Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are there two Christs in the Bible?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 56 of 109 (498723)
02-13-2009 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by carbonstar
08-13-2006 2:10 PM


Melchizadek was a high priest AND a king in the days of Abraham
The scripture in psalm ("he'll come according to the manner of Melchizadek") gave the Hebrews reason to regard the promised Messiah as the one in whom the office of priest and king would be combined.
The apostle Paul, in Heb 6:20; 5:10; Identifies Jesus as the one in whom the scripture in Psalms is to be applied when he said "Jesus, who has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever."
So, High Priest & King
Jesus is both a King of Gods Kingdom and a High Priest who has authority to take sins away from the people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by carbonstar, posted 08-13-2006 2:10 PM carbonstar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Nighttrain, posted 02-13-2009 6:55 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 58 of 109 (498892)
02-15-2009 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Nighttrain
02-13-2009 6:55 PM


Re: Two Messiahs
Hi Nighttrain,
Nighttrain writes:
Since Jesus is NOT descended in the paternal line from either Aaron or David, how can he legitimately be high priest?
what makes you think he was not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Nighttrain, posted 02-13-2009 6:55 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Nighttrain, posted 02-15-2009 4:28 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 60 of 109 (499287)
02-18-2009 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Nighttrain
02-15-2009 4:28 AM


Re: Two Messiahs
if you believe the holy ghost/spirit is a person, perhaps

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Nighttrain, posted 02-15-2009 4:28 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 69 of 109 (504505)
03-30-2009 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Brian
03-28-2009 12:16 PM


Re: Two Messiahs
Brian writes:
However, the Bible is quite clear on the matter.
The Messiah will come from the bloodline of David through Solomon, this negates Jesus.
Unless, of course, you have some additional infomation that the Bible has left out?
Nothing is left out. No matter how you look at the family line of Jesus, whether you look at his mothers line or his adoptive father Josephs line, Solomon is in it.
Matthew traces the descendants of Solomon down to Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus, and Luke traces Jesus’ lineage to Heli (apparently the father of Mary) through Nathan, who was another son of David and Bath-sheba and therefore Solomon’s full brother.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Brian, posted 03-28-2009 12:16 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Brian, posted 03-30-2009 3:09 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 70 of 109 (504506)
03-30-2009 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Brian
03-29-2009 5:16 PM


Re: Two Messiahs
Brian writes:
Hence, the Bible proves that Jesus was not the Messiah.
2 Samuel 7:
12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
this verse is talking about king David...the Messiah was to come from his family line. It does't matter which son of David was the father because in a Patriarchal society, all grandchildren and great grandchildren are seen to be the children of the patriarch.
Question....is that verse from a paraphrased bible translation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Brian, posted 03-29-2009 5:16 PM Brian has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 73 of 109 (504512)
03-30-2009 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Brian
03-30-2009 3:09 AM


Re: Two Messiahs
Solomn isnt in Mary's line, he shows up in Jospehs line. Mary was of the priestly line and Joseph was of the Davidic kingly line.
There are a number of lines of evidence that Mary was of the Priestly tribe. She was the daughter of Heli who was of the priestly tribe.
If tradition is correct, Heli’s wife, the mother of Mary, was Anna, whose sister had a daughter named Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptizer.
quote:
Luke1:5In the days of Herod, king of Jude′a, there happened to be a certain priest named Zechari′ah of the division of Abi′jah, and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
Luke1:36And, look! Elizabeth your relative has also herself conceived a son, in her old age, ..."
This tradition would make Elizabeth the cousin of Mary. Elizabeth, was from the daughters of Aaron of the tribe of Levi as the Scriptures themselves state.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Brian, posted 03-30-2009 3:09 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Brian, posted 03-30-2009 8:04 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 78 of 109 (504561)
03-31-2009 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Brian
03-30-2009 8:04 AM


Re: Two Messiahs
Brian writes:
And since Joseph was not Jesus' father, unless we rule out the Virgin Birth, then Joseph's line is of no use.
that is not necessarily true for the reason that 'sons in law' were legally viewed as 'sons' of the brides father.
It still gives Jesus the 'legal' right to take the throne of David.
quote:
"...it will certainly become no one’s until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him." Ezekiel 21:27.
Brian writes:
Apart from Mary's line being of no use, if it is her geneology that is given it goes through Nathan which is equally of no use.
Why do you say that?
Nathan was a son of David by his wife Bath-sheba.
quote:
1Chronicles 3:1 And these became the sons of David that were born to him ...in Jerusalem: Shim′ea and Sho′bab and Nathan and Sol′omon, four of Bath-she′ba the daughter of Am′miel
The natural lineage of Messiah is traced, from David through Nathan and his descendants down to Jesus, via Marys father Heli.
Brian writes:
A little problem is that the Bible does not give Mary's geneology does it, and even if it did the bloodline never goes through females.
you are greatly mistaken because if we know mary's fathers genealogy, then we know Mary's genealogy.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Brian, posted 03-30-2009 8:04 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Brian, posted 03-31-2009 3:06 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 80 of 109 (504569)
03-31-2009 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Brian
03-31-2009 3:06 AM


Re: Two Messiahs
Brian writes:
Even if that is true it still doesn't do for Jesus. He has no earthly father, if we accept the Virgin Birth, hence there is no bloodline.
You need to get this Mary thing out of your head as a female's geneology has no bearing on the bloodline.
Jesus does not need to have an earthly father to be the Messiah...he merely needs to be born in the line of King David... and he was. Both thru his mothers family and his step fathers.
It only matters that Mary's father is Heli who is of the priestly tribe. Female genealogy is very tightly linked with the fathers.
Brian writes:
Apart from the fact that it doesn't, we also have the added problem that Jesus was never crowned King, He simply was not the Messiah. It is difficult to accept that Jesus was the Messiah who would take the 'throne of David' when Jesus died 2000 years ago and was never crowned. A little bit of a problem that.
Your comment shows a misunderstanding of the role of the Messiah much like the JEws of Jesus day. Jewish sources agree with Luke 2:38 that the people at that time were waiting for Jerusalem’s deliverance. The Jewish Encyclopedia says "They yearned for the promised deliverer of the house of David, who would free them from the yoke of the hated foreign usurper, would put an end to the impious Roman rule, and would establish His own reign of peace." (1976, Vol. VIII, p. 508)
The account in John 6:15 says that they tried to make him an earthly king but when he did not fulfill their expectations, they rejected him....hence why they mockingly wrote 'king of the jews' on his torture stake.
But there are scriptures that show that the messiah was supposed to suffer and die...the hebrew scriptures were very clear about that even mentioning his burial. Isaiah 53 is a good place to start.
Brian writes:
For the millionth time, the Messiah is to come from the blood of David through SOLOMON, how many times do you need to be told this?
and again i'll say that he does...thru his adoptive father Josephs family as is seen from Mathews genealogy.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that Joseph was the legal father of Jesus...it does not matter that he was not the biological father, he was the legal father of Jesus.
Brian writes:
Why are you ignoring the prophecy in 2 Samuel, is it too vague for you?
Maybe 1 Chron. 28 is easier for you to understand?
And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.
6 And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.
7 Moreover I will establish his kingdom for ever, if he be constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.
Forget Nathan, the kingdom to be established is Solomon's, hence Nathan's bloodline is of no use.
The blessing on Solomon was conditional though.. .Vs 9 says "And you, Sol′omon my son, know the God of your father and serve him with a complete heart... but if you leave him, he will cast you off forever"
Did Solomon leave God? YES. And when he did, like all other kings who did, he no longer had Gods favor. So why would you assume that Solomon would still be given that blessing if he didnt maintain his loyalty?
but that aside, the family line of Jesus thru his adoptive father Joseph is from Solomons family line as i said.
Brian writes:
Where does the Bible say that Mary's father was Heli?
M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): "In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, AND COUNTING THAT DAUGHTERS HUSBAND FOR THE SON OF THE MATERNAL GRANDFATHER "
This is why Luke says that Joseph was the "son of Heli."
quote:
Luke 3:23"Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was,of Joseph,[son] of He′li,..."
Now if Joseph was the husband of Mary, but Josephs father is Jacob (as Mathew's genelogical table shows) then obviously Josesph's father is not Heli...rather Heli is his father in law because Mary is Josephs wife.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Brian, posted 03-31-2009 3:06 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by John 10:10, posted 04-15-2009 7:18 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 82 by Huntard, posted 04-15-2009 9:14 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 83 of 109 (505748)
04-16-2009 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Huntard
04-15-2009 9:14 AM


Re: Two Messiahs
Huntard writes:
Where in the bible does it say Heli was Mary's father?
Only indirectly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Huntard, posted 04-15-2009 9:14 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Huntard, posted 04-16-2009 7:07 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 85 of 109 (505791)
04-17-2009 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Huntard
04-16-2009 7:07 AM


Re: Two Messiahs
you're welcome

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Huntard, posted 04-16-2009 7:07 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 91 of 109 (505983)
04-21-2009 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by jaywill
04-20-2009 1:05 PM


Jaywill writes:
It is true. But Many skeptics actually do not search the Scriptures for life. In fact they may not search the Scripture at all themselves. They consult books that pose supposed biblical problems. Repeating these criticisms do give an impression that they have searched the Scripture and stumbled upon some difficulty.
I find it strange that people go to sources other then the bible, to learn about the bible.
It is much more reasonable to me that if you want to know what someone said, or how soemthign is, you'd go to the source and find out directly...but instead, they find all these obsure people who are giving their own opinion on said subject and take it as truth.
its quite sad.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by jaywill, posted 04-20-2009 1:05 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Perdition, posted 04-21-2009 10:37 AM Peg has replied
 Message 95 by jaywill, posted 04-23-2009 9:42 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 93 of 109 (506064)
04-22-2009 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Perdition
04-21-2009 10:37 AM


Perdition writes:
But what do we do when we don't have the source? What we have is a multiply translated book that is attributed to a writer. In antiquity, it was often the practice of attributing something by a lesser known writer to a more famous one, so taking the "byline" at face value is a bit naive.
who the writers were is a trivial matter because the 'author' was God. The writers obviously saw it that way too seeing many of them did not draw attention to themselves directly. And whilst we do have many translations that are inaccurate, we still have the means to compare them with very ancient manuscripts.
Perdition writes:
Also, to really understand what a person means, you have to do more than just look at what they wrote down. You have to learn the idiom of the time, you have to try and figure out allusions that may have been obvious to people of that time but which mean nothing to us today, and you have to try and figure out if they were speaking sincerely, satirically, or with a hidden motive.
Yes i totally agree. Its not impossible to obtain and understand such information either. Archeology helps to clarify many things about the way people thought and lived in ancient times. Of course it must be looked at subjectively and compared with other data, but its certainly not impossible to know such things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Perdition, posted 04-21-2009 10:37 AM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Perdition, posted 04-22-2009 12:01 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 98 of 109 (506312)
04-25-2009 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by jaywill
04-23-2009 9:42 PM


jaywill writes:
If you don't have a firm grasp of the facts or at least a knowledge of where to go to review them, would be "teachers" can lead you into all kinds of foolishness.
who do you think has authority to teach scripture?
I mean, every church believes they teach the truth, but its not logical to believe that they all do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jaywill, posted 04-23-2009 9:42 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 103 of 109 (506399)
04-26-2009 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Perdition
04-22-2009 12:01 PM


Perdition writes:
When you can find proof that the Bible was written by god outside the Bible saying it was written by god, you might be able to convince me of that. Until then, you're taking the word of a Book that tells you to trust it because it always tells the truth, but the only reason you know it tells the truth is because it tells you it does and you should trust it because it always tells the truth...ad infinitum
I wasnt always a believer in the bible...i wasnt always a person of faith and i certainly was not a person who grew up attending church.
I became convinced of the bibles truth when I studied the prophecies of the bible. Thats what convinced me that the book really was authored by God and not any man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Perdition, posted 04-22-2009 12:01 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Michamus, posted 04-26-2009 4:18 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 106 by Perdition, posted 04-27-2009 12:36 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 107 of 109 (506621)
04-28-2009 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Perdition
04-27-2009 12:36 PM


Prophecies
I would be more then happy to start a thread about the detailed prophecies that have come true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Perdition, posted 04-27-2009 12:36 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by greyseal, posted 09-11-2009 9:15 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024