markomalley

I am claiming that Melchisedec was a type of Christ. We know nothing of Melchisedec's parentage...therefore he is "without father and mother" Christ, as God the Son, is (outside of His physical incarnation) eternal. "I AM" Both are identified as having eternal priesthoods outside of the levitical order. As priests, both would offer sacrifices to God the Father. Melchisedec is identified as having accepted Abraham's offering...Christ is identified as having offered Himself as a an eternal sacrifice (thus the referencee to Rev 5:6) And the kicker is that Melchisedec is called the "king of Salem (peace)" and Christ is identified as the "prince of peace" The thing is that if one accepts the doctrine of the Trinity this typology is perfectly obvious. If not, then Heb 7:3 is very problematic.

Frankly, it isn't all that complicated...if one doesn't reject the doctrine of the Trinity. Please refer yourself to Rev 5:6 for a comparison, by the way.

I make no claim that it should be part of the canon. I do make the claim that it was part of the (an) oral tradition. As to its antiquity, the commonly accepted dating for it is sometime in the early to mid second century. I would, however, make the claim that it reflects a common set of beliefs that were in existence at that time.

A very early belief about this subject is contained in the Protoevangelium of James. Discussed briefly in post #19, back on page 1. You might find that of interest.

One thing to keep in mind when considering the Gospels is that VeePee inculcated a particular style of exegesis called "dispensationalism" into us through the PFAL series of classes. This comes from the influence of Bullinger on VeePee, although, from what I recall, VeePee didn't go fully into the Acts 28 variety of ultradispensationalism that characterized Bullinger. Dispensationalism is the view that God divided times up into different epochs based upon the various covenants He had with man. It originated with Darby back about the middle of the 19th Century. It is opposed to the other major fundamentalist theory: covenant theology. The key thing to consider, though, is that this view will, until the point that you realize that it is not the only view out there, color how you view the gospels and the old testament. A couple of threads to consider where this has been discussed previously: Did VP Study Scofield's Work? "...like it hasn't been seen since the 1st century church...", is this the original fallacy? I will tell you that there is considerable contention on this site regarding the subject of dispensationalism. I really don't want to get into those debates again; I am just letting you know about these old threads and providing you some information so that you can consider alternative methods for interpreting scripture...and consider that the dispensationlist method is not the only one.

Well, that was now 6-7 years ago and I'm not tied to a machine to get a good night's sleep. My thought at the time was that I'd rather deal with some pain and discomfort NOW and be done with it, rather than dealing with a disability for the rest of my life. And, btw, would I do it again faced the same alternatives? In a heartbeat!

Darn, and I was hoping to see this guy: (Dave Barry, humorist) wearing a dunce cap

Yeah, I had a sleep study at Bethesda and they noted that my tongue would fall back and block my airway when I slept. So they broke my jaw and extended it (I had a serious Jay Leno chin for a month!), thus extending where my tongue was attached and making it so it wouldn't block my airway when I slept.

I tried the CPAP one night and the next day made the appointment for the surgery. I said that I am not going to be tied to an electrical device for the rest of my life. So I had the septum undeviated, the uvula yanked, and the tongue extended. I started getting rest at night after that. (Before, I'd sleep for 12 hours and still be tired) Took a month for all the healing to be done, but it was a good move all in all. And it was about 6 years ago.

So how do you plan on collecting? LOL If I end up in "depends" I will be very disappointed. (What's the tag line on "My Generation?")

Is he over the age of legal consent? In that case, if somebody questions you, tell them to "MYFOB, eh" Look on it on the bright side, too. If it works out, when you're old and gray, he will be the one changing your diaper, not the other way around!

Or a modern variant of it: know what you know and know what you don't know. Frankly, I don't have any questions on this...I am posing the points with Another Spot as rhetorical points for thought and consideration. I do appreciate your response, though. Nice to know my posts are being read :)

Exactly my point. The only two such actions discussed in scripture. Now Sunesis brings up a very valid point (and, btw, Sunesis, I think your remarks were brilliant). She said, in part: But, in order to be "perfect man" his blood - the perfect, uncorrupted, unblemished blood, unfallen blood - holy blood, the only perfect blood acceptable to be sacrificed to God - like the first man Adam's was - had to be "perfect." Thus, I think his flesh - was perfect like the First Adam's. I think God made the whole package. None of it came from Mary or Joseph. He came through her. I do not believe that scripture supports her second point, as there are far too many indicators in scripture that tell us that a descendent of Abraham and a descendent of David will be the Messiah, but it is brilliant nevertheless, as it brings us back to that conundrum. And she is right in her statement that there could be no imputed sin in Christ for him to be the second Adam and to fulfill the prophecy of being the Lamb of God. And the angel Gabriel announced that this was, in fact, the case. (Take a look at the Greek within Luke 1:30 for amplification of this) But the issue still exists: how did it happen?

Spot, I think you have it spot on as far as the effect of the special blessing shown in Eph 1:6. That special blessing ("compass with favor, pursue with grace, honor with blessings") comes as a result of our regeneration. (baptism...whether you wish to discuss water vice spirit or both is another issue and not relevant...I speak of God's cleansing) Since the effects discussed in the passage Eph 1:3 - Eph 1:14 are co-incident with that special blessing (charitoo) provided in Eph 1:6, that is the only reference I have for outlining the Angel Gabriel announcing that Mary had received that blessing with his pronouncement in Luke 1:28. Nobody else is identified with that word...only Ephesians (talking in regards to Christians) and Luke (talking about Mary) But wait a minute, though...the effects of baptism could not have been available until Christ's death, right? (Rom 6:3-4) (we were baptised into Christ's death) So now we have a conundrum. Does scripture have a definitive answer? Since it's scripture, if we accept that scripture is the Word of God, we have to accept it. But do we understand the how? (Note: for us Catholics, we can refer to what we call the ordinary magesterium, which consists of the body of accepted doctrines passed down from the apostles through time...what is criciticized as "tradition" -- 2 Th 2:15 -- So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. But this is not a Catholic board, so we need to see if we can figure out some other logical explanation that doesn't require us to go through a bunch of Catholic documents. There, I can't give a good answer...as "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation," 2 Pe 1:20)

:confused: The Pharisees accused Jesus of being born as the result of fornication? What could be confusing about that?

Understand and no offense taken. There is a lot of disinformation out there. And I have always said that the Catholic Church does a horrible job of educating its adults...thus causing some of that disinformation to actually be spread by individual, uncatechized Catholic adults themselves. Please don't think I was flaming you...I just wanted to make sure that you understood doctrine is sometimes clarified, doctrine is sometimes applied to new situations that didn't exist in the ancient Church (e.g., artificial birth control), but doctrine is NEVER created out of thin air or arbitrarily changed. At least not by the Catholic Church. (BTW, I would be interested in your impressions of the word charitoo (5487) and its usage through the Bible. I do believe it is pertinent to the discussion)

Sorry for stepping in here and derailing the thread ( ), but there is one minor little point that I'd like to clarify with you. The Catholic Church doesn't simply handle difficult issues by changing theology. Including, yes, the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception." The dogma of the "Immaculate Conception" has been held since the earliest times in the Church. It wasn't given the cute little title "Immaculate Conception" Because the Protestants rejected it does not mean, for a moment, that it wasn't originally there. It simply meant that, for one reason or another, they decided to reject it when they broke from the Catholic Church. You were told that the Catholics invented that dogma in 1854. However, that is not correct. The doctrine has existed since the first century. The Apostolic Constitution, Ineffibalis Deus, published in 1854, was written because the commonly accepted doctrine was under some controversy by people who wished to change it. The document didn't create the doctrine. It confirmed and codified it. In fact, if you were to read the document, you'd find that part of the contents of the document outline the history of the doctrine. And if you observe the history of Christianity, you will observe that the Church would make issuances in response to heresies or controversies throughout her history. The early Church Councils, in fact, were all convened to deal with these types of controversies. (And, by the way, as to the subject of the Immaculate Conception, I full well realize that the terms are not used anywhere in scripture. I would, howver, ask you to do a little word study on the term 'charitoo' -- Strong's 5487 -- in scripture. You will find it used in two places: Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:6. That, by the way, includes the Septuagint. You may find a little significance there if you consider it a while) As for whether you choose to believe something, believe something else, or not believe something (or anything), that's your business. I don't care and am not trying to convince you to believe anything at all. I really don't care one way or the other...it's an issue that is between you and your god(s). (I say god(s) not personally in your direction, but out of respect to the non-Christians who participate) But please don't make accusations or comparisons between the Catholic Church and vpw/twi. The two are not comparable and, frankly, VPW/TWI do not deserve to be compared to any authentic Christian confession...they don't deserve that degree of credibility that such a comparison gives them.

Classy move, David... (regardless what Garth says)

I was drinking a couple of beers Friday with my priest. The subject came up and he was, of course, aghast at the prospect. However, I pointed out all of the other non-Christian groups that have approved symbology (See link). He didn't realize all the other groups that were authorized their symbols. After that realization, he was no longer as vociferous in his criticism and the subject changed. Bottom line is that a VA cemetary is not a religious cemetary. The alternative to not allowing any religion's symbol on a grave marker is to allow none of them at all. I prefer the first option.

Tattoos: Not my cup of tea. But I understand that the young folks really like them. Hopefully in 20 years, they'll have something a little less painful and expesnive than the laser removal is reported to be. But it's not my decision one way or the other. It's yours.

Have any of you all considered the issue of adoption? Not only Jesus' adoption by Joseph (raising him as his own son), but adoptions earlier on in the bloodline? Wasn't it the responsibility of a brother to take in the wife and children of his brother if his brother died? Responsibility to adopt the family? The point is that if that were true, one geneology could speak to biological lines, while the other could speak to lines through adoption. For example, if you take a look at 1 Chron 3:17, you will see that Shealtiel was reckoned the son of Jeconiah, the captive. But if you look at the Luke geneology, Shealtiel was the son of Neri (allowing for transliteration errors, of course). (Hint: if you take a look at Jer 22:30, you will find that Jerimiah prophesied that Jeconiah's descendents would never sit on the throne of David. Clearly, Sheatiel had to be adopted in for the purpose of kingly succession) Not saying thsi is the answer, but it makes more sense than the Wierwille contortions...at least IMO.

I find it very ironic that anybody in or associated with TWI would have the sheer chutzpah to use the term 'heretic.'

As a suggestion, folks may be interested in reviewing the "Protoevangelium of James" -- a non-canonical document written somewhere around the middle of the second century. It covers the birth and young life of Mary and the birth of Jesus. Key points from this document that are pertinent: - It makes the claim of Mary's birth being somewhat 'miraculous,' as Mary's parents (Anna and Joachim) were older and without children prior to her. She was dedicated for the Temple as an infant. - It makes the claim that Joseph was an older widower with other children prior to his betrothal to Mary. - It makes the claim that Mary was a temple virgin who was "given" to Joseph for care - It makes the claim that Mary was a virgin at the time of her conception and that she miraculously retained her virginity (i.e., hymen intact) even after the birth. (It gets rather explicit in how it asserts the second claim) Again, this account is ancient (written in the mid-second century) and appears to be the earliest documented source of many of the 'traditions' that are believed by the apostolic churches (Orthodox, Catholics, Copts) as well as the liturgical protestant groups (episcopals, lutherans, methodists, etc.). However, it is not canonical and so I am not attempting to assert that the account should be elevated to the level of scripture.

Were You Afraid You Might Be A Grease Spot?..., ...and that Believing=receiving might be true? No

"The Decade of Prevailng" will stop promptly when the last person finally comes to the realization that TWI is not the way to prevail and they shutter the place.