Jesus is God

[dwight92070]

Mel did die. It's his priesthood, what he was teaching, that did not die

Dwight - How could you say that Mel died when the scripture says otherwise? Hebrews 7:3 "... he remains a priest perpetually." Not just his teaching - He remains! Perpetually! Verse 8 "In this case mortal men receive tithes (referring to the sons of Levi in verse 5 receiving a tenth from the people), but in that case (the case of Mel) one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on." So Mel lives on, he never died. Verses 15-16 "And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life." Mel has an indestructible life - so does Jesus. Verse 17 "... You are a priest FOREVER, ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK." If Mel was not a priest FOREVER, then Jesus could not follow Mel's order of priesthood. Both are priests forever, which leads to the obvious - they are the same person.

[dwight92070]

Also, tell me who can be called the "King of Righteousness"? ONLY someone who is without sin. Choose the most righteous person in the Bible, other than Jesus Himself - could they be called that? No way. Only Jesus could have that title - yet Melchizedek had it too. Why? Because they are the same person.

[darinhouston]

Dwight makes a good point about the language that Mel remains a priest perpetually. But, that does not imply he lives forever or that there is a single office that is in view which can only be held by one person at any given time. Jesus is our High Priest and his priesthood is of the type of Mel and in the order of Mel. Mel's priesthood could well be heavenly and ongoing even if Mel isn't Jesus. Jesus' priesthood is of the "order" of and "type" of Mel's (as contrasted in the stated ways from the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood). But, that doesn't mean his priesthood is exactly the same as Mel's or that there can only be one of them.

There are so many problems with the Christophany view, but among them are if you are correct and Mel was, in fact, Jesus, then Jesus didn't gain his priesthood as revealed but always had it and we didn't need for him to die and be resurrected or live a perfect life to be glorified and anointed and given the authority as our priest and intercessor -- he was already doing it and his life and death and resurrection become nothing more than a show.

We don't know much about Mel - there is no recorded death, but that doesn't mean he didn't die. He could have been taken like Elijah - we don't know. But, Mel continuing to be a priest in some manner does not create the problem you suggest.

[darinhouston]

Also, tell me who can be called the "King of Righteousness"? ONLY someone who is without sin.

These presuppositions slay me. Seriously, how can you say that with such certainty as if it's self-evident? That is complete and utter speculative conjecture.

[darinhouston]

Speaking of speculations, it could even well be that this was not a Christophany per se but another form or Theophany of a sort where God Himself provided this model in some way completely separate from and as a type of Christ. Whether by agency or appearance or angelic incarnation or other mechanism we aren't told. If God could appear in a bush or pillar of fire or wrestle with Abraham, he could well serve a typologic function pending the time of Christ where his messiah would be conceived at the right time and do the full work of obedience as the second Adam. None of this requires that it be a pre-incarnate Jesus.

Of course, that's conjecture, but speculation is all either of us have in these gaps. We certainly don't have "proof-text" levels of revelation of Jesus' pre-existence. Like so many other doctrinal issues pertaining to proof-texts, if the assumption is true, these kinds of texts can support a giventheory, but they can't be used to prove them.

[commonsense]

lso, tell me who can be called the "King of Righteousness"? ONLY someone who is without sin. Choose the most righteous person in the Bible, other than Jesus Himself - could they be called that? No way. Only Jesus could have that title - yet Melchizedek had it too. Why? Because they are the same person.

Dwight, if this is true, then your Trinity theory falls apart because now you have 4 Gods, Mel, Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Mel was teaching the Law and the commandments of God. His commands are perpetually in effect even today because they are the eternal Law of God.
being the voice of God and being God Himself are two different things. Obedience to the Law of God is what makes one righteous.

[dwight92070]

lso, tell me who can be called the "King of Righteousness"? ONLY someone who is without sin. Choose the most righteous person in the Bible, other than Jesus Himself - could they be called that? No way. Only Jesus could have that title - yet Melchizedek had it too. Why? Because they are the same person.

Dwight, if this is true, then your Trinity theory falls apart because now you have 4 Gods, Mel, Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Dwight - Apparently, you don't understand the Trinity belief - there are not 3 Gods, there is only one God in 3 persons, and if Mel is Jesus, then that doesn't add a God - there's still one God.

Mel was teaching the Law and the commandments of God. His commands are perpetually in effect even today because they are the eternal Law of God.
being the voice of God and being God Himself are two different things. Obedience to the Law of God is what makes one righteous.

Dwight - Apparently you also are not familiar with the time frame of Abraham and Mel - approximately 430 years before God gave Moses the Law and the commandments. We have no indication that Mel was teaching at all, much less the Law, which wasn't even given for another 430 years.

Dwight - Apparently you also are not familiar with the New Testament teaching that we are made righteous, not by obeying the Law, but by having our sins forgiven because of Jesus' death and then receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit. Hebrews 8:13 tells us that the law is now obsolete - no longer in effect. As believers, we are now under the law of Christ - also called the law of liberty.

[dwight92070]

Daren, D.A. Carson says that he believes that those of us who think Mel is a preincarnate appearance of Jesus are wrong, but he doesn't give any supporting scripture to back it up. If I missed it (because I didn't read everything he said on it), please tell me the scripture he used to support his view.
Also, you keep reminding me to stay on topic or to start a new thread with a new topic. But both you and Paidon keep on mentioning the Trinity and now commonsense is too. But that's not the topic of this thread, even though it's related.

[dwight92070]

Also, tell me who can be called the "King of Righteousness"? ONLY someone who is without sin.

These presuppositions slay me. Seriously, how can you say that with such certainty as if it's self-evident? That is complete and utter speculative conjecture.

Dwight - Really? So tell me, who else besides Jesus can be called the King of Righteousness?- and don't tell me Mel, since he is the point of our disagreement.

Dwight - We know that Jesus was without sin, and therefore righteous, and that He is the King of Kings. I know that from the Bible. So my statement is neither a presupposition or conjecture. I challenge you to give me one person who can (or could) honestly take on that title.

[dwight92070]

Speaking of speculations, it could even well be that this was not a Christophany per se but another form or Theophany of a sort where God Himself provided this model in some way completely separate from and as a type of Christ.

Dwight Now who's speculating?

Whether by agency or appearance or angelic incarnation or other mechanism we aren't told. If God could appear in a bush or pillar of fire or wrestle with Abraham, he could well serve a typologic function pending the time of Christ where his messiah would be conceived at the right time and do the full work of obedience as the second Adam. None of this requires that it be a pre-incarnate Jesus.

Dwight - Nor does it require any scripture to back it up, so it simply muddies the water of the truth.

Of course, that's conjecture, but speculation is all either of us have in these gaps.

Dwight - Scripture is not speculation - both of us have that.

We certainly don't have "proof-text" levels of revelation of Jesus' pre-existence.

Dwight - You apparently don't, since you don't believe the obvious scriptural references to His preexistence.