the same stories and lessons. These texts are taken as indications of the diversity of early Christianity.

KING JAMES BIBLE

The King James Bible is possibly the most widely-known edition of the Bible, though in England it is known as the “Authorized Version.”

First printed in 1611, this edition of the Bible was commissioned in 1604 by King James I after feeling political pressure from Puritans and Calvinists demanding church reform and calling for a complete restructuring of church hierarchy.

In response, James called for a conference at Hampton Court Palace, during which it was suggested to him that there should be a new translation of the Bible since versions commissioned by earlier monarchs were felt to be corrupt.

King James eventually agreed and decreed the new translation should speak in contemporary language, using common, recognizable terms. James’ purpose was to unite the warring religious factions through a uniform holy text.

This version of the Bible was not altered for 250 years and is credited as one of the biggest influences on the English language, alongside the works of Shakespeare. The King James Bible introduced a multitude of words and phrases now common in the English language, including “eye for an eye,” “bottomless pit,” “two-edged sword,” “God forbid,” “scapegoat” and “turned the world upside down,” among many others.

MY PROBLEM WITH CANON

The books that make up the Bible were written by various people over a period of more than 1,000 years, between 1200 B.C.E. and the first century C.E. The Bible contains a variety of literary genres, including poetry, history, songs, stories, letters and prophetic writings. These were originally written on scrolls of parchment, as opposed to being encapsulated in "books" as we think of them today. (Remember, the printing press wasn't invented until 1440.)

Over time, the books that were deemed authentic and authoritative by the communities who used them were included in the canon and the rest were discarded. Although the bulk of that editing work ended in the late 300s, the debate over which books were theologically legit continued until at least the 16th century when church reformer Martin Luther published his German translation of the Bible.

Who Decided Which Books to Include in the Bible?

Research from the web

In truth, there was no single church authority or council that convened to rubber stamp the biblical canon (official list of books in the Bible), not at Nicea or anywhere else in antiquity, explains Jason Combs, an assistant professor at Brigham Young University specializing in ancient Christianity.

"Dan Brown did us all a disservice," says Combs. "We don't have evidence that any group of Christians got together and said, 'Let's hash this out once and for all.'" (The Council of Nicea was convened to resolve a religious matter unrelated to the books of the Bible.)

What evidence scholars do have — in the form of theological treatises, letters and church histories that have survived for millennia — points to a much longer process of canonization. From the first through the fourth centuries and beyond, different church leaders and theologians made arguments about which books belonged in the canon, often casting their opponents as heretics.

The books that make up the Bible were written by various people over a period of more than 1,000 years, between 1200 B.C.E. and the first century C.E. The Bible contains a variety of literary genres, including poetry, history, songs, stories, letters and prophetic writings. These were originally written on scrolls of parchment, as opposed to being encapsulated in "books" as we think of them today. (Remember, the printing press wasn't invented until 1440.)

Psalms 12:6 says, “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”

So I either believe you and your research, or I believe what my Bible says. I choose to believe the Bible because it gives me assurance of eternal life. God's Word has not let me down and it never will. I know God's Word is trustworthy.

 

[Albion]

I think it would be conceptually easier if the Bible emphasized when it is referring to God The Father and when referring to God in the Context of the others who are reffered to as God.

Maybe it would help us to have some specific examples from Scripture of what you are referring to. Offhand, I am thinking that the Bible DOES refer to the Father, Son, and/or Holy Spirit when one of those is the subject, whereas it refers to "God" when there is no need to direct our attention to one of the persons of God in particular. In other words, it would be wrong to name but one of the persons of God when talking about something that deals with the Triune God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--simultaneously.

 

[Veteran1990]

I don't believe a person can be a believer in Jesus Christ and yet also attack the Bible. You either believe the Bible or you don't believe it. It's either all true, or all false. I don't choose to believe in what men write about the Bible. The Bible is about having a relationship with God. If you missed that part of the Bible, and all you want to do is doubt the Bible, there are plenty of people out there that do that.

Remember, Jesus said if we do not receive His words, those words will judge us on the last day (John 12:48). Remember, faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). It does not sound like you are doing that. But if you want to doubt God's Word, that is your free will choice. I know it will not give you any true comfort or joy in this life or the next if you persist in that kind of thinking. So I beg you to come back to the Bible and believe it.

For there are many evidences that back up the Bible as being divine in origin.

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

Side Note:

Oh, and by the way it has nothing to do with how much research you have done. A person can find tons of false information on why they think the vaccine is evil (when it is not), or they can find tons of false information on how the Earth is flat. Posting tons of information that attacks the faith does not mean we are obligated to read what you have wrote by any means. It does not mean we are lazy, either. For do you bother to read page length write ups on things you know are false or that goes against what you hold dear? I sure hope not. Then don't expect believers in the Bible to read what you write on your doubting the Bible. Christians are followers of God's Word. I don't think they are going to take kindly in you attacking one of the most important things of God they hold close to their heart and life.

“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” (Psalms 119:105).

I think, based on your explanation, the concept of attacking The. Ible. And questioning its contents have various differences that determine that questioning The Bible is not to be considered an attack on The Bible.

For instance, if I said the Bible is false for the following reasons,then that would be an attack.
However, if I said that The Bible does not make sense for these reasons, that is an evaluation. I believe that God would require us to be rational, even when reading His Word bexause if that were not the case, Biblical canon would not account for details other than the assumption an author was an apostle. In terms of The Bible everything that would blatantly be a Contradiction would be argued to be non-contradictory.

My problem with this, is everything should be checked to ensure its accurate. I could understand if you said I didn't believe in Jesus that I would not be Christian, not that if I were particularly evaluated The Bible that it means I'm not one at all.

There are reasons why people make considerations as to whether or not something is accurate.

First and foremost, in regard to human sexuality, The Bible states many things that don't seem to be accurate. I have had a problem with when Jesus said, that if you even look at a women to last after her, what is even being defined there. Men and women are sexually attracted to eachother. It seems difficult to me that God in no way wants human beings to be fruitful and multiply in any other way than an intellectual sense absent of attraction, which I may be confusing with the term list.these are things, that I find particularly confounding because in terms of what we understand as human beings, we were Created in certain ways which is primarily the cause of our behavior. Even in Eden, God I assume intended we be fruitful and multiply. I can not assume, that God intended for us to be completely non-sexual and if you look at a women you have committed the sin of adultery.

It is in these instances where I have a problematic understanding of what is natural and what is sin, because there are instances that seem to allude to all human behaviors as sinful. In trying to keep God's commandments, The Bible says that is not the point. I am simply trying to naturally understand The Bible. If I truly were attacking The Bible I would not spend such time in trying to rationalize The Bible as Truth and as accurate.

Based on certain thing's stated in your post, please forgive me, but I intend not to continue a conversation with you.

I have Evaluated that people are not honest, Especially with information. I have stated I wrote a book, where the meaning of the book was changed to suit the beliefs of those who were publishing the book. I have associated the same thing to be potentially possible with those who organized The Biblical canon. Rather than assuming I have done anything evil, I am doing the same thing that those who Compiled The Bible you say you Trust, Evaluating the text. You do not make sense to me, and for this reason I can't see reaching a discussion that allows for me to understand The Bible with You. I'm sorry.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I think, based on your explanation, the concept of attacking The. Ible. And questioning its contents have various differences that determine that questioning The Bible is not to be considered an attack on The Bible.

For instance, if I said the Bible is false for the following reasons,then that would be an attack.
However, if I said that The Bible does not make sense for these reasons, that is an evaluation. I believe that God would require us to be rational, even when reading His Word bexause if that were not the case, Biblical canon would not account for details other than the assumption an author was an apostle. In terms of The Bible everything that would blatantly be a Contradiction would be argued to be non-contradictory.

My problem with this, is everything should be checked to ensure its accurate. I could understand if you said I didn't believe in Jesus that I would not be Christian, not that if I were particularly evaluated The Bible that it means I'm not one at all.

There are reasons why people make considerations as to whether or not something is accurate.

First and foremost, in regard to human sexuality, The Bible states many things that don't seem to be accurate. I have had a problem with when Jesus said, that if you even look at a women to last after her, what is even being defined there. Men and women are sexually attracted to eachother. It seems difficult to me that God in no way wants human beings to be fruitful and multiply in any other way than an intellectual sense absent of attraction, which I may be confusing with the term list.these are things, that I find particularly confounding because in terms of what we understand as human beings, we were Created in certain ways which is primarily the cause of our behavior. Even in Eden, God I assume intended we be fruitful and multiply. I can not assume, that God intended for us to be completely non-sexual and if you look at a women you have committed the sin of adultery.

It is in these instances where I have a problematic understanding of what is natural and what is sin, because there are instances that seem to allude to all human behaviors as sinful. In trying to keep God's commandments, The Bible says that is not the point. I am simply trying to naturally understand The Bible. If I truly were attacking The Bible I would not spend such time in trying to rationalize The Bible as Truth and as accurate.

Based on certain thing's stated in your post, please forgive me, but I intend not to continue a conversation with you.

I have Evaluated that people are not honest, Especially with information. I have stated I wrote a book, where the meaning of the book was changed to suit the beliefs of those who were publishing the book. I have associated the same thing to be potentially possible with those who organized The Biblical canon. Rather than assuming I have done anything evil, I am doing the same thing that those who Compiled The Bible you say you Trust, Evaluating the text. You do not make sense to me, and for this reason I can't see reaching a discussion that allows for me to understand The Bible with You. I'm sorry.

Perhaps this video will help you to better understand.

Please take note that I do not believe everything Alan Ballou teaches. However, I do agree with his view on Sola Scriptura and godliness.

 

[Veteran1990]

Maybe it would help us to have some specific examples from Scripture of what you are referring to. Offhand, I am thinking that the Bible DOES refer to the Father, Son, and/or Holy Spirit when one of those is the subject, whereas it refers to "God" when there is no need to direct our attention to one of the persons of God in particular. In other words, it would be wrong to name but one of the persons of God when talking about something that deals with the Triune God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--simultaneously.

I have seen in text, that English translation renders the word God without applying Context to The Subject bexause of the English Context that the word God carrie's unless the subject is supplied in the Text.

In English God, is simply understood to be a being that is not Created, who Creates, the source of what is considered to be a creation.

This is not the case in Hebrew, in fact, in Hebrew the plurality is not something rendered in English, except where the English indicates the use of God as a pronoun as in genesis verse 26, where God states " let us create man in our own image" a rather excitingly curious Statement, as man is a single individual unless I am a trinity of individual person's aswell, or more.also, The Bible does not explicitly state that God created a soul, a spirit and a body.This Concept is not even stated in The Bible but originated based on the abstraction of The concept God is a Trinity. I would conclude, if God were a trinity of person's applying the same logic of God Creating us in His Image, that we are also Multiple person's, rather than abstractions which are not and never have been Biblically Stated.if this is heresy, I would argue the pagan notion of The Concept of the soul, the spirit and the body are heresy.

My curiosity examines what I can understand in terms of the meaning of God, to ensure The Biblical author's understood what they were talking about.if that is offensive, it is meant to be a rational conclusion determining things in The Bible to make sure, that because the biblical authors are aware of everything pertaining to God defined as revelation, between God and men, of God Himself revealing such things, I found it paradoxically inconsistent that Jacob would then not realize, he was not talking to God in the context he believed he was.based on the impression of his dream, and textual things stated in the text itself, it is certain that Jacob believed he saw God, as his statement was that he saw God and Lived, a statement reflexive of the concept that Hebrews had that you can not see God and live.in my analysis I am making sure that everything is consistent, and trying to make sure that there weren't certain things cleverly inserted in The Bible.

Now in terms of honesty, there are certain contradictions from what I evaluated that are contradictions, In The Bible. for me, this does not disqualify The Existence of God or what God said, nor that it is Yahweh.in fact, it resembles human ignorance and fallibility, in terms of what people understood. Any apostle could be wrong, and they have the same limitations, especially in writing, that could be an error on their part. I assume that if Paul, were a person whom God put a thorn in the side of, to ensure he not remain prideful, that even if they were wrong about some of there Conclusions they were not Completelt wrong about God. I have then considered at one point, that I should on the side of caution only listen to what Jesus said as the Entire Basis of Salvation is Emphasized in terms of what the Apostles said, that God has the Word's Of Life, and to whom else would they go, and for what reason by implication.I Understand The Holy Spirit Reveals Truth, However I also understand that an apostle must have quenched The Holy Spirit in order to arrive at The Conclusion He Did,about such a matter, unless God Revealed This Simply in the form of what an apostle may have thought.

In my analysis and search, I have read the gnostic Gospels, and understood them, unfortunately.between recent doubt I considered the possibility that God was evil, and that he was hiding something. I considered this because of logical Implications of creating the tree of the knowledge of good and Evil, and that, the reasons for creating the tree did not make sense. I have problems reading the ot, and what God did to the israelite's, and have wondered if the ot were an actual account or written to make people fear God.
In my historical analysis, I had endeavored to ensure historical accuracy alongside The Bible and with each piece of new information,ensured that The Biblical account was accurate, and where it was not, if it was not what the reason might be.
As I have said, bexause I know all religions are lies, and have been preoccupied with The Bible, I have gone to great lengths to ensure its accuracy. This does not make me evil, in fact, its a process I assume all Christian's should be familiar with, and have been met with exceedingly venomous responses. If I did not Believe In The Biblical God, bexause of the way most of you respond, I would take your evil and dark remarks as an opportunity to go against The Bible, however, bexause I think more of God than of some of You I have Continued to try my best to Prove The Bible, While trying to ensure that I am not deceived.

My problem originated in that, God in The Bible Declares satab is a liar, which he is, however at one point,the devil declares God is a liar.my Confusion began at, if God is calling the devil a liar, and the devil is calling God a liar,who do you really know is the liar, however, bexause I personally, have Decided to Trust God,I have Honestly Evaluated The Devil is a liar.

It is not something Christians are familiar with, However, if I had decided to think to disregard The Bible there would be no conversation happening between me or any of You.I Trust The Bible But I'm going to make sure I understand Everything I can about it.

 

[Veteran1990]

Maybe it would help us to have some specific examples from Scripture of what you are referring to. Offhand, I am thinking that the Bible DOES refer to the Father, Son, and/or Holy Spirit when one of those is the subject, whereas it refers to "God" when there is no need to direct our attention to one of the persons of God in particular. In other words, it would be wrong to name but one of the persons of God when talking about something that deals with the Triune God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--simultaneously.

For instance, if that word US were not in The Bible, you could kiss the idea of the trinity goodbye, unless you supplemented the word it was translated from by reading The Hebrew Bible.there are things that are not apparent in the English text, and are a horrible rendering and translation, in my opinion.

I would like the conversation however, To Evaluate, The Bible's compilation, and to reconcile some of the contradictions I have noticed

 

[Veteran1990]

Perhaps this video will help you to better understand.

Please take note that I do not believe everything Alan Ballou teaches. However, I do agree with his view on Sola Scriptura and godliness.

I would disagree with His opening statement on The Basis that those with The Holy Spirit could not effectively be deceived bexause they receive The Truth From God.However I might be wrong.

I do not like using terms that other people, have invented as part of a doctrinal Explanation to make the use of The term academic. Either way, I have to get ready for bed now. I have a prayer that I have Sinned Against God.

 

[Veteran1990]

The Evangelist writes "No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten God*, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known."

*variant manuscripts read "Son" rather than "God"

Jesus said "if you have seen Me you have seen the Father".

No one has seen God (the Father), because the Father is known and encountered through His Son, who became flesh.

The Prophet Hosea calls the figure Jacob wrestled with an angel (Hosea 12:4).

Genesis says "man", Hosea says "angel"; Jacob declares after this encounter, "I have seen God face to face".

Man? Angel? God? Which is it?

In the historic Christian interpretation the answer is straightforward: it's all the above, because it's Jesus. The Angel of YHWH, the Malakh YHWH, is a figure seen in several places in Old Testament literature. What is often fascinating is how encounters with this figure are often described as encounters with God, with YHWH Himself, rather than a mere intermediate creature, an angel. This has led Christians down through the ages to perceive here in the figure of the Malakh YHWH the pre-Incarnate Christ, the eternal Son of God. For this reason the encounter with God's Messenger is an encounter with God, because it is God. These appearances of Christ which the Church has seen throughout the Old Testament literature are known as Christophanies, a kind of Theophany but very specifically that it is Christ.

For this reason the discrepancy between the story of Jacob and what the Evangelist writes in his Gospel are not considered problematic. Because Christian theology insists that one does not meet God unmediated--God is, as described by St. Paul dwelling in "unapproachable light"; indeed Christian theology maintains that the Divine Essence is ineffable, unknowable, and incomprehensible. God can only be known by revelation, God reveals Himself in Jesus. The Father encountered through the Son. This is why the Second Council of Nicea ruled that while icons of Christ were orthodox, icons of the Father were heterodox. We don't behold the Father in Himself, we behold the Father in His Son. His Son who became flesh.

And therefore, "No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.". What Jacob beheld wasn't the unmediated direct encounter with God the Father, what Jacob encountered was God the Son with human appearance. Now this raises a lot of questions, in particularly it raises questions concerning how we speak of the Logos Asarkos. Indeed, the Eastern Orthodox, as I understand it, see in the story of the Garden of Eden that God walking in the midst of the garden is none other than Jesus Christ Himself in the flesh.

Now this interpretation presumes Christian faith. And this is important, because the operation of faith is going to be essential in any analysis of the Bible. The skeptical critical analyzer of the Bible isn't going to be reading the Bible as a Christ-bearing text; and that isn't to dismiss the scholarly work and acumen which such analysis provides us with. I'm not an inerrantist, I don't have a problem with critical analysis of Scripture. But I am still a Christian, and that means I do read the Bible as a Christ-bearing text. I read the Bible because, in faith, I believe Christ is there, in the text.

-CryptoLutheran

If you would not mind, explain further detail.

 

[eleos1954]

Until recent years only a Latin translation of Hermas was known. In 1856 the first Greek edition was issued by Anger and Dindorf, being based upon a Mt. Athos MS. discovered shortly before by Simonides. Of the ten leaves of the MS. the last was lost; three were sold by Simonides to the University of Leipsic, and the other six were transcribed by him in a very faulty manner. The Sinaitic Codex has enabled us to control the text of Simonides in part, but unfortunately it contains only the Visions and a small part of the Mandates. All recent editions have been obliged to take the faulty transcription of Simonides as their foundation. In 1880 the six leaves of the Athos Codex, which had been supposed to be lost, and which were known only through Simonides’ transcription, were discovered by Lambros at Mt. Athos, and in 1888 A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of Hermas by Dr. Spyr Lambros was issued in English translation by J. A. Robinson, at Cambridge, England. We thus have now a reliable Greek text of nine-tenths of the Shepherd of Hermas. Hilgenfeld, in his last edition (1887) of his Novum Test. Extra Can. Rec., published also a Greek text of the lost part of the work, basing it upon a pretended transcription by Simonides from the lost Athos MS. But this has been conclusively shown to be a mere fraud on the part of Simonides, and we are therefore still without any MS. authority for the Greek text of the close of the work. Cf. Robinson’s introduction to the Collation of Lambros mentioned above, and Harnack’s articles in the Theol. Literaturzeitung (1887). The most useful edition of the original is that of Gebhardt and Harnack, Patrum Apost. Opera, Fasc. III. (Lips. 1877). The work is translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II. The literature upon the subject is very extensive, but the reader should examine especially the Prolegomena of Harnack in his edition. Cf. Zahn’s Hirt des Hermas (1868), and the article by Salmon in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 912 sqq. Cf. also chap. 24, note 20, in regard to the reasons for the non-canonicity of the Shepherd.

Conceptual Evaluations of Scripture:

The term ‘canon’ is usually defined as ‘rule’ or ‘norm’. The Greek word, which has a broad range of meanings,6 was applied to the list of books regarded as authoritative for the churches

Current dilapidated with what is considered denominational beliefs:

First and foremost I have developed a scrutiny of the concept of a Biblical Trinity for the following reasons:

1.) The author of Heb 7:3 affirms of Melchizedek: "He is without father or mother or genealogy; he has neither beginning of days nor end of life . . . he continues a priest forever."
2.) God in reference to melchezidek, and Jesus:And he says in another place, “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 5:6) obviously, if God is the one making reference to melchezidek in a priestly order God has Established God and melchezidek are not the same person. If God is distinguishing Jesus is a Priest in The Order of melchezidek, Melchezidek is not Jesus, or God The Father.
3.) Because melchezidek is not with geology, or the beggining of days or the end of days, he was not Created, Therefore Melchezidek must be a part of The Elohim.
In Context, Unless Melchezidek is The Holy Spirit, he is a fourth addition to what is reffered to as, and called God or gods.

The Hebrew word Elohim:

The Hebrew: God, is a plurality of rulers, titled, God in the context the being God is essentially meant to be understood as multiple persons based on its grammatical structure, reffered to either collectively or individually as God.

The seven Spirits of God (Greek: τα επτα πνευματα του θεου, ta hepta pneumata tou theou) are mentioned four times in the Book of Revelation, and in the Book of Isaiah it names each Spirit.[1][2]

Revelation 1:4: John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;Revelation 3:1: And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.Revelation 4:5: And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps the of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.Revelation 5:6: And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

If Contextually then, the seven spirits of God are possibly, The Secen angels of God, God is 7 beings reffered to as elohim, or seven rulers without origins.

Based on Revelation Revelation 5:6: And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

My Curiosity is if The Holy Spirit is a Single Individual or seven Spirits reffered to as The Holy Spirit?

My Curiosity is that The Holy Spirit is said to have seven attributes:

There are seven distinct expressions of the one Holy Spirit: 1) Spirit of the Lord, 2) Spirit of Wisdom, 3) Spirit of Understanding, 4) Spirit of Counsel, 5) Spirit of Strength, 6) Spirit of Knowledge and 7) the Spirit of the Fear of the Lord.

So are these themselves the attributes of a single person or multiple people?

Either way, unless melchezidek is:

Fictional or
The Holy Spirit, it is certain God , unless

Melchezidek is a "type" of Christ (
(foreshadowing of Jesus himself.

If the context is noted carefully in the book of Hebrews, one will observe that the Melchizedek priesthood, of whose order Christ was, is contrasted with the Levitical priesthood. It is the significance of this contrast that we must observe. The contrast is between the ways the priests of the two different orders were chosen, as well as the contrast of character.

Christ was a priest, not after the order of Levi, but after the order of Melchizedek. The name corresponds with His character. It is made up of two Hebrew words, Melek (king) and Sedek (righteousness). Thus He is King of righteousness, a priest after this order. A priest after the order of Levi could serve only if he could prove his recorded genealogical record, which was kept of the descendants of Levi, and particularly of the house of Aaron. The Syriac Peshitta text, speaking of Melchizedek, reads (and thus gives no doubt the right sense of Hebrews 7:3), "Of whom neither the father nor mother are recorded in the genealogies." His priesthood was dependent, not on genealogy, but on character. He was priest by his own right, and it was not necessary to know what his lineage was. He was chosen by God, and no doubt by the people as well, not because of who his ancestors were or where he came from, but for what he was.

Signs, symbols, people with Christ-like attributes not unusual at all in His Word. We are given "pictures" in many instances .... pictures are worth a thousand words ;o)

 

[com7fy8]

Some in the church, inspired by Paul, began to write and circulate their own letters, and so historians believe that some books of the New Testament attributed to Paul were in fact written by disciples and imitators.

If they claimed to be Paul, I think that would be lying. So, I do not think a Christian person would imitate and claim to be Paul.

And the messages said to be from Paul, in the Bible, are not what I think a liar could make up.

My opinion is, by they way, how Christian knew each other. They knew who was legitimate. So, a legitimate writer would not feel need to pretend to be someone else.

I consider it possible, how certain people don't like what Paul is saying; so they either misrepresent what he says, or they claim he didn't really write a message.

Sections of the New Testament attributed to Paul talk about Jesus with a firsthand feeling, but Paul never knew Jesus except in visions he had, and the Gospels were not yet written at the time of Paul’s letters.

His experience of Jesus in visions was firsthand sharing with Jesus.

You can have a vision, by actually viewing and communicating with a person, or you can have a vision in which you only see a representation of the person. I believe Paul's visions were firsthand experience . . . actually being exposed to Jesus resurrected.

About when the Gospels were written > it is interesting how people decide when a message of God was written. I do not know all the aspects of this, or which standards are applied in each case. Also, it seems different scholars can use different standards.

But . . . let's say you find a Gospel written in Greek, and the parchment it is written on measures back to some time after Paul's writings. And the manner of grammar and style of the writing matches with that same time. Voila! You think, surely these two things confirm each other to show this Gospel was written after the time of Paul.

But . . . in my opinion > someone could have written that Gospel right after seeing Jesus resurrected. And the person wrote in Hebrew. But the translation in Greek matches the style of Greek at the time of translation!! Plus, the earlier copies were so used by the church that all were worn out . . . because of such intent use.

So . . . I say - - people can have their motives for what they consider to be evidence and how they interpret things they discover.

I think of another item, by the way. If I remember correctly, a certain person says a certain translation has to be false because one of the manuscripts used for the translation was found in a trash container in a religious location. The person argues that the religious group could not have possibly believed the manuscript is legitimate, if they threw it away in the trash can.

But . . . if you have a religious group subject to persecution and purges by soldiers, maybe > what could be a good and simple and quick way to hide a valuable manuscript, when there is a raid of your location?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I say you did not read it if you are asking the question.

First, because Jacob, assumed he saw God face to Face while, God Jesus Christ stated that no one has seen God or the apostle stated such, do the Biblical authors of persons even know what they are talking about or are they making assumption.
It Creates a Problrm because the Biblical author's seem ignorant, while in certain Instance's Fully aware of God plan. I am at odds with this because if they were aware of God's particular plans in all areas of The Bible how on earth could they be unaware of who God is in certain instances having met certain beings which parts of The Bible contradict.Because certain part of canon were not in The Bible because they were contradictory or for a myriad of other reasons, then why is there Scripture in canon that makes it seem people were ignorant of who God was. Who Exactly was Jacob's God then?

Jesus said no man has seen the Father. They saw a Christophany in the OT. The appearance of the Pre- Incarnate Son who is God in the O.T.

next.....................

 

[Albion]

For instance, if that word US were not in The Bible, you could kiss the idea of the trinity goodbye...

Not at all. The Bible identifies one god and three "persona," and the unity but diversity element is shown through a number of different verses.

There is no single verse in Scripture that explains the nature of one God in three "somethings," but if we consult the whole Bible, there is no question but that the nature of God (Trinity) as described in more ordinary terms in the Nicene Creed is found there.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Not at all. The Bible identifies one god and three "persona," and the unity but diversity element is shown through a number of different verses.

There is no single verse in Scripture that explains the nature of one God in three "somethings," but if we consult the whole Bible, there is no question but that the nature of God (Trinity) as described in more ordinary terms in the Nicene Creed is found there.

And the great commission in Matthew 28:19-20 clearly reveals the Triune God from Jesus teaching. Baptizing them in the NAME ( singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Veteran1990]

Not at all. The Bible identifies one god and three "persona," and the unity but diversity element is shown through a number of different verses.

There is no single verse in Scripture that explains the nature of one God in three "somethings," but if we consult the whole Bible, there is no question but that the nature of God (Trinity) as described in more ordinary terms in the Nicene Creed is found there.

And the great commission in Matthew 28:19-20 clearly reveals the Triune God from Jesus teaching. Baptizing them in the NAME ( singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

You know, I was thinking yo be nice. That was a mistake. The entire written Context doesn't make sense.

Someone may be baptized in the name of the three however, whether or not God in the context of a trinity is exhaustive of the being God is debatable. You all come to your own conclusions, without explanation. I'm doing something more grand, and basinv it on research. I literally can't stand being around any of you, much less talking to you in conversation. It really is like you all have problems.

And I mean serious issues based on your attitudes and how you respond.

You all are generally not logical, and its a consistent issue.

You all primarily like to think you are correct and never wrong, and majority of the time you are wrong.

The fact you dispute among yourselves is enough evidence.

I really, have for the majority of my Life tried to get a long with other Christians.You make the expieriencw miserable, there's a reason people generally don't like talking to you.

 

[Veteran1990]

And the great commission in Matthew 28:19-20 clearly reveals the Triune God from Jesus teaching. Baptizing them in the NAME ( singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Also, before you respond, read the last part of what I wrote. Respond is you are serious, not with a smug one verse and say next.
It is people like you who have made me tired of talking about this. You are simple-minded, and argue Concept's from a single verse, not in comparison with anything else. If entire churchs, and councils argued which verses belong in The Bible and routine debate whether or not they are canonical to this say, its really not simple.

Either way, you have irritated me, because of your attitude and have reminded me of how much, it is tiring to talk with other Christians about anything. You all are the most irrational, moody people I have ever had to endure, every step of the way bexause of your insecurities.

I'll mind my own business when it comes to God, and what I thought to do, that would of been of great help to your effort, I think, at least for the moment, I'll instead not bother assisting you. You all waste too much time, and why do I need to give you such knowledge when you all as aggressive as you are.

 

[Veteran1990]

Melchezidek is a "type" of Christ (
(foreshadowing of Jesus himself.

If the context is noted carefully in the book of Hebrews, one will observe that the Melchizedek priesthood, of whose order Christ was, is contrasted with the Levitical priesthood. It is the significance of this contrast that we must observe. The contrast is between the ways the priests of the two different orders were chosen, as well as the contrast of character.

Christ was a priest, not after the order of Levi, but after the order of Melchizedek. The name corresponds with His character. It is made up of two Hebrew words, Melek (king) and Sedek (righteousness). Thus He is King of righteousness, a priest after this order. A priest after the order of Levi could serve only if he could prove his recorded genealogical record, which was kept of the descendants of Levi, and particularly of the house of Aaron. The Syriac Peshitta text, speaking of Melchizedek, reads (and thus gives no doubt the right sense of Hebrews 7:3), "Of whom neither the father nor mother are recorded in the genealogies." His priesthood was dependent, not on genealogy, but on character. He was priest by his own right, and it was not necessary to know what his lineage was. He was chosen by God, and no doubt by the people as well, not because of who his ancestors were or where he came from, but for what he was.

Signs, symbols, people with Christ-like attributes not unusual at all in His Word. We are given "pictures" in many instances .... pictures are worth a thousand words ;o)

He is not a Type, God himself differentiate's that his is not Yahweh and not christ. Either way if I Continue arguing with you all I'll lose my Faith.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

You know, I was thinking yo be nice. That was a mistake. The entire written Context doesn't make sense.

Someone may be baptized in the name of the three however, whether or not God in the context of a trinity is exhaustive of the being God is debatable. You all come to your own conclusions, without explanation. I'm doing something more grand, and basinv it on research. I literally can't stand being around any of you, much less talking to you in conversation. It really is like you all have problems.

And I mean serious issues based on your attitudes and how you respond.

You all are generally not logical, and its a consistent issue.

You all primarily like to think you are correct and never wrong, and majority of the time you are wrong.

The fact you dispute among yourselves is enough evidence.

I really, have for the majority of my Life tried to get a long with other Christians.You make the expieriencw miserable, there's a reason people generally don't like talking to you.

Ad hominem duly noted.

And pot calling the kettle- You are the one with the "attitude" insulting posters who have responded not us.