Abraham & Mechizedek

[srm]

I don't see how Melchizedek is an imperfect example.........there is no genealogical record of who Melchizedek's mother and father were and that meant alot to the Jewish people. If you could not prove your origin genealogically they looked at you in a demeaning way and regarded you as if you had no origin. If you could not prove by your genealogical pedigree that you qualified to be priest in the levitical priesthood then even if you did rightly deserve to be a priest if you could not prove it then the Jews rejected you. The author of the Book of Hebrews seemed to think it was a great comparison too since that comparison was made. The Son of God is without father and without mother as the scriptures say........I don't know how I can get any more literal than accepting what the Bible literally says.

Yes, but since we're talking literal. Melchizedek DID have a mother and Father. So if I accept your passage as literal than I have to believe that Melchizedek didn't have mother or father.

I simply don't see your point! You seem to be grasping at straws.

If you accept Mechizedek as not literal (he did have mother and father) then you could also accept Abraham & issac as an imperfect example. He was called the only begotten when in truth Abraham had other sons. I understand what you are saying here and it doesn't change the issue of only begotten in John 3:16. It is specious to accept one as literal and not the other.

The greek word for Begotten literally means "only kind". I don't know how you can get any more literal than that.

The original meaning is irrelvant. What is important is what it meant to the greeks. Did they mean it to mean only begotten, or one and only, or unique (all three can fit Jesus). For example the hippopamtmus means water horse. The fact that it means horse is irrelevant...it still is not a horse.

"Strongs says this about monogenes

1) single of its kind, only

a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)

B) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten Son of God"

Stron's also says

"monogenes mon-og-en-ace' from 3441 and 1096; only-born, i.e. sole:--only (begotten, child)."

Mono comes from #3441

It means;

1) alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merely

Genes comes from #1096

It means;

(1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being

2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen

a) of events

3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage

a) of men appearing in public

4) to be made, finished

a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought

5) to become, be made

It could therefore mean many things

alone be made

or

only to be made

again, your argument regarding beget is specious. but not as specious as trying to use Hebrews to show that Jesus is not the son of God. The Bible is replete with examples of Jesus being called son and God the Father being called Father.

[Tr2]

How come you guys are getting so wrapped up in a debate about soembody that we know so little about? Just curious.

[Guest Starsky]

Cause we want to...

[Stephen]

Originally posted by srm@Apr 2 2004, 11:45 AM

again, your argument regarding beget is specious.  but not as specious as trying to use Hebrews to show that Jesus is not the son of God.  The Bible is replete with examples of Jesus being called son and God the Father being called Father.

I don't see it as specious. Do you consider it specious because it compares the figurative to the literal?

Melchizedek who was looked at as without a beginning or end because we don't have any record of when he was born or when he died is compared to Jesus Christ who literally had no beginning of days and literally has no end of life!

We all(Protestants and Mormons) consider the bread to be symbolic of the body of Jesus Christ and the wine(water) to be symbolic of the blood that Jesus Christ shed for us. Is that specious to believe because it is comparing the literal to the symbolic? Does something literal have to be compared to something else that is literal or it is specious?

Jesus Christ said: "the bread is his body and the wine is his blood." The Catholics believe that Jesus Christ meant that literally and would probably think you are specious for believing it is symbolic in that the bread represents the body of Jesus Christ and the wine represents the blood of Christ. The Catholics take those Bible verses very literally in that they believe that the bread of communion literally turns into the body of Jesus Christ and the wine literally turns into the blood of Jesus Christ.

As I said before: "I don't see how Melchizedek is an imperfect example.........there is no genealogical record of who Melchizedek's mother and father were and that meant alot to the Jewish people. If you could not prove your origin genealogically they looked at you in a demeaning way and regarded you as if you had no origin. If you could not prove by your genealogical pedigree that you qualified to be priest in the levitical priesthood then even if you did rightly deserve to be a priest if you could not prove it then the Jews rejected you. The author of the Book of Hebrews seemed to think it was a great comparison too since that comparison was made. The Son of God is without father and without mother as the scriptures say........I don't know how I can get any more literal than accepting what the Bible literally says."

[Stephen]

Interestingly enough the Book of Mormon talks about in what way Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I wonder how many Mormons actually believe this.

"And now Abinidi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in the flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected himself to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son- The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and the Son"(Mosiah 15:1-3).

[Tr2]

Cause we want to...

Well fine then!

[srm]

I don't see it as specious. Do you consider it specious because it compares the figurative to the literal?

No. it is because you are making huge assumptions about the meaning of the passage.

Melchizedek who was looked at as without a beginning or end because we don't have any record of when he was born or when he died is compared to Jesus Christ who literally had no beginning of days and literally has no end of life!

We all(Protestants and Mormons) consider the bread to be symbolic of the body of Jesus Christ and the wine(water) to be symbolic of the blood that Jesus Christ shed for us. Is that specious to believe because it is comparing the literal to the symbolic?  Does something literal have to be compared to something else that is literal or it is specious?

Jesus Christ said: "the bread is his body and the wine is his blood." The Catholics believe that Jesus Christ meant that literally and would probably think you are specious for believing it is symbolic in that the bread represents the body of Jesus Christ and the wine represents the blood of Christ. The Catholics take those Bible verses very literally in that they believe that the bread of communion literally turns into the body of Jesus Christ and the wine literally turns into the blood of Jesus Christ.

As I said before: "I don't see how Melchizedek is an imperfect example.........there is no genealogical record of who Melchizedek's mother and father were and that meant alot to the Jewish people. If you could not prove your origin genealogically they looked at you in a demeaning way and regarded you as if you had no origin. If you could not prove by your genealogical pedigree that you qualified to be priest in the levitical priesthood then even if you did rightly deserve to be a priest if you could not prove it then the Jews rejected you. The author of the Book of Hebrews seemed to think it was a great comparison too since that comparison was made. The Son of God is without father and without mother as the scriptures say........I don't know how I can get any more literal than accepting what the Bible literally says."

Again, my friend it is your interpretation that I take issue with. And, since there is no proof for your interpretation other than your say so...why should I accept it?\

Now, as far as literal let's not even trust what the prophets and apostles said. Let's go straight to the top with the sonship question.

NIV

Matthew 3:17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

NASB

Matthew 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

MSG

Matthew 3:17And along with the Spirit, a voice: "This is my Son, chosen and marked by my love, delight of my life."

KJV

Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

YLT

Matthew 3:17 and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, `This is My Son -- the Beloved, in whom I did delight.'

Well that should be enough for now. As a good cyber-friend of mine says, "I don't know how I can get any more literal than accepting what the Bible literally says."

[srm]

Stephen?

[srm]

Originally posted by srm@Apr 3 2004, 10:39 PM

I don't see it as specious. Do you consider it specious because it compares the figurative to the literal?

No. it is because you are making huge assumptions about the meaning of the passage.

Melchizedek who was looked at as without a beginning or end because we don't have any record of when he was born or when he died is compared to Jesus Christ who literally had no beginning of days and literally has no end of life!

We all(Protestants and Mormons) consider the bread to be symbolic of the body of Jesus Christ and the wine(water) to be symbolic of the blood that Jesus Christ shed for us. Is that specious to believe because it is comparing the literal to the symbolic?  Does something literal have to be compared to something else that is literal or it is specious?

Jesus Christ said: "the bread is his body and the wine is his blood." The Catholics believe that Jesus Christ meant that literally and would probably think you are specious for believing it is symbolic in that the bread represents the body of Jesus Christ and the wine represents the blood of Christ. The Catholics take those Bible verses very literally in that they believe that the bread of communion literally turns into the body of Jesus Christ and the wine literally turns into the blood of Jesus Christ.

As I said before: "I don't see how Melchizedek is an imperfect example.........there is no genealogical record of who Melchizedek's mother and father were and that meant alot to the Jewish people. If you could not prove your origin genealogically they looked at you in a demeaning way and regarded you as if you had no origin. If you could not prove by your genealogical pedigree that you qualified to be priest in the levitical priesthood then even if you did rightly deserve to be a priest if you could not prove it then the Jews rejected you. The author of the Book of Hebrews seemed to think it was a great comparison too since that comparison was made. The Son of God is without father and without mother as the scriptures say........I don't know how I can get any more literal than accepting what the Bible literally says."

Again, my friend it is your interpretation that I take issue with. And, since there is no proof for your interpretation other than your say so...why should I accept it?\

Now, as far as literal let's not even trust what the prophets and apostles said. Let's go straight to the top with the sonship question.

NIV

Matthew 3:17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

NASB

Matthew 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

MSG

Matthew 3:17And along with the Spirit, a voice: "This is my Son, chosen and marked by my love, delight of my life."

KJV

Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

YLT

Matthew 3:17 and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, `This is My Son -- the Beloved, in whom I did delight.'

Well that should be enough for now. As a good cyber-friend of mine says, "I don't know how I can get any more literal than accepting what the Bible literally says."

Stephen, I'm so glad you're back. Please address the above post.