- This topic is empty.
- AuthorPosts
- December 16, 2009 at 8:32 am#164950ConstitutionalistParticipant
Melchizedek, who was he? What do you think? What are your reasons?
December 16, 2009 at 8:39 am#164951ConstitutionalistParticipantHe is just a Man who was a High Priest. That is my belief.
Many say he was Jesus (Yeshua HaMoshiach), but how can that be when scripture does not support it?
If he was Melchizedek then why isn't he called Melchizedek in the New Testament? Or why wasn't Melchizedek called Jesus (Yeshua HaMoshiach) in the Old Testament.
It is a pity when people try to use conjecture and speculation to win over their hypothesis, and get others to believe in it.
Such a tainted Greco-Roman world we live in.
December 16, 2009 at 8:50 am#164952StuParticipantRather live in a Greco-Roman world than a backward Middle Eastern goadherder's religious fantasy world that dreams of the return of the dark ages.
By the way, why can't you bring yourself to write the word god? It's only a god, after all, it's not anything important.
Stuart
December 16, 2009 at 9:11 am#164953ConstitutionalistParticipantQuote (Stu @ Dec. 16 2009,00:50) Rather live in a Greco-Roman world than a backward Middle Eastern goadherder's religious fantasy world that dreams of the return of the dark ages. By the way, why can't you bring yourself to write the word god? It's only a god, after all, it's not anything important.
Stuart
You have had your say.December 16, 2009 at 9:34 am#164954StuParticipantI can't decide between 5) Other and 6) None of the above.
What would be the difference between those two options?
Stuart
December 16, 2009 at 9:47 am#164955ConstitutionalistParticipantQuote (Stu @ Dec. 16 2009,01:34) I can't decide between 5) Other and 6) None of the above. What would be the difference between those two options?
Stuart
I am sorry, I have you on ignore.December 16, 2009 at 9:52 am#164956StuParticipantQuote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 16 2009,20:47) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 16 2009,01:34) I can't decide between 5) Other and 6) None of the above. What would be the difference between those two options?
Stuart
I am sorry, I have you on ignore.
C'mon Con, I'm the only one replying to your question. Won't you play?Stuart
December 17, 2009 at 2:12 am#164957942767ParticipantHi Ron:
He was a man who was a priest of the Most High God. He cannot be Yeshua because Yeshua is said to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek and that Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God.
The following scripture states that he was a man.
Quote Hbr 7:4 Now consider how great this man [was], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. Love in Christ,
MartyDecember 17, 2009 at 7:21 am#164958ConstitutionalistParticipantQuote (942767 @ Dec. 16 2009,18:12) Hi Ron: He was a man who was a priest of the Most High God. He cannot be Yeshua because Yeshua is said to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek and that Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God.
The following scripture states that he was a man.
Quote Hbr 7:4 Now consider how great this man [was], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. Love in Christ,
Marty
I agree with you.December 17, 2009 at 9:31 am#164959ProclaimerParticipantHi Con.
Why did you post this one in “Skeptics Place”.
Why not “Truth and Tradition”.When you cross Skeptics Bridge, Stu come out from underneath and starts growling, “who is crossing my bridge, ah huh, I am going to rip your head off”. He sleeps under that bridge night and day, just waiting for a poor soul who happens to pass this way. I have even seen him there on Saturday night (New Zealand time) when all the other creatures of the night are out partying.
In other words, your post is going to turn into a debate about why God supposedly doesn't exist and the topic at hand should be ignored as irrelevant based on the premise that nothing or something not living was the cause of all things.
December 17, 2009 at 9:36 am#164949ConstitutionalistParticipantQuote (t8 @ Dec. 17 2009,01:31) Hi Con. Why did you post this one in “Skeptics Place”.
Why not “Truth and Tradition”.When you cross Skeptics Bridge, Stu come out from underneath and starts growling, “who is crossing my bridge, ah huh, I am going to rip your head off”. He sleeps under that bridge night and day, just waiting for a poor soul who happens to pass this way. I have even seen him there on Saturday night (New Zealand time) when all the other creatures of the night are out partying.
In other words, your post is going to turn into a debate about why God supposedly doesn't exist and the topic at hand should be ignored as irrelevant based on the premise that nothing or something not living was the cause of all things.
I spewed my coffee all over my desk here at work reading your analogy of Stu, my sides are still hurting.Too bad there is not a place you can post that anolagy and lock it, so we can sometimes refer to it if we need a little pick me up.
G-d my sides hurt.
I posted in skeptics because I thought thats where it went.
Still hurtin, oh boy.
December 17, 2009 at 10:07 am#164960ProclaimerParticipantOh great, at least you had a laugh. Pity about the coffee. Might need to order another one. A coffee in the morning is very important.
I would like to have a Mocha, but I am off to bed now and would never sleep if I pumped in some caffeine now. (It is 11.00pm here.)
BTW: I can move the topic if you want.
December 17, 2009 at 10:13 am#164961ConstitutionalistParticipantQuote (t8 @ Dec. 17 2009,02:07) Oh great, at least you had a laugh. Pity about the coffee. Might need to order another one. A coffee in the morning is very important. I would like to have a Mocha, but I am off to bed now and would never sleep if I pumped in some caffeine now. (It is 11.00pm here.)
BTW: I can move the topic if you want.
I work in a prison, there is always coffee.Also you can move it if you wish.
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.