Was Jesus a spirit being before coming to earth as a human?

[keithr]

Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears.

Let's put that in context - Hebrews 5:2-10 (WEB):
(2) The high priest can deal gently with those who are ignorant and going astray, because he himself is also surrounded with weakness.
(3) Because of this, he must offer sacrifices for sins for the people, as well as for himself.
(4) Nobody takes this honor on himself, but he is called by God, just like Aaron was.
(5) So also Christ didn’t glorify himself to be made a high priest, but it was he who said to him, “You are my Son. Today I have become your father.”
(6) As he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”
(7) He, in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and petitions with strong crying and tears to him who was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear,
(8) though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered.
(9) Having been made perfect, he became to all of those who obey him the author of eternal salvation,
(10) named by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Christ was Melchisedec in the form of a man, later to be called Jesus as a man in the flesh, found praying in the garden.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus lived as a man before he was born to Mary. Jesus "became flesh, and lived among us" (John 1:14) only once. Melchisedec was Melchisedec, the king of Salem and a priest of God Yahweh (Genesis 14:18). Jesus was made a high priest "after the order of Melchizedek", meaning that it was not a hereditary priesthood like the Aaronic priesthood, but that he was called by God and merited the role.

The Hebrews 5 passage says that God called Jesus to be a high priest forever, and it makes it clear that Jesus was God's Son.

In that Scripture says in the days of his flesh, we therefore know He was before and after those days in the flesh on earth.

It is totally wrong to think that "in the days of his flesh" meant that Jesus lived multiple times as a man.

In that Scripture says both the Father and the Son, we therefore know both the Father and the Son are God: God the Father and God the Son.

It is totally wrong and illogical to think that "both the Father and the Son" means that both are God. You're not thinking straight.

 

[keithr]

God the Son learned obedience to God the Father as a man, by coming down from heaven to become a man in the flesh.

The Bible never mentions anyone called "God the Son". Jesus didn't come down from heaven to become a man. He became flesh when God transformed him into human form, in the womb of Mary.

and that He was also Jacob and fought with Himself to try and persuade Himself to not be crucified hundreds of years later - well that's just ridiculous nonsense.

That is indeed ridiculous, because that is the twisted reading of what was said, by someone who's created-christ button is sooo pushed, he cannot even think straight.

It's what you wrote!

The God of Jacob was not Jacob, but was Melchisedec in the form of a man wrestling with Jacob to teach him obedience to God, rather than trusting in his own tricks, force of will, and power over men.

Now you're saying that Melchisedec was Jacob's God! And it was Melchisedec (a man) in the form of a man! How did wrestling with a man, and neither winning or losing, teach Jacob obedience?

Genesis 32:28 (ESV):
(28) Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.”

There's no mention of being obedient there.

And so, God the Word, who was Melchizedek in form of a man,

Agian, that's not Scriptural.

By rejecting Jesus Christ as the true God, in favor of an idolized created-christ, the carnal minded have absolutely no vision of what the Son truly needed to do, and what the Father was commanding Him to do on the cross for our souls' sake

By rejecting God's Son, not believing him to be a person in his own right, you have been confused and deceived by Satan into believing a lie. Believe what God's word in the Bible says instead!

Hebrews 1:5-6
(5) For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
(6) And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.”

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

1 John 5:20 (ESV):

(20) And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.​

Jesus, the Son of God, has "given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true", that is God. Jesus said in prayer to God, John 17:3, "This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ". It is our Father, Yahweh, who is the "only true God", not Jesus!

 

[charity]

Let's put that in context - Hebrews 5:2-10 (WEB):
(2) The high priest can deal gently with those who are ignorant and going astray, because he himself is also surrounded with weakness.
(3) Because of this, he must offer sacrifices for sins for the people, as well as for himself.
(4) Nobody takes this honor on himself, but he is called by God, just like Aaron was.
(5) So also Christ didn’t glorify himself to be made a high priest, but it was he who said to him, “You are my Son. Today I have become your father.”
(6) As he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”
(7) He, in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and petitions with strong crying and tears to him who was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear,
(8) though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered.
(9) Having been made perfect, he became to all of those who obey him the author of eternal salvation,
(10) named by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.


Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus lived as a man before he was born to Mary. Jesus "became flesh, and lived among us" (John 1:14) only once. Melchisedec was Melchisedec, the king of Salem and a priest of God Yahweh (Genesis 14:18). Jesus was made a high priest "after the order of Melchizedek", meaning that it was not a hereditory priesthood like the Aaronic priesthood, but that he was called by God and merited the role.

The Hebrews 5 passage says that God called Jesus to be a high priest forever, and it makes it clear that Jesus was God's Son.


It is totally wrong to think that "in the days of his flesh" meant that Jesus lived multiple times as a man.


It is totally wrong and illogical to think that "both the Father and the Son" means that both are God. You're not thinking straight.

Hello @keithr,

'And God said, Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness: ... ... ...
So God created man in His Own image,
in the image of God created He him;
male and female created He them.'
(Gen 1:26a-27)

Thou art worthy, O Lord,
to receive glory and honour and power:
for Thou hast created all things,
and for Thy pleasure they are and were created.'
(Rev 4:11)

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Robert Gwin]

1 Cor 15:
[47] The first man IS of the earth, earthy:
the second man.... IS the Lord from heaven.

Eph 1:
[9] Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

Exactly, the first man Adam was created from the dust of the earth Gen 2:7

The second "Adam" Jesus, came down from heaven 1 Cor 15:47 as you quoted

So I am assuming that you believe Jesus was a spirit prior to becoming a man, is this correct Taken?

 

[Robert Gwin]

Am I with you so long a time, and you have not known Me?
(John 14:9)

And they saw the God of Israel
(Exodus 24:10)

thou art the King of Israel!
(John 1:49)

I the LORD, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King!
(Isaiah 43:15)

the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it;
and His servants shall serve Him
(Revelation 22:3)

​

So then Who is the LORD Post?

 

[Robert Gwin]

lol wow, what do you mean, 'limited' ??

when they saw Him, they worshipped Him: but some doubted.
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth.
(Matthew 22:17-18)

​

i was going to ask if you're reading a different Bible than the rest of us
then i remembered that yes, in fact, sadly, you are.
one purposefully & wickedly corrupted in attempt to strip Christ of His deity.
but those men you are a disciple of, even they could not remove it. of course they couldn't.

First of all Christ is not God, what does Christ mean? Secondly what is your explanation of Acts 2:33

 

[robert derrick]

There is no biblical evidence that God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and fill the Earth on the seventh day after they had sinned. According to scripture when God had created and completed each kind meaning having created a male and female of each kind it was then God said to be fruitful and become many and fill the Earth. We have no evidence that God didn't do the same with mankind.The only biblical evidence of God telling Adam and Eve to be fruitful and fill the Earth was during the six creative day. You will find no biblical evidence that even suggests that God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful on the seventh day after they had sinned.
Yes God commanded Adam first to not eat of the forbidden tree. But when God created Eve and told them to be fruitful and fill the Earth, Adam knew he had to tell Eve about the command to not eat of the forbidden tree and since God had told them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth Adam knew this command to not eat of the forbidden tree would apply to their children as well.
But Adam and Eve disobeyed God and they were banished from Eden, and because Adam had disobeyed God and been banished from Eden his children would grow old and die as he would. The command to not eat of the forbidden tree was no longer relevant since Adam and Eve nor their offspring could enter Eden. Sin and death had already came into existence and would spread to all of Adams and Eve's offspring because of Adam and Eve's disobedience.

And so Adam did know the truth. He knew the commandment of God, which is the truth of God's Word.

Interesting note about Adam and Eve being specifically commanded on the 7th day to be fruitful and multiply. Especially since, we read no commandment at all being given on the 7th day of God's rest. We are only commanded not to fall short of that rest.

What is the context of the point?

 

[keithr]

Calling the Lord God 'YHVH' is the same kind of false humility in idol worship that the unbelieving Jews of today use, when speaking of G-D.

It's silly pretence of 'honoring' God. It's said by the carnal minded only for effect.

God never said His people could not 'speak' His name. He only refused to give His Personal name until the time was right: Jesus.

Who is G-D?

God's name is YHVH, and it appears nearly 7,000 times in the Bible. To refer to God by His name, that He said was His name, is not "false humility" nor "idol worship". God has never changed His name - His name will remain the same for 'all generations'. God's name is not, and never has been, Jesus. Exodus 3:15 (WEB):

(15) God said moreover to Moses, “You shall tell the children of Israel this, ‘Yahweh [YHVH], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.​

 

[robert derrick]

Let's put that in context - Hebrews 5:2-10 (WEB):
(2) The high priest can deal gently with those who are ignorant and going astray, because he himself is also surrounded with weakness.
(3) Because of this, he must offer sacrifices for sins for the people, as well as for himself.
(4) Nobody takes this honor on himself, but he is called by God, just like Aaron was.
(5) So also Christ didn’t glorify himself to be made a high priest, but it was he who said to him, “You are my Son. Today I have become your father.”
(6) As he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”
(7) He, in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and petitions with strong crying and tears to him who was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear,
(8) though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered.
(9) Having been made perfect, he became to all of those who obey him the author of eternal salvation,
(10) named by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.


Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus lived as a man before he was born to Mary. Jesus "became flesh, and lived among us" (John 1:14) only once. Melchisedec was Melchisedec, the king of Salem and a priest of God Yahweh (Genesis 14:18). Jesus was made a high priest "after the order of Melchizedek", meaning that it was not a hereditory priesthood like the Aaronic priesthood, but that he was called by God and merited the role.

The Hebrews 5 passage says that God called Jesus to be a high priest forever, and it makes it clear that Jesus was God's Son.


It is totally wrong to think that "in the days of his flesh" meant that Jesus lived multiple times as a man.


It is totally wrong and illogical to think that "both the Father and the Son" means that both are God. You're not thinking straight.

Melchisedec was Melchisedec, the king of Salem and a priest of God Yahweh (Genesis 14:18).

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

He was made in the form of a man like unto the Son of God, who was without father, mother, descent, nor beginning of days and end of life, until He was made of a woman in the days of His flesh, and died on the cross.

And so, Melchisedec was Christ, who was with God and was God, and had no father, until He was begotten of God in the womb of Mary, who thus became God the Father and the only true God remaining in heaven, while Christ the true God was alive one earth, and so called a Son.

This reading is sound according to Scripture, and is rejected by them who make for themselves a created christ in order to continue in the idolatry of a past name of Christ, Jehovah. His new name as a man living on earth is Jesus, and is greater than any other name ever named of God, including Jehovah.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus lived as a man before he was born to Mary.

We must read accurately what others say, in order to make a legitimate response. No one said Jesus 'lived' as a man before born of a woman.

Meaning that it was not a hereditary priesthood like the Aaronic priesthood, but that he was called by God and merited the role.

True. And He showed Himself in the form of a man, like unto the Son of God made of a woman, to Abraham twice and to Jacob once.

It is totally wrong to think that "in the days of his flesh" meant that Jesus lived multiple times as a man.

It is totally different thinking than that of a created-christ. Which doesn't make it wrong, but only different. I say it can be read that way, and there is no Scripture to deny it, and you say it must not be read that way, without any Scripture to deny it.

It is totally wrong and illogical to think that "both the Father and the Son" means that both are God. You're not thinking straight.

Once again, it is totally different from the created-christers way of thinking. I am thinking straight as a believer in Jesus as the Son of God and the true God we have an understanding with. Those who want to create a christ for themselves think totally different from us that believe and worship Him as the risen God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

[keithr]

Melchisedec was Melchisedec, the king of Salem and a priest of God Yahweh (Genesis 14:18).

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

He was made in the form of a man like unto the Son of God, who was without father, mother, descent, nor beginning of days and end of life, until He was made of a woman in the days of His flesh, and died on the cross.

And so, Melchisedec was Christ, who was with God and was God, and had no father, until He was begotten of God in the womb of Mary, who thus became God the Father and the only true God remaining in heaven, while Christ the true God was alive one earth, and so called a Son.

All that we know of Melchizedek is what is mentioned in Genesis 14:18-20 (WEB):

(18) Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High.
(19) He blessed him, and said, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth.
(20) Blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” Abram gave him a tenth of all.​

So when Paul makes the comment that Melchizedek was "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God", he is not implying that Melchizedek was anything other than a normal man. As the Cambridge Bible Notes comments, "The simple and undoubted meaning of these words is that the father, mother, and lineage of Melchisedek are not recorded, so that he becomes more naturally a type of Christ". Israel's priests were all descendants of Aaron; the priesthood was herditary. But Melchizedek did not pass on his priesthood, and so Paul says that Melchizedek "remains a priest continually" (or 'forever'), thereby making him a type of Jesus.

The Cambridge Bible Notes again, says:

made like unto the Son of God] Lit. “having been likened to the Son of God,” i.e. having been invested with a typical resemblance to Christ. The expression explains the writer’s meaning. It is a combination of the passage in Genesis with the allusion in Psalms 110, shewing that the two together constitute Melchisedek a Divinely appointed type of a Priesthood received from no ancestors and transmitted to no descendants. The personal importance of Melchisedek was very small; but he is eminently typical, because of the suddenness with which he is introduced into the sacred narrative, and the subsequent silence respecting him. He was born, and lived, and died, and had a father and mother no less than any one else, but by not mentioning these facts, the Scripture, interpreted on mystic principles, “throws on him a shadow of Eternity: gives him a typical Eternity.” The expressions used of him are only literally true of Him whose type he was. In himself only the Priest-prince of a little Canaanite community, his venerable figure was seized upon, first by the Psalmist, then by the writer of this Epistle, as the type of an Eternal Priest. As far as Scripture is concerned it may be said of him, that “he lives without dying fixed for ever as one who lives by the pen of the sacred historian, and thus stamped as a type of the Son, the ever-living Priest.”​

To think that Melchizedek was in fact Jesus playing out a king and priest role, is a gross error. The Cambridge Bible Notes again, says (my emboldening):

The notion that Melchisedek was the Holy Spirit (which was held by an absurd sect who called themselves Melchisedekites); or “the Angel of the Presence;” or “God the Word, previous to Incarnation;” or “the Shechinah;” or “the Captain of the Lord’s Host;” or” an Angel;” or “a reappearance of Enoch;” or an “ensarkosis of the Holy Ghost;” are, on all sound hermeneutical principles, not only “almost” but quite “childish.” They belong to methods of interpretation which turn Scripture into an enigma and neglect all the lessons which result so plainly from the laws which govern its expression, and the history of its interpretation. No Hebrew, reading these words, would have been led to these idle and fantastic conclusions about the super-human dignity of the Canaanite prince. If the expressions here used had been meant literally, Melchisedek would not have been a man, but a Divine Being—and not the type of one—and he could not therefore have been “a Priest” at all. It would then have been not only inexplicable, but meaningless that in all Scripture he should only have been incidentally mentioned in three verses, of a perfectly simple, and straightforward narrative, and only once again alluded to in the isolated reference of a Psalm written centuries later. The fact that some of these notions about him may plead the authority of great names is no more than can be said of thousands of the most absolute and even absurd misinterpretations in the melancholy history of slowly-corrected errors which pass under the name of Scripture exegesis. Less utterly groundless is the belief of the Jews that Melchisedek was the Patriarch Shem, who, as they shewed, might have survived to this time (Avodath Hakkodesh, iii. 20, &c. and in two of the Targums). Yet even this view cannot be correct; for if Melchisedek had been Shem (1) there was every reason why he should be called by his own name; and (2) Canaan was in the territory of Ham’s descendants, not those of Shem; and (3) Shem was in no sense, whether mystical or literal, “without pedigree.” Yet this opinion satisfied Lyra, Cajetan, Luther, Melanchthon, Lightfoot, &c.​

 

[robert derrick]

The Bible never mentions anyone called "God the Son". Jesus didn't come down from heaven to become a man. He became flesh when God transformed him into human form, in the womb of Mary.


It's what you wrote!


Now you're saying that Melchisedec was Jacob's God! And it was Melchisedec (a man) in the form of a man! How did wrestling with a man, and neither winning or losing, teach Jacob obedience?

Genesis 32:28 (ESV):
(28) Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.”

There's no mention of being obedient there.


Agian, that's not Scriptural.


By rejecting God's Son, not believing him to be a person in his own right, you have been confused and deceived by Satan into believing a lie. Believe what God's word in the Bible says instead!

Hebrews 1:5-6
(5) For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
(6) And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.”


1 John 5:20 (ESV):

(20) And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.​

Jesus, the Son of God, has "given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true", that is God. Jesus said in prayer to God, John 17:3, "This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ". It is our Father, Yahweh, who is the "only true God", not Jesus!

The Bible never mentions anyone called "God the Son".

Ok. In the interests of strict Scriptural purity, I am corrected.

We have an understanding of the Son of God that is true and is the true God and eternal life.

Jesus didn't come down from heaven to become a man.

You'd do better not to contradict Scripture: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

He was in heaven, He came down from heaven, He ascended into heaven, and He is in heaven again, until He comes down again to reign over this earth.

Don't bother with Greek to change plain Scripture, nor abolishing Scripture altogether. You can, but I ignore all such contrived feints into useless arguments.

He became flesh when God transformed him into human form, in the womb of Mary.

You'd also do better to not make up things without Scriptural proof. No Scripture speaks of God 'transforming Jesus into human form'.

He was transfigured on the mount temporarily into His future Spiritual body, that would be seen on Patmos by John.

And 'into human form' smacks of denying He came in the flesh, and was only the spirit in temporary human form. Which was true as Melchisedec three times, before He became a man made of a woman in the flesh: Christ was not 'born of a woman', but was given birth by a woman to a body prepared for Him by the Spirit.

It's what you wrote!

Try quoting what was wrote, even as I do, and then responding to it with what you think it says. Which in the case cited was a ridiculous reading of what was wrote. We must adhere to strict discipline in responding to what others wrote, even as you rightly point out about speaking of Scripture.

Now you're saying that Melchisedec was Jacob's God! And it was Melchisedec (a man) in the form of a man!

True. Blows your created-christ mind, doesn't it.

The 'man' was no more mortal man, than the three 'men' standing by Abraham, who bowed himself to the ground calling one of them My Lord. He knew Him, because He had seen Him before: Melchisedec.

Christ was the Lord God on the mount, in which that covenant was made by and confirmed in Him. (Gal 3:17) He then came down from heaven to confirm the promises of it to His own people, and they recieved Him not and had Him crucified instead. And so, with the resurrection of Christ, He is now the risen God of Jacob, Who's body is called Israel on earth.

How did wrestling with a man, and neither winning or losing, teach Jacob obedience?

Stick to Scripture, and you may understand the teaching of how the true God learned obedience in that He feared.

Jacob lost the match, when Melchisedec slapped him on the thigh, to let him know the wrestling was over. And the lesson was learned ever since by Jacob, who was then called Israel having power with God, because he learned to obey Him through faith, rather than try to wrestle with Him over his birthright inheritance of the saints. He was no more a trickster and trusting in his own abilities pertaining to the things of God.

Melchisedec being Christ in the form of a man is confirmed, therefore, in that after wrestling with Him all night, he was declared to have power with God, Whom he wrestled with in the form of a man all night: Melchisedec.

I know this stuff blows your mind, so that you can't see straight, even as you reject it out of hand. But I do like writing it, because it sounds so good, being truth of Scripture.

“Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.” There's no mention of being obedient there.

Well, if you want to go OSAS and try to separate salvation of God from obedience to God, then you may do so. Though it certainly surprises me.

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.

The same can certainly be said of all faithful saints from Abel to Noah to Abraham and Jacob. Especially when it is in context of the Son being Melchisedec that wrestled with Jacob, where by Jacob had power with God, when he submitted to Him after being slapped on the thigh: while yet hanging onto Him, he called to be blessed of Him.

God doesn't bless the unsubmitted and disobedient.

Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.

Jacob learned obedience by humbling himself before the Lord, who then exalted him with the blessing of being called Israel, who then learned to cast all his care upon Him, knowing that He cares for His people or promise.

And immediately following, God made the same promise to his seed, as He did to Abraham, who obeyed His voice. The promise was not made, until Jacob as Israel likewise obeyed Him in putting away the strange gods from his household.

"And so, God the Word, who was Melchizedek in form of a man" Again that's not Scriptural.

Again, it is to me, since there is no Scripture against it.

You have been confused and deceived by Satan into believing a lie.

I'll stick with the possible lie of Jesus being the risen God of Israel, in whom was confirmed the covenant at the mount, rather than the certain lie of a created christ, 'transformed' by God into human form, who was only with God in the beginning of His own creation, and yet wasn't really God, when Scripture says the Word was God.

Jesus, the Son of God, has "given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true": and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Clearly we are in Jesus Christ, which is the true God and the way, the truth, and the life: the eternal life. Which life He laid down by Himself at the cross, and took up again in the resurrection, in obedience to the commandment of the Father.

And since Jesus the Son is also the true God, then when He lift up His eyes to heaven to speak to the Father in heaven, who was the only true God remaining in heaven, while the true God and Son was on earth, having come down from heaven to be made of a woman.

The only time the Son prayed to the Father was in the garden with strong crying and tears, and was heard in that He feared.

 

[robert derrick]

Who is G-D?

God's name is YHVH, and it appears nearly 7,000 times in the Bible. To refer to God by His name, that He said was His name, is not "false humility" nor "idol worship". God has never changed His name - His name will remain the same for 'all generations'. God's name is not, and never has been, Jesus. Exodus 3:15 (WEB):

(15) God said moreover to Moses, “You shall tell the children of Israel this, ‘Yahweh [YHVH], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.​

God has never changed His name.

Once again, a false doctrine is known by repeated contradictions of Scripture spoken in the zealous haste of a carnal mind:

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

God's name is not, and never has been, Jesus.

Then the name of your YHVH is lower than that of my Lord Jesus, who's name is above every name.

Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.

The Father, who has never left His throne in heaven, as Christ did, never had a name given Him, but only Christ was given names: the Almighty God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Jehovah LORD, and now Jesus:

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The willful blindness to the name of Jesus being above every name ever named by God and for God, leads to the silliness of trying to make the Lord, lesser than the LORD.

Especially, when the name of the Lord Jesus is above the name of the LORD Jehovah, even as Abraham above Abram, Israel above Jacob, and Christian above Jew.

The Father never was given a name, and any name worshipped above the name of Jesus is idolatry for the sake of a name, in order to create a false christ.

 

[robert derrick]

All that we know of Melchizedek is what is mentioned in Genesis 14:18-20 (WEB):

(18) Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High.
(19) He blessed him, and said, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth.
(20) Blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” Abram gave him a tenth of all.​

So when Paul makes the comment that Melchizedek was "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God", he is not implying that Melchizedek was anything other than a normal man. As the Cambridge Bible Notes comments, "The simple and undoubted meaning of these words is that the father, mother, and lineage of Melchisedek are not recorded, so that he becomes more naturally a type of Christ". Israel's priests were all descendants of Aaron; the priesthood was herditary. But Melchizedek did not pass on his priesthood, and so Paul says that Melchizedek "remains a priest continually" (or 'forever'), thereby making him a type of Jesus.

The Cambridge Bible Notes again, says:

made like unto the Son of God] Lit. “having been likened to the Son of God,” i.e. having been invested with a typical resemblance to Christ. The expression explains the writer’s meaning. It is a combination of the passage in Genesis with the allusion in Psalms 110, shewing that the two together constitute Melchisedek a Divinely appointed type of a Priesthood received from no ancestors and transmitted to no descendants. The personal importance of Melchisedek was very small; but he is eminently typical, because of the suddenness with which he is introduced into the sacred narrative, and the subsequent silence respecting him. He was born, and lived, and died, and had a father and mother no less than any one else, but by not mentioning these facts, the Scripture, interpreted on mystic principles, “throws on him a shadow of Eternity: gives him a typical Eternity.” The expressions used of him are only literally true of Him whose type he was. In himself only the Priest-prince of a little Canaanite community, his venerable figure was seized upon, first by the Psalmist, then by the writer of this Epistle, as the type of an Eternal Priest. As far as Scripture is concerned it may be said of him, that “he lives without dying fixed for ever as one who lives by the pen of the sacred historian, and thus stamped as a type of the Son, the ever-living Priest.”​

To think that Melchizedek was in fact Jesus playing out a king and priest role, is a gross error. The Cambridge Bible Notes again, says (my emboldening):

The notion that Melchisedek was the Holy Spirit (which was held by an absurd sect who called themselves Melchisedekites); or “the Angel of the Presence;” or “God the Word, previous to Incarnation;” or “the Shechinah;” or “the Captain of the Lord’s Host;” or” an Angel;” or “a reappearance of Enoch;” or an “ensarkosis of the Holy Ghost;” are, on all sound hermeneutical principles, not only “almost” but quite “childish.” They belong to methods of interpretation which turn Scripture into an enigma and neglect all the lessons which result so plainly from the laws which govern its expression, and the history of its interpretation. No Hebrew, reading these words, would have been led to these idle and fantastic conclusions about the super-human dignity of the Canaanite prince. If the expressions here used had been meant literally, Melchisedek would not have been a man, but a Divine Being—and not the type of one—and he could not therefore have been “a Priest” at all. It would then have been not only inexplicable, but meaningless that in all Scripture he should only have been incidentally mentioned in three verses, of a perfectly simple, and straightforward narrative, and only once again alluded to in the isolated reference of a Psalm written centuries later. The fact that some of these notions about him may plead the authority of great names is no more than can be said of thousands of the most absolute and even absurd misinterpretations in the melancholy history of slowly-corrected errors which pass under the name of Scripture exegesis. Less utterly groundless is the belief of the Jews that Melchisedek was the Patriarch Shem, who, as they shewed, might have survived to this time (Avodath Hakkodesh, iii. 20, &c. and in two of the Targums). Yet even this view cannot be correct; for if Melchisedek had been Shem (1) there was every reason why he should be called by his own name; and (2) Canaan was in the territory of Ham’s descendants, not those of Shem; and (3) Shem was in no sense, whether mystical or literal, “without pedigree.” Yet this opinion satisfied Lyra, Cajetan, Luther, Melanchthon, Lightfoot, &c.​

So when Paul makes the comment that Melchizedek was "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God", he is not implying that Melchizedek was anything other than a normal man.

He was without father, mother etc... and was made like unto the Son of God, which has nothing to do with how He was recorded in Scripture, else Paul would certainly have said so, such as "With no recording of His father, mother, ...in Scripture."

And of course, Scripture states plainly that Melchisedec, who had no father, mother...abideth a priest continually.

I.e. He was and is still a priest continually, a priest forever, and His name is now Jesus. He abideth, not just His 'order'.

As the Cambridge Bible Notes comments.

I.e. the one making the note had no clue what he was talking about, which proves man's 'scholarship' is but dung compared to Scriptural truth.

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God...

Melchisedec was made in the form of a man like unto the Son of God, who had neither father, mother, descent, beginning of days nor end of life, until He came down out of heaven to become a man made of woman, who's birth began the days of His flesh, and who's cross ended His life on earth as a man.

having been invested with a typical resemblance to Christ.

And so, he was just a type of Christ, and yet the type of being without father, mother, etc...had nothing to do with Christ.

I.e. He was a type of Christ, but his type was not like Christ.

The unbelieving carnal mind at work.

the Scripture, interpreted on mystic principles.

I love it. Now Scripture is mystical, to be interpreted on 'mystical principles'. Which it must be to support a mystical created christ.

I've always know the created christ Jehovahites were steeped in puffed up pseudo-science of mystical proportions.

The only thing mystical found in Scripture is mystery Babylon the Great, who's harlots include the created christ mysticism.

To think that Melchizedek was in fact Jesus playing out a king and priest role, is a gross error.

A gross error to a grossly created christ. Yes. But to them that know Him as the true God and Saviour, it is beautiful teaching of Scripture.

They belong to methods of interpretation which turn Scripture into an enigma.

So said by them that ascribe mystical principles to Scripture. I.e. taking the Scriptures literally is childish enigma to the mystically minded.

Of the Canaanite prince.

And Scripture calls Him a Canaanite, where? A prince, where? He is called a king and priest that abideth continually.

Once we leave Scripture to begin our own identification of things in Scripture, we no longer identify with Scripture at all.

If the expressions here used had been meant literally, Melchisedek would not have been a man, but a Divine Being.

The divine Being called a man, even as when He once again appeared to Abraham with two angels at His side, and were called three men by Scripture, of whom one was called Lord by Abraham.

Less utterly groundless is the belief of the Jews that Melchisedek was the Patriarch Shem.

True. Jewish mysticism is as bad as 'noted' Cambridge mystical principles.

whether mystical or literal.

Scripture literal only, created christ mystical only.

Jesus is now the name of that priest that abided continually in intercession for the saints of old, and now abides forever in intercession for all saints of all time.

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Is 53)

And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

This man Christ Jesus come in the flesh, being that man Melchisedec in form of a man.

 

[post]

So then Who is the LORD Post?

The King of Israel, the only Savior

 

[robert derrick]

The King of Israel, the only Savior

It is amazing how the children and brethren of the risen King of Israel cannot possibly be allowed to be called the children of Israel.

Scripture calls them the children of Abraham, even as Isaac, but 'children of Israel' is specifically forbidden.

Why? Because lot's of OT prophecy scholars don't like it. It shakes their foundation of 'knowledge' too much.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

And so Adam did know the truth. He knew the commandment of God, which is the truth of God's Word.

Interesting note about Adam and Eve being specifically commanded on the 7th day to be fruitful and multiply. Especially since, we read no commandment at all being given on the 7th day of God's rest. We are only commanded not to fall short of that rest.

What is the context of the point?

First I didn't say Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful on the seventh day. You're not reading what I posted accurately.
Also I was replying to kiethr concerning what he said. He posted that Adam and Eve was told to be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth after they had sinned.

 

[robert derrick]

First I didn't say Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful on the seventh day. You're not reading what I posted accurately.
Also I was replying to kiethr concerning what he said. He posted that Adam and Eve was told to be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth after they had sinned.

My bad. I was acknowledging your rejection of any commandment of God on the 7th day.

And I agree. I don't know why some people teach some things. What is the point of saying the man and woman was not commanded to be fruitful and multiply, until after they sinned?

One would think the commandment was before, as we see in Scripture before the 7th day, and since God doesn't command sin to abound.

And Adam and Eve certainly shared the marriage bed before the transgression, since Adam first prophesied marriage as such.

I would say, God did not make them fruitful, until they had proven themselves obedient. And so, their firstborn was with sin, and proved to be a devil.

 

[Robert Gwin]

The King of Israel, the only Savior

Let me be more direct what word did the original Bible use for the English word LORD?

 

[keithr]

Jesus didn't come down from heaven to become a man.

You'd do better not to contradict Scripture: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

I meant that Jesus did not come down from heaven for the purpose of then becoming a man. While he was in heaven God transformed/translated/changed him into human form. Just as Christians will be changed by God in the twinkling of an eye from human to divine spirit beings, so God changed His only begotten Son from divine spirit being into human being. (You had typed, "God the Son learned obedience to God the Father as a man, by coming down from heaven to become a man in the flesh"; I was commenting that he didn't come down to then become a man, but God changed him and transported him into Mary's womb, similar to [in reverse] raptured Christians being changed and transported to be with Jesus in the air.)

He became flesh when God transformed him into human form, in the womb of Mary.

You'd also do better to not make up things without Scriptural proof. No Scripture speaks of God 'transforming Jesus into human form'.

So we're back on subject again. Jesus was a spirit being before God changed him into a human being. Philppians 2:7-8 (WEB):

(7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
(8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

It was God who changed Jesus into a human being (Luke 1:35).

And 'into human form' smacks of denying He came in the flesh, and was only the spirit in temporary human form.

No, it's acknowledging that God changed him from spirit being into a human being, confirming that Jesus did indeed come in human form and lived amongst us.

Which was true as Melchisedec three times, before He became a man made of a woman in the flesh:

That's non-scriptural conjecture about Melchisedek - the imaginations of men, fiction, not fact.

Christ was not 'born of a woman', but was given birth by a woman to a body prepared for Him by the Spirit.

I never said that he was "born of woman" - you said that. You're arguing against yourself now! I think you'll find though that Jesus was born by Mary - have you not heard of the Nativity which is celebrated every Christmas?! Luke 2:7 (WEB):

(7) She gave birth to her firstborn son. She wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a feeding trough, because there was no room for them in the inn.​

It's what you wrote!

Try quoting what was wrote, even as I do, and then responding to it with what you think it says. Which in the case cited was a ridiculous reading of what was wrote. We must adhere to strict discipline in responding to what others wrote, even as you rightly point out about speaking of Scripture.

I did quote what you wrote - see post #152 - and I did say what I thought it meant; a literal reading of what was written (not "what was wrote"!). You wrote, "He named Himself to be called Jesus, before coming in the flesh, and He learned obedience as Jacob, when He wrestled with the flesh to not go to the cross."

Now you're saying that Melchisedec was Jacob's God! And it was Melchisedec (a man) in the form of a man!

True. Blows your created-christ mind, doesn't it.

It's not Scriptural.

The 'man' was no more mortal man, than the three 'men' standing by Abraham, who bowed himself to the ground calling one of them My Lord. He knew Him, because He had seen Him before: Melchisedec.

That's not Scriptural either.

Christ was the Lord God on the mount, in which that covenant was made by and confirmed in Him. (Gal 3:17)

Of Galations 3:7 ["And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it", MKJV] the Cambridge Bible Notes says,

in Christ] These words are probably a gloss; and are properly omitted in R.V. If retained, they should be rendered, “unto (i.e. with a view to) Christ”.​

Darby:

(17) Now I say this, A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which took place four hundred and thirty years after, does not annul, so as to make the promise of no effect.​

Why do you say "on the mount"? Are you confusing this covenant whith the giving of the Law Covenant on Mount Sinai? It may have been Jesus, as God's representative, or it may have been God Himself. The Scriptures say YHVH (Yahweh/Jehovah) spoke to Abraham in a vision and in a dream (Genesis 15).

How did wrestling with a man, and neither winning or losing, teach Jacob obedience?

Stick to Scripture, and you may understand the teaching of how the true God learned obedience in that He feared.

Jesus, the Son of God learned obedience. The Scriptures do not say that the only true God learned obedience.

The only verse that mentions Jesus learning obedience is Hebrews 5:8 (WEB):

(8) though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered.​

It's not referring to Jacob. Stick to Scripture if you want to learn the truth!

Melchisedec being Christ in the form of a man is confirmed, therefore, in that after wrestling with Him all night, he was declared to have power with God, Whom he wrestled with in the form of a man all night: Melchisedec.

Again, stick to Scripture - you cannot assume the man that Jacob was wrestling with was Melchisedek, nor that Melchisedek was Jesus temporarily taking on a human body.

I know this stuff blows your mind, so that you can't see straight, even as you reject it out of hand. But I do like writing it, because it sounds so good, being truth of Scripture.

I can see straight, that's why I know your conjecture is incorrect. You might think it sounds good, but it is not the truth.

Well, if you want to go OSAS and try to separate salvation of God from obedience to God, then you may do so. Though it certainly surprises me.

I've no idea why you're bringing up "once save always saved". I'm not going off on that tangent.

"And so, God the Word, who was Melchizedek in form of a man" Again that's not Scriptural.

Again, it is to me, since there is no Scripture against it.

There's no Scripture against Joseph, or Daniel, or Satan being God/Jesus in the form of a man, but you'd be a fool to believe that.

The only time the Son prayed to the Father was in the garden with strong crying and tears, and was heard in that He feared.

More errors! Jesus prayed to God multiple times. How about John 17 - the whole chapter is Jesus' prayer to God. Or the raising of Lazarus (John 14:41-42). Or Luke 6:12 - "In these days, he went out to the mountain to pray, and he continued all night in prayer to God".

 

[post]

Let me be more direct what word did the original Bible use for the English word LORD?

Did you know there is no 'J' sound in the Hebrew language? Neither is there a phonetic 'W'