- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (david @ July 17 2010,17:27) Quote 25%: Mary's father's [Joseph's] lineage was through Nathan(son of David). (Luke 3:23-31) Quote 25%: Mary's father's lineage was through Nathan(son of David). (Luke 3:23-31) OK, I think I haven't been being clear enough.
Jesus “sprang from the seed of David ACCORDING TO THE FLESH.” (Ro 1:3)
You have already established and pointed out to me that Joseph is not Jesus Father. It was not according to the flesh of Joseph that Jesus arrived. That only leaves MARY.
Hence, logically, Mary must have also been considered in the line of David, or Judah.
Hence, … I don't ever remember how this is connected to the original topic anymore… and it's late.
Hi David,Heli was Mary's Dad; NOT Joesph!
You have just misquoted me there.I got in trouble here for doing something very similar.
So it is my civic duty here to issue you a personal warning!
A record of you altering my quote is now on file, don't let it happen again!Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote Hi David, Heli was Mary's Dad; NOT Joesph!
You have just misquoted me there.First, I agree with you that Heli was Mary's father.
Second, I didn't alter your quote. When you put [], and then put words in those brackets, it indicates that it was not part of the original quote.
Third, I have no idea why I wrote “[Joseph's]” in that spot. It doesn't make sense. It is 1:00 AM where I am however and I probably need sleep. Sorry for the mistake.Quote 25%; Mary's mother's linage was of the tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5, 1:36)
25%: Mary's father's lineage was through Nathan(son of David). (Luke 3:23-31)Then, Mary would be considered of the tribe of Judah.
It is always through the Father.Quote (david @ July 17 2010,17:59) Quote 25%; Mary's mother's linage was of the tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5, 1:36)
25%: Mary's father's lineage was through Nathan(son of David). (Luke 3:23-31)Then, Mary would be considered of the tribe of Judah.
It is always through the Father.
Hi David,And Mary's Mother's Father is from the tribe of Levi!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (david @ July 17 2010,17:55) Quote Hi David, Heli was Mary's Dad; NOT Joesph!
You have just misquoted me there.First, I agree with you that Heli was Mary's father.
Second, I didn't alter your quote. When you put [], and then put words in those brackets, it indicates that it was not part of the original quote.
Third, I have no idea why I wrote “[Joseph's]” in that spot. It doesn't make sense. It is 1:00 AM where I am however and I probably need sleep. Sorry for the mistake.
HI David,That's what I also do to bible verses [to indicate the verse was altered]!
I just wanted to inform you of the Forum's policy, that's all.
No problem brother David; no harm no foul!Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (JustAskin @ July 11 2010,22:04) 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.
JustAskin,God loves you! Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the lord Jesus Christ.
So get to the point. That is a lot of words without any scripture. Show me from the scripture. I am meek and lowly. If you have scripture to share, share on.
You have over 1800 posts. If you write like you did in this one, then there is little or no scripture for me to read. Nothing but vague accusations with no scripture to base it on. That makes it pointless to read any of your posts. Unless you have scripture to offer, your posts will be of little value. Unless, of course, you have a good recipe for chili or meatloaf.
So, as to facilitate your understanding of scripture that I believe:
Jesus Christ is the son of God, not God.
The trinity is an idolatrous lie. Romans 1:20-23.
The dead are dead until raised from the dead. Jesus Christ would not come back to raise the dead if they were already alive in heaven or somewhere else. I Thessalonians 4:13-18. There is no consciousness in death. Psalm 6:5
The Bible is the revealed word and will of God. There may be errors in the various texts and versions, but the Word of God, as originally given to holy men of God, is error free and perfect in every way by God's standards. II Peter 1:21, Psalm 12:6
God has endued the believers, Romans 10:9,10 with power from on high. He has thus enabled us to speak in tongues, interpret tongues, bring forth word of prophecy, receive word of knowledge, receive word of wisdom, discern spirits, believe for the impossible to come to pass, do miracles and give gifts of healings. I Corinthians 12
Jesus Christ as the son of God and the son of man is everything that any believer could want to be. Yet we can do greater works than JC himself. John 14:12
So, for starters, I made some of my believing of the scripture clear to you.
Hi B,
Let the dead bury the dead.
But God is the God of the living[Lk20.38]
Some standing with Jesus passed over from death to life.
They sleepQuote (barley @ July 18 2010,06:40) Quote (JustAskin @ July 11 2010,22:04) 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.
JustAskin,God loves you! Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the lord Jesus Christ.
So get to the point. That is a lot of words without any scripture. Show me from the scripture. I am meek and lowly. If you have scripture to share, share on.
You have over 1800 posts. If you write like you did in this one, then there is little or no scripture for me to read. Nothing but vague accusations with no scripture to base it on. That makes it pointless to read any of your posts. Unless you have scripture to offer, your posts will be of little value. Unless, of course, you have a good recipe for chili or meatloaf.
So, as to facilitate your understanding of scripture that I believe:
Jesus Christ is the son of God, not God.
The trinity is an idolatrous lie. Romans 1:20-23.
The dead are dead until raised from the dead. Jesus Christ would not come back to raise the dead if they were already alive in heaven or somewhere else. I Thessalonians 4:13-18. There is no consciousness in death. Psalm 6:5
The Bible is the revealed word and will of God. There may be errors in the various texts and versions, but the Word of God, as originally given to holy men of God, is error free and perfect in every way by God's standards. II Peter 1:21, Psalm 12:6
God has endued the believers, Romans 10:9,10 with power from on high. He has thus enabled us to speak in tongues, interpret tongues, bring forth word of prophecy, receive word of knowledge, receive word of wisdom, discern spirits, believe for the impossible to come to pass, do miracles and give gifts of healings. I Corinthians 12
Jesus Christ as the son of God and the son of man is everything that any believer could want to be. Yet we can do greater works than JC himself. John 14:12
So, for starters, I made some of my believing of the scripture clear to you.
JustAskin,JustSoYouKnow, IHaveReadSomeOfYourPostsAsICameAcrossThemInOtherThreads. YouAndIAgreeOnALotOfThings. IAmGladToSeeThat.
barley
Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 12 2010,18:17) Quote (barley @ July 12 2010,13:12) 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.
That's okay, take your time. We have guest with us tonight then i'm going out of town for the rest of the week. I'm also away the following week. So I won't be able to pick back up on this for a fortnight at the earliest. You're off the hook for now!
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the lord Jesus Christ.Regarding the other verses you mentioned, before I continue it would be most helpful for me to ask you several questions.
Acts 2:4 the apostles spoke in tongues as the spirit gave them the utterance. The testimony of those that heard them speak in tongues was that they spoke the wonderful works of God.
I Corinthians 14:5 says, “I would that ye all spake in tongues…”
I Corinthians 12:7 The manifestation of the spirit is given to every man [believers] to profit withal. Paul then lists these manifestations in verses 8-10. Paul, in verse 1 says concerning spiritual matters, I would not have you ignorant. These spiritual matters include the manifestations that are given to every man.
What do you know about speaking in tongues from the scripture? Do you speak in tongues?
If you do, those verses pretty much explain themselves. When we speak in tongues, it is God, the Holy Spirit that gives the utterance. We have the gift of holy spirit. God imparts to us of His divine nature. II Peter 1:3-4.
God being holy and spirit is rightfully called the Holy Spirit. When we are born again, we become children of God. I John 3:1-2, 4:4. We of God how? by His imparting to us of his very nature, holy and spirit. The gift of holy spirit. Acts 1:8 is one of many verses that speak of this gift. John 7:39 is another useful scripture along these lines.
The other verses you mentioned have roots in the above.
Thanks for asking.
Here is another argument on Melchizedek to be man
Was Shem Melchizedek?
Jasher 16:8-12
(Compare to Genesis 14:12-21)And Abram recovered all the property of Sodom , and he also recovered Lot and his property, his wives and little ones and all belonging to him, so that Lot lacked nothing. And when he returned from smiting these kings, he and his men passed the valley of Siddim where the kings had made war together. And Bera king of Sodom , and the rest of his men that were with him, went out from the lime-pits into which they had fallen, to meet Abram and his men. And Adonizedek king of Jerusalem , the same was Shem, went out with his men to meet Abram and his people, with bread and wine, and they remained together in the valley of Melech . And Adonizedek blessed Abram, and Abram gave him a tenth from all that he had brought from the spoil of his enemies, for Adonizedek was a priest before God.
The notion of Shem being Melchizedek throws a devastating monkey wrench into the doctrinal workings of Hebrews chapter 7. Hebrews establishes its doctrine largely on the premise that Melchizedek was “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life”. Christianity has typically held to a very mystical view of Melchizedek on the basis of this passage alone. Hebrews 7 goes on to argue in verses 4-10 that since Yahshua is the new priest who is to come “after the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:1-4), and there is no genealogical connection between Melchizedek and Abraham (in whose loins was the Levitical priesthood) there is likewise no genealogical connection between the Levitical priesthood and the new priest Yahshua.
From this line of logic Hebrews goes on to argue in verses 11 and 12 that this new priesthood must therefore “of necessity” establish a new law! This progression amounts to one absurd argument built on top of the false premises of another. The obvious questions now become: Who establishes the Law in the first place? Is it the priests? Or is it God? Even if a new priesthood were to arise, would not the new priests be obligated to observe the Laws established by God? Where is it written that new priests require a new law? Hebrews’ argument smacks of the premise that there really is no God …or at least one who could truly communicate His will to man; for as it had to be with the pagans, it was the priests who concocted the laws to be observed by their followers.
Now if the premise of a new priesthood itself were false, how much less is there an argument for a new law?
God promised that the priesthood would remain forever with Aaron of the tribe of Levi, and further chose a line through his descendants Eleazar and Phinehas (see Exodus 40:13-15, and Numbers 25:10-13). God also promised that the new priest/Messiah would bring together the priesthood and the kingdom (see Jeremiah 33:14-18, and Zechariah 6:12 -13). It comes as a shock to most Christians to find out that Yahshua has in fact all the genealogical credentials of both the kingly tribe of Judah, and the priestly tribe of Levi! See my article: The Problem With Hebrews (Microsoft Word Document) It is in this fact alone that Yahshua fulfills the prophecy of being a priest “after the order of Melchizedek!” He is both king and priest in one. It is not as Hebrews would have us believe by suggesting that Yahshua is like Melchizedek in that there is no genealogical connection between him and Levi. The priesthood never left the descendants of Levi as God had promised! Furthermore, if indeed Shem was Melchizedek, there is a direct genealogical thread that flows from Melchizedek all the way through Abraham, Levi, and Aaron, to Yahshua. This completely destroys the doctrinal foundations of the book of Hebrews.
A short summary of the case is this: Yahshua’s mother Mary was close genetic kin to Elisabeth who was “of the daughters of Aaron” (Luke 1:5,36). According to the Law this could mean only one thing. Mary’s mother also had to have been a full-blooded daughter of Aaron. Mary’s father Heli was of the tribe of Judah , making Mary a perfect blend of the two tribes. And since Yahshua had no earthly father, it logically flows that his physical bloodlines were identical to his mother’s.
Most Christians will be inclined to reject the record of Jasher for the sake of Hebrews in spite of the fact that Joshua 10:13 and 2Samuel 1:18 cite Jasher as an accurate record. I would again encourage the reader to study my article in depth and notice that Hebrews’ premise that Yahshua is not a descendant of Levi is absolutely false. This fact gives Jasher’s record that Shem was Melchizedek even greater plausibility.
The burden of proof is on Christianity to first prove that Yahshua does not have any Levitical blood in him. If it were not for the book of Hebrews, Christians would be absolutely thrilled about the fact that Yahshua clearly fulfills God’s prophecy to bring both Judah and Levi together into one man. It is simply amazing the lengths to which many Christians will go to try to disprove these beautiful prophecies for the sake of the book of Hebrews and its anti-Law doctrines they have come to love.
Link: http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/life_spans_patriarchs.htm
Adam: I was wondering if you might be able to explain something to me about Genesis14:18. When I read about Abram and Melchizedek the King of Salem, real carefully with no preconceived notion of what it has been interpreted as, I find that Melchizedek gave tithe to Abram, not the other way around. In V20 Mel is blessing the most high God for dilivering Abrams enemies into his (Abrams)hand and he(Melchizedek) gave him(Abram) tithes of all.
It goes on to say, the king of Sodom wanted to give Abram some goods of the spoils and Abram refused to accept anything from him(King of Sodom) saying he would not take anything from him lest it be said that he(a King) made Abram rich.
In other words it seems to me that Abram was willing to take or receive a tenth from Melchizedek priest of God but not the other King.
How does it read to you? Thank you, TKQuote (Tim Kraft @ Jan. 21 2011,04:45) Adam: I was wondering if you might be able to explain something to me about Genesis14:18. When I read about Abram and Melchizedek the King of Salem, real carefully with no preconceived notion of what it has been interpreted as, I find that Melchizedek gave tithe to Abram, not the other way around. In V20 Mel is blessing the most high God for dilivering Abrams enemies into his (Abrams)hand and he(Melchizedek) gave him(Abram) tithes of all.
It goes on to say, the king of Sodom wanted to give Abram some goods of the spoils and Abram refused to accept anything from him(King of Sodom) saying he would not take anything from him lest it be said that he(a King) made Abram rich.
In other words it seems to me that Abram was willing to take or receive a tenth from Melchizedek priest of God but not the other King.
How does it read to you? Thank you, TK
TKlook again;
Ge 14:17 After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley).
Ge 14:18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High,
Ge 14:19 and he blessed Abram, saying,
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.
Ge 14:20 And blessed be God Most High,
who delivered your enemies into your hand.”Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything
Pierre
Quote (Tim Kraft @ Jan. 20 2011,21:45) Adam: I was wondering if you might be able to explain something to me about Genesis14:18. When I read about Abram and Melchizedek the King of Salem, real carefully with no preconceived notion of what it has been interpreted as, I find that Melchizedek gave tithe to Abram, not the other way around. In V20 Mel is blessing the most high God for dilivering Abrams enemies into his (Abrams)hand and he(Melchizedek) gave him(Abram) tithes of all.
It goes on to say, the king of Sodom wanted to give Abram some goods of the spoils and Abram refused to accept anything from him(King of Sodom) saying he would not take anything from him lest it be said that he(a King) made Abram rich.
In other words it seems to me that Abram was willing to take or receive a tenth from Melchizedek priest of God but not the other King.
How does it read to you? Thank you, TK
Hi brother Tim,
Thanks for your response. In fact the website I quoted gives full explanation on how Shem was the Melchizedek who was the priest of God the most high with genealogies right from Adam. You can clearly see how Shem, the great….great grand father of Abraham was still living at the time this war mentioned in Gen 14. I think book of Jasher is the clue to understand the mystery of Melchizedek. I look forward how you interpret Gen 14 on Melchizedek. According O.T critics Genesis must have been written later to book of Jasher as the authorship of Moses is in question. For more information you may read the book “Who wrote the Bible” by Friedman.Thanks and peace to you
AdamQuote (gollamudi @ Jan. 20 2011,21:13) Here is another argument on Melchizedek to be man Was Shem Melchizedek?
Jasher 16:8-12
(Compare to Genesis 14:12-21)And Abram recovered all the property of Sodom , and he also recovered Lot and his property, his wives and little ones and all belonging to him, so that Lot lacked nothing. And when he returned from smiting these kings, he and his men passed the valley of Siddim where the kings had made war together. And Bera king of Sodom , and the rest of his men that were with him, went out from the lime-pits into which they had fallen, to meet Abram and his men. And Adonizedek king of Jerusalem , the same was Shem, went out with his men to meet Abram and his people, with bread and wine, and they remained together in the valley of Melech . And Adonizedek blessed Abram, and Abram gave him a tenth from all that he had brought from the spoil of his enemies, for Adonizedek was a priest before God.
The notion of Shem being Melchizedek throws a devastating monkey wrench into the doctrinal workings of Hebrews chapter 7. Hebrews establishes its doctrine largely on the premise that Melchizedek was “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life”. Christianity has typically held to a very mystical view of Melchizedek on the basis of this passage alone. Hebrews 7 goes on to argue in verses 4-10 that since Yahshua is the new priest who is to come “after the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:1-4), and there is no genealogical connection between Melchizedek and Abraham (in whose loins was the Levitical priesthood) there is likewise no genealogical connection between the Levitical priesthood and the new priest Yahshua.
From this line of logic Hebrews goes on to argue in verses 11 and 12 that this new priesthood must therefore “of necessity” establish a new law! This progression amounts to one absurd argument built on top of the false premises of another. The obvious questions now become: Who establishes the Law in the first place? Is it the priests? Or is it God? Even if a new priesthood were to arise, would not the new priests be obligated to observe the Laws established by God? Where is it written that new priests require a new law? Hebrews’ argument smacks of the premise that there really is no God …or at least one who could truly communicate His will to man; for as it had to be with the pagans, it was the priests who concocted the laws to be observed by their followers.
Now if the premise of a new priesthood itself were false, how much less is there an argument for a new law?
God promised that the priesthood would remain forever with Aaron of the tribe of Levi, and further chose a line through his descendants Eleazar and Phinehas (see Exodus 40:13-15, and Numbers 25:10-13). God also promised that the new priest/Messiah would bring together the priesthood and the kingdom (see Jeremiah 33:14-18, and Zechariah 6:12 -13). It comes as a shock to most Christians to find out that Yahshua has in fact all the genealogical credentials of both the kingly tribe of Judah, and the priestly tribe of Levi! See my article: The Problem With Hebrews (Microsoft Word Document) It is in this fact alone that Yahshua fulfills the prophecy of being a priest “after the order of Melchizedek!” He is both king and priest in one. It is not as Hebrews would have us believe by suggesting that Yahshua is like Melchizedek in that there is no genealogical connection between him and Levi. The priesthood never left the descendants of Levi as God had promised! Furthermore, if indeed Shem was Melchizedek, there is a direct genealogical thread that flows from Melchizedek all the way through Abraham, Levi, and Aaron, to Yahshua. This completely destroys the doctrinal foundations of the book of Hebrews.
A short summary of the case is this: Yahshua’s mother Mary was close genetic kin to Elisabeth who was “of the daughters of Aaron” (Luke 1:5,36). According to the Law this could mean only one thing. Mary’s mother also had to have been a full-blooded daughter of Aaron. Mary’s father Heli was of the tribe of Judah , making Mary a perfect blend of the two tribes. And since Yahshua had no earthly father, it logically flows that his physical bloodlines were identical to his mother’s.
Most Christians will be inclined to reject the record of Jasher for the sake of Hebrews in spite of the fact that Joshua 10:13 and 2Samuel 1:18 cite Jasher as an accurate record. I would again encourage the reader to study my article in depth and notice that Hebrews’ premise that Yahshua is not a descendant of Levi is absolutely false. This fact gives Jasher’s record that Shem was Melchizedek even greater plausibility.
The burden of proof is on Christianity to first prove that Yahshua does not have any Levitical blood in him. If it were not for the book of Hebrews, Christians would be absolutely thrilled about the fact that Yahshua clearly fulfills God’s prophecy to bring both Judah and Levi together into one man. It is simply amazing the lengths to which many Christians will go to try to disprove these beautiful prophecies for the sake of the book of Hebrews and its anti-Law doctrines they have come to love.
Link: http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/life_spans_patriarchs.htm
Hi Adam,I have covered this topic…
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….48;st=0 …that is what inspired Davidbefun to make this Poll.Please read the thread…
Forum » BELIEVERS PLACE » Scripture & Biblical Doctrine » Melchizedek: is it an “office” or a “person”
We can discuss it there; OK?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Tim Kraft @ Jan. 20 2011,21:45) Adam: I was wondering if you might be able to explain something to me about Genesis14:18. When I read about Abram and Melchizedek the King of Salem, real carefully with no preconceived notion of what it has been interpreted as, I find that Melchizedek gave tithe to Abram, not the other way around. In V20 Mel is blessing the most high God for dilivering Abrams enemies into his (Abrams)hand and he(Melchizedek) gave him(Abram) tithes of all.
It goes on to say, the king of Sodom wanted to give Abram some goods of the spoils and Abram refused to accept anything from him(King of Sodom) saying he would not take anything from him lest it be said that he(a King) made Abram rich.
In other words it seems to me that Abram was willing to take or receive a tenth from Melchizedek priest of God but not the other King.
How does it read to you? Thank you, TK
Greetings Tim…..Iam confused??? when we patch the time elements between Abram tithing to Melchezadik and the epic of Sodem…..Please indulge me…I need to know???
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
