Melchizedek heb 7:1-3 is he god?

This topic is empty.

Viewing 20 posts - 41 through 60 (of 96 total)

←1 234 5 →

Author
Posts

July 11, 2010 at 11:04 am#209498

JustAskin

Participant

Barley,

I must learn not to be too complementary too quickly.

I saw you basic tenet and you wrote well. Just a minor point. A small crack in the doorway of you otherwise solid post.

I complemented you. Yes, Truth was in your post…

Then…that small opening from your 'Room of Scriptural Truth', led through to a 'TARDIS' like anteChamber of distorted misunderstandings.

Barley, what you have done is to create two rooms with an adjoining doorway.

In one room, you place all the gospel truth.

In the other, all the Gospel untruths.

And, you present viewers into the room of best desire. Truth room on one hand, false truth in the other.

However, i didn't notice the 'party doorway' until i noticed the slight darkness 'shining' through. The 'dropped point' wedging the door open.

You took me into that room, thinking you could explain it away and show me that darkness is light also, even claiming that JustAskin could learnt truth from you in that room.

Barley, you clearly have not read any of my posts.

I do not learn from man, i learn about man.

You 'completely' misunderstood what i was saying to you, even to the extent of trying 'explaining' Trinity to me…as if somehow i was ignorant of it's ignorance, thus making you more ignorant than the one who learns to keep his mouth shut…yes, even a fool is wise if he knows when to keep quiet and learn rather than open his mouth and speak gibberish!

Barley, you speak well in one room.

My suggestion. Get a lock on that door. Go into one of those rooms. Lock the door. Then, Smash the lock.

Barley, tell me what I mean by that?

No, wait, i'll just do it:

If you speak the Truth on one hand, you will pursuade many…not all, but many.
Many will believe you and follow you sheeplike. For such are many, and God has made them so, for not everyone can be a leader, but only from their own level down.
Now, Barley, now you are leading and others follow…You then lead them into your room of untruths…. Barley, they follow you in, sheeplike, into your 'pen of iniquitousness'-ness.
Barley, are you not fearful of what you have done?

Now, if you remain in one room, you are pursuading 'only those who chose to come to you in that room' by their choice, and remain with you by their choice. If you are in ignorance being in that room, then they are in ignorance remaining in that room also…note:ignorance, not innocence!
But when you lead them from the room of truth to the room of untruths, you are no longer ignorant and they are no longer ignorant, for they knew the truth and, even in their sheepliness, chose to follow. For even in ignorance, we each of us, have a form of 'godliness' and can discern right from wrong.

Barley, now, what do you wish to teach JustAskin? Oh, yes. I just learnt it.
Thank you.

Accept Truth from whomever and whereever and whenever it is found…but be wary from whom, of whom and by whom it comes…test the Spirit, for even Satan can transform himself into an angel of light and deceive many.

July 11, 2010 at 12:00 pm#209497

JustAskin

Participant

Davidbfun,

You also spoke well in your post a coupla pages back. Then went and spoiled it by claiming that people have seen God in the form of Melchizedek…why?

Melchizedek is described as a High Priest of God, who was clearly known to Abraham and doubtless many others around at the time but whose origins were not known.

It is simple thing and requires no great understanding: The Hebrews place great emphasis on their lineage; who belongs to which tribe, who is the son of whom, the father, grandfather, gggggfather, etc, and taught their own sons to learn this so they knew who they were and where they came from.
Now, if someone did not know their family lineage they were said to not have any parents. Clearly, this is for heritage purposes only, because, clearly, Melchizedek had parents. He is just a man, a man who somewhere in his life was made to become a well respected High Priest, in fact, so well respected that even Abraham 'bowed down' to him in respect of paying tithes to him.

What is a 'High Priest'?

A High Priest is the only person allowed to enter the innersanctuary of the Temple, the earthly abode of God, on certain days of the week. Because…because that HP is 'sinless' before God (Not a sinless man, just sinless in God's view of that person, God's grace, so to speak).

Only by such a person would God directly address a man. And please note, i have to say..the HP is not 'seeing the FACE of God'. The HP is simply being addressed, spoken to directly by God and the HP speaks directly to God, no intermediatary and offers the pure Sacrifice for, and on behalf of, the sins of the great unwashed. The great unwashed could never be allowed to do such a thing. And for this reason, the Romans are called the 'Abomination' when they entered the innersanctuary in their battle armour and ransacked it in 70AD.

Jesus, likewise, becomes High Priest, 'in the order of Melchizedek' by which this means, he is not from the designated lineage of the Order of Priests.

Mel, was not from the Order of Priest because there were strict laws as to whom may become a Priest, let alone, the HIGH PRIEST.
Jesus was appointed to the position, 'Fractally' like Mel. So, it could be well be speculated that Mel was someone who, although unspoken of in Scriptures, was highly favoured by God for some unknown deed or deeds in Salem, or elsewhere and was appointed to the HP for Salem, over the HP who was previously incumbrant. Perhaps Mel was, like Jesus, a King, or Prince, who was more suited to the role than anyone else. The point being, that the HP was not from the parentage line of the Order of Priest, but 'Begotten' to the position over those who were.

July 11, 2010 at 1:19 pm#209495

davidbfun

Participant

Quote (barley @ July 11 2010,08:10)

Quote (davidbfun @ July 10 2010,17:09)

Quote (barley @ July 10 2010,23:01)

Quote (davidbfun @ July 08 2010,15:38)

Hi Barley,

Usually I see people denying and negating a Bible verse by stating the verse was incorrectly translated and proceed to give the Greek or Hebrew word(s) and what it should mean. This is a first whereby I've seen the entire text negated by referring authoritatively to what “others point out” as “FACT”. “Others” have said that this Melchizedek is a theophany of Jesus BEFORE he was born as a man (does this mean what others say to be “true”?) Others have said that the information wasn't given was because the records were lost. Others even say that Melchizedek didn't even really exist and that this is only an office. So, let's go with what all of the others say and eliminate Melchizedek as a person, obscure his family life, and make a ballad for him as such a good soldier for God and then shout Hallelujah “Jesus” (sarcasm intended).

The author of Hebrews was quite articulate and verbose about the many subjects that he talks about but was quite succinct in defining Melchizedek, not allowing for opinions (or speculation).

God went to great lengths to give us explicit details of Melchizedek for a reason and you've just obliterated it by alluding to concepts (and individuals) that weren't even presented (i.e. good servant). It doesn't explicitly say that his mother and father aren't important so we won't talk about them; it says that he doesn't have a mother or father and to reiterate the point it says he has no genealogy (or descent); nor does it say to idolize him. Furthermore this “man” was so great that he didn't have a beginning or end and elsewhere it says that he is a priest perpetually meaning “forever” or in perpetuity. What “man”exists in perpetuity?

There was no reference on how well he served God or how he compared to others. It gives us his name, his kingdom, that he is a priest perpetually and the above mentioned “Facts” about him.

Again since Melchizedek doesn't die as explained in Hebrews (unlike the Levites) and that there is no need for another to serve in his place, and this person lives on in perpetuity….(again) what “MAN” is living forever?

Heb 5:10 and Heb 7:17 even states that Jesus is a priest forever according to the Order of Melchizedek. Therefore Jesus is following after a “man” who hasn't died and won't die (but has been spiritualized).

It seems that many read what is written and change it to mean whatever they want it to mean and by whatever means is available to them.

Please forgive me Barley as I believe my frustration came to a boiling point with this post. I have been reading so many things at this site that are quite disturbing such as the Greek word debate over whether Jesus was the “firstborn” or “begotten” son and how all words are not what they mean and try to back their opinion up with scripture. I am just a dumb blonde that would like to read the Bible at face value without having to doubt if anything is correct.

I picked this subject and verse because I thought it was quite clear and had a simple answer “Yes” Melchizedek is God because of the characteristics of God that were given (no mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning of days nor end of life). Now I see that people can rationalize away anything that is written with an analogy of their own devise.
David

Before you overreact, you might want to consider Hebrews 7:4, “Now consider how great this man was,…..”

According to the plain and simple English word, man, Mel was a man. That is different from the word, God. Man is man, God is God.

God's word is simple, Mel was not God, Mel was a man.

Thanks for expressing your concerns.

I love your logic. By this same logic Jesus cannot be God because the man, Jesus, is a mediator between God and man.

We read that no man has seen God at any time…..
Gen 3:8 They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden…..hid themselves from the presence of LORD God…

Is the Bible lying (God forbid) or is there differences between God (Elohim) and LORD God (YHVH Elohim)…and unfortunately in Greek there isn't the same distinction as can be seen in Hebrew…which causes much confusion and a lot of debates.

What would you say the appearance of LORD God would be? Couldn't be spirit as you can't see spirit. If He had a body, you would most likely say “man”, no?

Who sacrificed the animal to cover Adam and Eve? YHVH Elohim
Who received tithes from Cain and Abel? YHVH
Who married Adam and Eve? Unstated but they were man and wife.
Who is a perpetual priest? (Melchizedek; for all of the above because he is YHVH and God The Father as well as King and Priest).

Why the double naming, YHVH Elohim (LORD God) other than to specify the male essence of Elohim versus the combined essences of Elohim?

IF Elohim consists of two essences (male and female) THEN the male essence is YHVH (God The Father) and the female essence is The Holy Spirit (noun, fem).

Trinitarians go awry when they add God's son to God's being. The son came later in time and did not always exist with God but came FROM God and therefore cannot be God in ANY form. Take away the son of God from the Godhead and you have a correct view of God.

God (Elohim) exists in two essences and created man in God's image (male and female) Gen 1:27. Men and women beget children (we copy the actions done in Heaven).

Continuing with the two essences of Elohim….if the male essence decides to make a departure from the combined being of Elohim and clothes Himself (individually) with a body and the body looked liked His son (son of God) would we not call him a man in physical description? However, the reiteration of “this man” indicates that He had a physical body and not a “spirit”.

(Jesus when he was physically apart from his parents for 3 days told them that he had to be in his Father's house; a temple and his Father is a priest….hearing our prayers)

The Bible is correct when no man has seen God (Elohim-Spirit) but men have seen YHVH Elohim, and to me this is Melchizedek. What do you call a King but LORD? Who sits on the throne but a King? Who will sit at the right hand of YHVH other than the Prince of Peace? Who is mediator between man and God but the man, Jesus, who is a priest forever according to the Order of Melchizedek and enters into the “holy of holies” in the temple in Heaven? Who does the Father and son serve but God Most High (Elohim)?

The Father served Elohim while the son served mankind and now the son is serving Elohim as priest on behalf of mankind; and we receive our kingship and priesthood following after Jesus (according to the Order of Melchizedek)….which in reality is serving God Most High.

This is the work of God that you believe in him (JC) whom God has sent.

The scenario I described to you above comes from the Bible and makes complete sense without having to make up excu
ses like, “You have to accept what I say by 'faith'” or God's ways are higher than our ways and you cannot understand God,” etc.

The “Chain of Command” is clear:

Elohim: God Most High (Combined essences; M/F) =

YHVH (Male) & Holy Spirit (Female) (Individual essences)

Son of God/Man (Is NOT God)

Mankind

IF mankind wants to go to God THEN we must go thru Jesus, son of God (Lamb of God = Savior).

The Bible says that God created everything THRU Jesus and therefore Jesus is also our Creator as well as our Savior but not our God whom he came from.

Creation is an ACT of God and not a CHARACTERISTIC.
Adoration and worship is an ACT of man ordered by God to be given to His son because He exalted him to that position.

Jesus said that all power and authority has been GIVEN to me…(If he was God THEN he would've already had ALL Power, etc and couldn't be GIVEN anything) therefore he would've had to receive this from God.

Enough to think about, no?

have a wonderful night,
David

It is logical yes, that since Jesus Christ is a man, that he is not God.

More importantly, though, is that the scripture says that he is a man, as distinct from God, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” I Timothy 2:5

That verse makes it clear that Christ Jesus, is a man, distinct from God.

You wrote:
Is the Bible lying (God forbid) or is there differences between God (Elohim) and LORD God (YHVH Elohim)…and unfortunately in Greek there isn't the same distinction as can be seen in Hebrew…which causes much confusion and a lot of debates.

God has given Himself many names in order to help people understand who He is. Elohim carries the thought of God as creator. Jehovah carries the thought of God as ruler over His creation. El Shaddai carries the thought of the mighty one who provides abundantly for his people, (among other things) Father, the Holy Spirit, I am the Lord that heals you, I am the Lord that is your banner, etc. All of them teach us more about who God is. (And who he isn't, for instance, God,is the Lord, the Jehovah, that heals, therefore He is not the one who brings sickness upon people)

Most people in the US have several names, the first middle and last, besides nicknames, etc. All the same person, but different names are useful in different situations.

God has revealed His will to mankind in various ways at different times. Hebrews 1:1-2. Likewise, we must remember that what is spirit is spirit and what is flesh is flesh, and like wise, the flesh is unprofitable.

God has revealed himself by sending messengers, ie, angels. God used a burning bush to get Moses attention. It worked. God had the mountain with smoke and thunderings to impress upon the children of Israel His greatness. Even Moses did exceedingly fear and quake at the sight.

God has given to His men and women, the spirit upon them, in order to communicate with them. God has communicated to mankind via the prophets.

God gave the appearance of an ass talking to get one man's attention.

God does any thing and everything He can to communicate to mankind His love and goodness. He is limited by us, if we believe, the windows open, if we don't we limit God.

Adam and Eve were aware of God's presence in the garden. Of course, God is everywhere, so his personal presence is not an issue. Moses was attracted to a burning bush so that the angel of the Lord, (God sent an angel to talk with Mo) would tell Moses what God wanted said. So there was a clue to A and E, that God wanted to communicate to them while they were in the garden… What that clue was, I don't know.

God is spirit, John 4:24. There is no male or female parts to God.

We need to bring ourselves up to the level of scripture and not bring scripture down to our level..

The image of God is spirit, specifically, He is the Holy Spirit. A and E were created in God's image, not our image. Man's body was formed of the dust of the ground. God is not dust, God is spirit. Likewise man did not become a living soul until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Genesis 2:7.

We must read what the word, the logos, the scriptures teach, then we have something to work with. Believers are a three part being, see I Thessalonians 5:23. Body, soul, and spirit. It is the spirit part that God created in His own image. Spirit cannot communicate with flesh. Spirit can communicate with spirit. That is why God has given believers spirit..

God communicated to the prophets because they had the spirit upon them.

Enough.

Mel was a high priest to God. Since Mel was a man, that would work. If Mel was God, is then God his own high priest? Would God be making sacrifices to Himself? Is God guilty of self-worship? We need to stop and think about the implications of the decisions we make, we may want to change our minds.

Hi Barley,

I dropped you a personal email because I couldn't find this post as it was moved from “Scripture” to “Truth”.

I just received an email from a Rabbi and he made me think about God and how we here at heaven.net talk.

Here is a portion of that email:

It is clear that neither the term male or female can apply to God. Therefore, the answer to your question is not to view Hashem in any gender – neither as a He nor a She. We just use gender terms because they are convenient terms that we as humans can relate to. There is no “it” in Hebrew; there is either “he” or “she”. The Torah has to choose one or the other. There are two principal reasons for referring to God in the masculine:

1. Biologically in the act of procreation, the male is the “giver” and the female is the “receiver”. In the same way God as the Creator and sustainer of the world is the ultimate giver, and hence He is referred to as a male.

2. God also is the source of all power and strengths in the world. Since the male of the species (in the vast majority of cases) is the stronger, we refer to God as male.

Best regards,

Rabbi Reuven Lauffer

He was correct that God is neither male “He” nor female “She” and we are limited in using pronouns to describe our God that is NOT a person/human and since God is not an “it” (and Hebrew doesn't have an “it” as well) there is no other way to discuss God other than in human terms. And that in itself is limiting.

Regardless I will try to explain conceptual aspects of God:

God Most High = Elohim (comprises of two essences; male and female) Eloh(i)(ROOT) = god (noun FEMININE) + m = suffix (masc, plural, ending)

God = El (then there is an adjective added to describe the attribute being addressed) El Shaddai (God Almighty).

YHVH = Male essence of Elohim
Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) (noun, fem) = Female essence of Elohim

Therefore the individual Male essence of Elohim (YHVH) can serve Elohim just as the individual Female essence can serve Elohim without serving Themselves but Their combined entity.

I'll try to explain the comparison by using “parents”. Together they comprise your “creators” however individually they have their own purpose and can act on their own will but usually it's on behalf of their parenthood for your betterment.

Since the Male essence of Elohim has a physical body we use the term “man” to describe Him physically but call Him “God”. Instead of calling Melchizedek directly “God” the author of Hebrews gives us His characteristics and qualifications of being God along with how His physical appearance looks.

Now let's look at who this Melchizedek looks like:
Son of God (not Jesus as the son of Man because Melchizedek existed before Jesus' appearance
on the Earth in the position of SON OF MAN)

First, Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, as the son of God.
IF Melchizedek looks like the son of God, THEN who does the son of God look like? God, his Father! Who do we look like but our parents? Why would the son of God look differently? So if you want to know what the Father looks like, then look at His son.

So let's look again at all of the facts of Melchizedek without explaining them away:

FACTS:

NO mother
NO father
NO genealogy

(having neither:)
NO beginning of days
NO end of life

Perpetual priest (perpetual = everlasting, forever)

Melchizedek = name means King of Righteousness
rules as King of Salem (Peace)
Looks like son of God.

Analysis:
God alone is righteous (said Jesus)
Only place “peace” exists is in Heaven.
Jesus is the Prince of Peace (his Father must be King of Peace)
Jesus looks like God, his Father (as son of God) thus the Father looks like the son of God (His son)
Only “person” that has no mother, father or genealogy IS God.
(God exists! or “I will be what/that I will be”.)

It is tiresome to have “scholars” to try to deny and negate what is written. Normally, they do it with “word studies” but “no” means none, nothing, zilch. Next at this site somene quoted someone else and what their “interpretation” was to eliminate what was written.

The only “debatable” aspect of these verses is the “Priest to God Most High” position he holds. IF you can understand how Elohim aove is the combined essences of God THEN you can see how the Male essence LORD (King) God can also give service to God Most High as “priest” and not Himself).

Logical application of Melchizedek being YHVH:
Gen 3:8 + Adam and Eve heard LORD (YHVH) God “walking” and “hid” from LORD God's “presence” then “talked” with YHVH God.

No one has seen God (Elohim = spirit) but have seen LORD God. Sounds like double talk until you realize the difference of the two aspects of “God”. The two essences (male and female) combined as “one” (united/unity) God is called Elohim and has individual essences with their separate and distinct identities (Father, Holy Spirit). Therefore it is easier to see that the Father YHVH is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father BUT the Father YHVH is God and the Holy Spirit is God without having any conflicts or contraditions when applying definitions; you just need to know which aspect you or another person is addressing concerning God (combined or individual).

A “priest” sacrificed an animal to clothe Adam and Eve after the fall (and blood to cover their sins). A priest heard their confessions. A priest married them to become man and wife. YHVH (a priest) accepted offerings to the LORD from Cain and Abel.

I am sure there are other “priestly” duties performed to the early “pilgrims” that could be addressed but these are the “obvious” ones that I could see.

Barley, I believe my apologetics are sound and it woud be nice to respond to any questions you may have. Just list the point and I will follow it up with some Scripture verses.

As for others I expect them to do character assassinations on me as they don't fully read and understand what was written or my theology goes against their beliefs so out comes nasty comments against me instead of addressing the ideas proposed.

If you debate a point please do so with Bible Scripture first and then make your point of agreement or disagreement. Don't just say you're crazy or this is absurd, back up your comments with Biblical justification, ok?

David

July 11, 2010 at 1:51 pm#209496

JustAskin

Participant

David,

JustAskin does not do “Word Study” but uses the Scriptures. Stated over and over – all that is required is in the Scriptures (A little back ground study helps but not to flash around in the forum)

What is this thing about “Male and Female” in God. Think about these:
Does God have Female Angels?
Did God create Females as original Man? No, it was ONLY AFTER Adam took none of the animals as Companion that God created Female.

Why this talk of The Holy Spirit being “Female” – Please, what is all this ungracious talk!! God knows the difference between Male and female and does not call his Holy Spirit “a woman” – He calls “Wisdom” as Female as a QUALITY not as a Person, a being.

God took out of Man the Female Qualities in the analogy of a “Rib” (I thank him greatly for that!!!) and made a Female BEING from it.

If the Holy Spirit were “Female” then Woman would be “A Man's [unholy] Spirit” (Mind you…!)

“Having no Beginning nor ending of days”; Simple… Since neither his 'Birth' nor “death” are recorded, he has no “Beginning nor Death, Chronologically”.
When was he Born?
When did he Die?
Who are his Parents?
How did He become High Priest?
Was there a High Priest after Him in Salem?

No one knows… So the question is perpetually unanswerable – Clearly he was High Priest, therefore he will be High Priest Forever…

(p.s. Don't get hung up at the meaning of his name – they are indeed indicators, pointers – but only that – it has a purpose – names were very important to Hebrews/Jews – hence the adamancy that Mary's child should be called Jesus and the Dumbing of John the baptist's father until he named his Son John – Against family tradition (Question: What does John Mean – this is Ok to research!!)

July 11, 2010 at 6:44 pm#209539

kerwin

Participant

David B Fun.

You wrote:

Quote

I love your logic. By this same logic Jesus cannot be God because the man, Jesus, is a mediator between God and man.

I agree that Jesus is not God and the argument an individual does not mediation between himself and another is sound since a mediation is the individual who acts between two disputing parties and not one of the parties thereof.

A mediator can be employed or appointed by one of the disputing parties which certainly seems a conflict of interest. Jesus was appointed by God and is subject to him. He mediates by changing us as God is unchanging.

Your fellow student,

Kerwin

July 11, 2010 at 7:24 pm#209540

JustAskin

Participant

Jesus has proved himself to be perfectly suited to be the mediator between God and Man, being both Man and Spirit.

The Mediation is between 'God' as Spirit and 'Man' as Flesh.

Jesus fulfills the role as mediator perfectly by virtue of having experience of the Glory and pleasure of Spirit in God's presence. The targetted knowledge of God's plan from the beginning and through to the end, but not when the end is, and with the lacking of glory in flesh, the weakness, the limitations and how, although never giving in to sin, man could easily fall into sinfulness without the support of the Father.

July 12, 2010 at 2:04 am#209541

Ed J

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 11 2010,16:22)

Ed J, feel free to tender your explanations as well. I'd like to read them.

Hi Isaiah 1:18,

I would love to reason together with you. (Isaiah 1:18)
But lets bring this discussion to the proper thread; OK?

Forum » BELIEVERS PLACE » Scripture & Biblical Doctrine » HolySpirit is “GOD: The Father” of Jesus Christ

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

July 12, 2010 at 2:12 am#209542

barley

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 11 2010,15:50)

Quote (barley @ July 11 2010,12:33)

One of the many names that God uses to name himself is the Holy Spirit. It serves to help describe His nature.. God is spirit, John 4:24 and God is holy. It takes no stretch of imagination or scripture to understand that God is the Holy Spirit.

That's an interesting hypothesis but I'm not sure it can be defended. I'll list a few passage that appear to challenge the notion, to show you what I mean. I have a few questions for you too, which I hope you don't mind answering…

I'll start with Romans 8:9-11:

Romans 8:9-11
9However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Note the two titles “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ” are used interchangeably and equated by Paul in this passage. I assume you don't hold that the Father is properly referred to as “Christ” by Paul (if you do, I'd like to hear your rationale!). Therefore if the Holy Spirit is the Father Himself why is the Spirit of Christ mentioned at all in the context of this (overtly salvic) passage? Also, how do you reconcile this passage with the clear NT teaching that only ONE spirit indwells believers (Romans 8:9 cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 2:18, Ephesians 4:4-6)?

Later in the chapter this is affirmed:

Romans 8:26-27
26In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

The Spirit “intercedes” on our behalf. Who does He intercede to (note: Romans 8:34 details that Yeshua intercedes for us too, so it's obviously not Him)? Wouldn't it, by default, be directed TO the Father? This conclusion seems to make sense. So to affirm that The Holy Spirit is the Father Himself you must hold that The Father (Who is Spirit) makes intercession by His Spirit TO HIMSELF…..which is the very essence of confusion is it not?. Also it's germane to point out that the Spirit does this “according to the will of God”, would this affirmation not be the redundant if the Spirit in view is the Father? Logically – how could He not do something according to HIS OWN will??

Moving onto John….

John 16:7
7″But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

Yeshua here speaking of the “helper” declared that He will send “Him”. But isn't it the Father that does the sending? Does this verse not connote a subservience on the part of the Father to the Son? If this is a reference of the Father – then to my mind this affirmation would run counter to the clearly defined line of authority from the Father to Son. This theme is revisted and amplified in vss 13 and 14:

John 16:13-14
13″But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14″He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.

Why would the Father not speak on His own initiative? And Why would He need to “take of” Yeshua in order to disclose it to us. These are more evidences of an expressed subservience to the Son IMO. How do you explain this passage?

In Galatians 4:6, we read that the Holy Spirit indwelling believers cries out “Abba! Father!”

Galatians 4:6
6Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!“

Three BIG questions are raised here. Bearing in mind that only ONE spirit indwells believers (Romans 8:9 cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 2:18, Ephesians 4:4-6), why is the Father described with the phrase “Spirit of His Son“? Does this passage not describe the Father sending HIMSELF?!? And….why does the Father cry out “Abba, Father” to Himself? How absurd.

You can see how perplexing your conclusion is when scrutinised in the light of some NT teachings. Maybe you could unpack this for us Barley?

This weekend has been a challenging one for me, and I do not have the time or energy at this moment to fully address your concerns.

I am, however, pleased that you asked.

Let us consider Romans 8:9-11.

First, we must be cognizant that capitalization is the work of translators from the Greek to the English. It is not part of the original inspired word of God.

Secondly, we must realize what Jesus was talking about in John 3 when he spoke of being born again. Born again is more accurately translated, born from above, as many know. Nicodemus was puzzled because he looking at the flesh. He was not looking at things from a spiritual point of view. JC teaches him in verse 6 that that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. JC was not teaching about being born again in a physical sense, but was speaking of being born again spiritually. Becoming born again is a spiritual reality, not a physical reality. We are born again of God's spirit, that is the gift of holy spirit is given to us. We then are sons of God. I John 3:1,2. This gift of holy spirit is from or of God. We can be born again because of the accomplished works of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ made this available by his carrying out God's will for his life, namely, our redemption.

The references to spirit in verses 9 and 10 are referring to that gift of holy spirit of or from God that we are born again of. Capitalizing spirit indiscriminately has led to much confusion. This gift of holy spirit is call incorruptible seed in I Peter 1:23. The seed from our parents which we have is corruptible because it is in the category of flesh. That seed of which we are born again of, is incorruptible, because it is holy spirit.

Jesus Christ received spirit at his baptism by John. It is this spirit that enabled him to do the signs, miracles and wonders that he did. We have been given that same ability and greater, see John 14:12. It is that gift of holy spirit that enables us to do so. Because of this intertwined relationship, this gift of holy spirit is called the spirit of Christ. It is also that which now is that eternal life, not physically with our present human bodies, but now, spiritually, with our future changed bodies.

This gift of holy spirit is the subject matter of I Corinthians 12-14 and many other passages of scripture including Romans 8:9,10.

As you pointed out the two terms are used interchangeably in these verses, and partly
for the reasons pointed out.

I will have to continue this at a later time.

July 12, 2010 at 4:41 am#209543

Ed J

Participant

Quote (davidbfun @ July 12 2010,00:19)

Hi Barley,

I dropped you a personal email because I couldn't find this post as it was moved from “Scripture” to “Truth”.

I just received an email from a Rabbi and he made me think about God and how we here at heaven.net talk.

Here is a portion of that email:

2. God also is the source of all power and strengths in the world. Since the male of the species (in the vast majority of cases) is the stronger, we refer to God as male.

Best regards,

Rabbi Reuven Lauffer

Regardless I will try to explain conceptual aspects of God:

God Most High = Elohim (comprises of two essences; male and female) Eloh(i)(ROOT) = god (noun FEMININE) + m = suffix (masc, plural, ending)

God = El (then there is an adjective added to describe the attribute being addressed) El Shaddai (God Almighty).

YHVH = Male essence of Elohim
Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) (noun, fem) = Female essence of Elohim

Therefore the individual Male essence of Elohim (YHVH) can serve Elohim just as the individual Female essence can serve Elohim without serving Themselves but Their combined entity.

Now let's look at who this Melchizedek looks like:
Son of God (not Jesus as the son of Man because Melchizedek existed before Jesus' appearance on the Earth in the position of SON OF MAN)

So let's look again at all of the facts of Melchizedek without explaining them away:

FACTS:

NO mother
NO father
NO genealogy

(having neither:)
NO beginning of days
NO end of life

Perpetual priest (perpetual = everlasting, forever)

Melchizedek = name means King of Righteousness
rules as King of Salem (Peace)
Looks like son of God.

Logical application of Melchizedek being YHVH:
Gen 3:8 + Adam and Eve heard LORD (YHVH) God “walking” and “hid” from LORD God's “presence” then “talked” with YHVH God.

I am sure there are other “priestly” duties performed to the early “pilgrims” that could be addressed but these are the “obvious” ones that I could see.

Barley, I believe my apologetics are sound and it woud be nice to respond to any questions you may have. Just list the point and I will follow it up with some Scripture verses.

David

Hi David,

Our views of YHVH are not that far apart.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

July 12, 2010 at 4:56 am#209544

terraricca