- This topic has 514 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi KJ,
No I always hope that folk might reconsider the slipperly slope they have begun to walk on as being a poor choice.One person's poor choice is another's wise choice when it comes to matters that have no real answer. Or many other matters as well, depending on the circumstances. Eating a cheeseburger is a good choice to a starving man while a poor choice for an obese man.
Hi KJ,
So you do not know if Jesus is the Christ of God?
So the writings are all hearsay and the miracles untrue?If “Christ” means “Messiah” which in turn means “anointed”, then perhaps Jesus was an “anointed” one. But he would not have been the first. Priests and kings were anointed. There was even a Gentile who was called “anointed”. Jesus, it seems, was neither a king nor a priest, so I'm not certain where that leaves him. But if one is to take the bible as a whole and say it is all God's Word, one set of books say Jesus was the “Christ” the other older set disqualifies him on many grounds.
So the answer would have to be “no” because the NT cannot override the OT unless the NT was mistakenly attributed to the same God. Which, judging by the theology, is not possible although many have tried to fit that sqare peg in the round hole.
BTW Nick, when was the last time you saw a miracle of biblical proportions? Either God went into hiding or — GASP — the writers weren't being entirely honest in their embellishments.
Quote Jesus, it seems, was neither a king nor a priest, so I'm not certain where that leaves him. The Bible book of Hebrews points out that Jesus Christ, since his resurrection and entry into heaven, is “a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.” (Heb 6:20; 7:17, 21)
The first priest mentioned in the Bible is Melchizedek, who was “priest of the Most High God” as well as king of Salem (Jerusalem).
Abraham met this priest-king when he returned from defeating the three kings in league with Elamite King Chedorlaomer. Abraham showed he recognized the divine source of Melchizedek’s authority by giving him a tenth of the fruits of his victory and by receiving Melchizedek’s blessing.
To describe the greatness of Christ’s priesthood and its superiority over the Aaronic priesthood, the writer shows that Melchizedek was both a king and a priest by designation of the Most High God, and not by inheritance. Christ Jesus, not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah and of the line of David, did not inherit his office by descent from Aaron, but obtained it by direct appointment of God, as did Melchizedek. (Heb 5:10)
And I believe that he was annointed (but with holy spirit) when he was baptized.
I have a question: What is the point of this thread? What is it about?
Quote (kejonn @ Mar. 06 2008,13:42) If “Christ” means “Messiah” which in turn means “anointed”, then perhaps Jesus was an “anointed” one. But he would not have been the first. Priests and kings were anointed. There was even a Gentile who was called “anointed”. Jesus, it seems, was neither a king nor a priest, so I'm not certain where that leaves him. But if one is to take the bible as a whole and say it is all God's Word, one set of books say Jesus was the “Christ” the other older set disqualifies him on many grounds. So the answer would have to be “no” because the NT cannot override the OT unless the NT was mistakenly attributed to the same God. Which, judging by the theology, is not possible although many have tried to fit that sqare peg in the round hole.
Hi KJ,
If Jesus was the anointed one or you can believe he was an anointed one and God worked marvellous recorded miracles through him how can you imagine he was a liar, in that you cannot accept his claims about himself were true?Quote (david @ Mar. 05 2008,20:52) Quote Jesus, it seems, was neither a king nor a priest, so I'm not certain where that leaves him. The Bible book of Hebrews points out that Jesus Christ, since his resurrection and entry into heaven, is “a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.” (Heb 6:20; 7:17, 21)
All hollow words without a shred of proof beyond the writers own support of them. I recently saw a line that fits “Only a fool believes a book because that book told him to believe in it”.Since there is little to no evidence of a historical Jesus outside of the anonymous writings of the first few centuries (many of which give diametrically opposing views of Jesus), how can one go on to assert that Hebrews is any more valid when it speaks of the spiritual state of a risen corpse who we cannot be certain ever really existed as the bible says he did?
Quote The first priest mentioned in the Bible is Melchizedek, who was “priest of the Most High God” as well as king of Salem (Jerusalem). Abraham met this priest-king when he returned from defeating the three kings in league with Elamite King Chedorlaomer. Abraham showed he recognized the divine source of Melchizedek’s authority by giving him a tenth of the fruits of his victory and by receiving Melchizedek’s blessing.
To describe the greatness of Christ’s priesthood and its superiority over the Aaronic priesthood, the writer shows that Melchizedek was both a king and a priest by designation of the Most High God, and not by inheritance. Christ Jesus, not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah and of the line of David, did not inherit his office by descent from Aaron, but obtained it by direct appointment of God, as did Melchizedek. (Heb 5:10)
Ditto to above. Hebrews was included in the canon of scripture because it supported what the Roman church wanted its adherants to believe. Nothing more, nothing less.Quote And I believe that he was annointed (but with holy spirit) when he was baptized.
Yet he was not anointed according to any pre-established Hebraic means. Baptism has origins in Egyptian practices, and is only remotely associated with any form or later Hebraic practices.Quote I have a question: What is the point of this thread? What is it about?
It started as a thread to answer Nick's constant questions inside of threads that I could not post in due to my present poster status. He knew this yet still asked the questions in forums I could not post in.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 05 2008,21:03) Quote (kejonn @ Mar. 06 2008,13:42) If “Christ” means “Messiah” which in turn means “anointed”, then perhaps Jesus was an “anointed” one. But he would not have been the first. Priests and kings were anointed. There was even a Gentile who was called “anointed”. Jesus, it seems, was neither a king nor a priest, so I'm not certain where that leaves him. But if one is to take the bible as a whole and say it is all God's Word, one set of books say Jesus was the “Christ” the other older set disqualifies him on many grounds. So the answer would have to be “no” because the NT cannot override the OT unless the NT was mistakenly attributed to the same God. Which, judging by the theology, is not possible although many have tried to fit that sqare peg in the round hole.
Hi KJ,
If Jesus was the anointed one or you can believe he was an anointed one and God worked marvellous recorded miracles through him how can you imagine he was a liar, in that you cannot accept his claims about himself were true?
Your rather faulty assumption is that the bible truthfully records the actual words of the person the NT was based on. We have no evidence that this assertion is remotely true because there exists many other works that disagree about the character, words, and personality of Jesus of Nazareth.Hi Kj,
Scripture promises that you will be sent Lord Jesus and times of refreshment from the Lord if you obey the call to be converted to faith in the Son of God.
Acts 3
19Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.20And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Quote Jesus, it seems, was neither a king nor a priest, Melchizidek, it seems, was neither a king nor a priest, that is, if one needs to be from a royal family and a line of priests to be a king or a priest. Yet, he was.
“And Mel·chiz′e·dek king of Sa′lem brought out bread and wine, and he was priest of the Most High God.”
The Bible does not give the record of Melchizedek’s ancestry, his birth, or his death. He had no predecessors or successors.—Ge 14:17-24
I would think that the Messiah wouldn't be exactly like all the other kings and priests. I would think he'd be above them. And in a completely other manner.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 05 2008,21:09) Hi Kj,
Scripture promises that you will be sent Lord Jesus and times of refreshment from the Lord if you obey the call to be converted to faith in the Son of God.
Acts 3
19Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.20And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
And?Quote (david @ Mar. 05 2008,21:09) Quote Jesus, it seems, was neither a king nor a priest, Melchizidek, it seems, was neither a king nor a priest, that is, if one needs to be from a royal family and a line of priests to be a king or a priest. Yet, he was.[/quote]
There was no established Levitical line before Mel so your reasoning is flawed.“And Mel·chiz′e·dek king of Sa′lem brought out bread and wine, and he was priest of the Most High God.”
The Bible does not give the record of Melchizedek’s ancestry, his birth, or his death. He had no predecessors or successors.—Ge 14:17-24
I would think that the Messiah wouldn't be exactly like all the other kings and priests. I would think he'd be above them. And in a completely other manner.
No but Jesus was neither so where does he fit in? You say “exactly” but Jesus was “not at all”.Quote (kejonn @ Mar. 06 2008,14:06) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 05 2008,21:03) Quote (kejonn @ Mar. 06 2008,13:42) If “Christ” means “Messiah” which in turn means “anointed”, then perhaps Jesus was an “anointed” one. But he would not have been the first. Priests and kings were anointed. There was even a Gentile who was called “anointed”. Jesus, it seems, was neither a king nor a priest, so I'm not certain where that leaves him. But if one is to take the bible as a whole and say it is all God's Word, one set of books say Jesus was the “Christ” the other older set disqualifies him on many grounds. So the answer would have to be “no” because the NT cannot override the OT unless the NT was mistakenly attributed to the same God. Which, judging by the theology, is not possible although many have tried to fit that sqare peg in the round hole.
Hi KJ,
If Jesus was the anointed one or you can believe he was an anointed one and God worked marvellous recorded miracles through him how can you imagine he was a liar, in that you cannot accept his claims about himself were true?
Your rather faulty assumption is that the bible truthfully records the actual words of the person the NT was based on. We have no evidence that this assertion is remotely true because there exists many other works that disagree about the character, words, and personality of Jesus of Nazareth.
Hi KJ,
So lies were told about an anointed man of God?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 05 2008,21:26) Quote (kejonn @ Mar. 06 2008,14:06) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 05 2008,21:03) Quote (kejonn @ Mar. 06 2008,13:42) If “Christ” means “Messiah” which in turn means “anointed”, then perhaps Jesus was an “anointed” one. But he would not have been the first. Priests and kings were anointed. There was even a Gentile who was called “anointed”. Jesus, it seems, was neither a king nor a priest, so I'm not certain where that leaves him. But if one is to take the bible as a whole and say it is all God's Word, one set of books say Jesus was the “Christ” the other older set disqualifies him on many grounds. So the answer would have to be “no” because the NT cannot override the OT unless the NT was mistakenly attributed to the same God. Which, judging by the theology, is not possible although many have tried to fit that sqare peg in the round hole.
Hi KJ,
If Jesus was the anointed one or you can believe he was an anointed one and God worked marvellous recorded miracles through him how can you imagine he was a liar, in that you cannot accept his claims about himself were true?
Your rather faulty assumption is that the bible truthfully records the actual words of the person the NT was based on. We have no evidence that this assertion is remotely true because there exists many other works that disagree about the character, words, and personality of Jesus of Nazareth.
Hi KJ,
So lies were told about an anointed man of God?
Perhaps not on purpose. Hearsay and legend can be based on truth but often is not.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
