The other "only begotten" son of God...

reply to post by WarminIndy

A priest after the order of Melchizedeck...does not mean Melchizedeck himself. Jesus is eternal, His priesthood is eternal. The Levitical priesthood had a beginning and a definite ending. Melchizedeck was the King of Salem, to whom Abraham paid tithes to.

So who was that character in Genesis, who had no mother and father? Who had no beginning? hmmmm?

When Jesus said "It is finished", He was saying the curse of death that came by Adam was no longer in effect.

All Jesus said was "it is finished".
My question to you is .... exactly where in the bible did Jesus ever explain that it meant the curse of death "that came by Adam was no longer in effect"
Where? Show me.

I want to read Jesus' words on this. Not your opinion.

reply to post by Akragon

You might notice John was the one that used the "only begotten son" terminology...

You mean the author of the book we know as "John", in the NT?

I'd like to show him Psalms 2:7 and ask him.... "what about David, who was also "begotten" by God?"

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Psalm 2 is prophecy, it's in fact a conversation between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit about the Messiah's kingdom after the tribulation.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Can you walk us through and explain in more detail so the rest of us can understand how you came to this conclusion? Thanks!

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


The Bible never says Jesus is Melchizedeck, the Bible says Jesus is a priest AFTER THE ORDER of Melchizedeck. Obama is a president after the order of Democrats.

You have to understand the concept of priesthoods.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Can you walk us through and explain in more detail so the rest of us can understand how you came to this conclusion? Thanks!

I posted the whole chapter of Psalm 2. Why don't you go read the whole thing and learn it.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

So who was Melchizedek?

LOL! I'm sorry, I had to laugh because the first thing I thought of when you asked this question was the "one like the Son of Man" that sat on the white cloud in your other thread!

I think we'll find the answer to this question as soon as we can figure out who some of the other mysterious "kings" and "princes" were in the Bible. Wasn't Michael the Archangel listed as a prince or a king in the Bible too? I think the earthly rulers of that time were getting some heavenly help from special messengers. I can't help but wonder if Melchizedek fit into that category somehow.

reply to post by WarminIndy


WarmIndy, I bet I've read it 15 times already today.

Now, I'm just trying to figure out how NotUrTypical came up with his reply. I'm just trying to understand his line of thought so I can follow it.

As you can tell, the replies on this original post are all over the board and hardly anyone has the exact same thoughts on it, so it helps when we can try to understand each other.

Understand?

reply to post by Klassified

Sorry Skorp, the idea wasn't to derail your thread, but rather to show that cryptic type terminology is used a lot in the bible. Psalm 110 is another one that is easily misinterpreted unless one takes the bible in context, and as a whole. Just as Psalm 2 needs to be taken in context with the rest of the bible.

Interesting thread btw. S&F.

I havent read all the other comments but I am going to comment anyways. The biggest problem with the bible that we read is it is missing several gospels. Maybe in one of those gospels it does announce the information that you are wondering. I often wonder why those gospels that were removed have not been placed back. It may help us to understand the bible much more then we already do.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

You might notice John was the one that used the "only begotten son" terminology...

Jesus said it once... and it likely wasn't his words, but johns...

The phrase "only begotten son" is not used in any of the other gospels...

Of course this is nothing against john... but he did have an affinity for narration

Draw your own conclusions i guess

John seem to be spreading duality and differences in value of souls again. Quite different than Matthew 25:31-46. Where Jesus says from my point of view that he is equal to all soulbrothers and soulsisters (except having a bit more understanding but that comes with time for all souls) and those able to follow the golden rule is free to join him and those who cannot follow the golden rule he do not wish to know. Quite a nondualistic approach from Jesus that he can be as one with his soulbrothers and soulsisters thru Matthew counter to the duality from John that is based on devide and conqurer mentality.

Why do I get the feeling I am listening to an angelic mindview on one side and the devils mindiew on the other side.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Awen24



David was both anointed AND a ruler. So that Psalm is not inconsistent with David at all. So the "me" in Psalm 2:7 refers to David.

should he not be referred to as David Christ?

as would all others anointed before the time of that jesus guy?

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Klassified

 

You quoted Psalm 110.... a psalm which brings up the mysterious Melchizedek.

I don't get what this has to do with the subject of the OP.

Very well, lets dissect it a little further, shall we?

4The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

You do realize Melchizedek is described as being someone who is....

1. "without father or mother" (cant be Jesus because we know Jesus' mother)
2. "without genealogy" (cant be Jesus because Jesus genealogy is outlined in Luke 3:23-38)
3. "without beginning of days" (cant be Jesus because Jesus' days as a human began after his birth)
4. "without end of life" (cant be Jesus because Jesus' life "ended" with his crucifixion)
5. "resembling the Son of man". (well, you explain this one)

So who was Melchizedek?
And why is he relevant to this discussion about somebody else being the "only begotten son of God"?

edit on 6-10-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

Psalm 110 is talking about Jesus. This is evident in what Jesus did before and during his crucifiction by being the first non Levite to purify the temple and perform the duties of the High Priest during the preparation for Passover. signified on the cross when completed by his utterance of "it is finished". Jesus is the Melchizidek psalm 110 is speaking about. Not only that but being the seed of David it made him King and he could prophecy so he was a prophet-priest-king, super rare are those in the scriptures. The only melchizidek before then was thought to be Shem during Abraham's time.

Originally posted by reeferman

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Awen24



David was both anointed AND a ruler. So that Psalm is not inconsistent with David at all. So the "me" in Psalm 2:7 refers to David.

should he not be referred to as David Christ?

as would all others anointed before the time of that jesus guy?

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

reply to post by apushforenlightment

Why do I get the feeling I am listening to an angelic mindview on one side and the devils mindiew on the other side.

Well... i wouldn't say "the devil"...

How about the words of Jesus mixed with the words of man?

John had a tendancy to narrate... and he told of concepts that were not in the other three gospels such as "the word of God made flesh" for example...

He is also quite possibly responsible for the "trinity" theology... but thats another topic...

From Fr. Haydock's commentary: (haydock1859.tripod.com...)

Ver. 7. Thee. Chaldean weakens this text. (Haydock) --- "I love thee as my son, and look upon thee with the same affection, as if I had this day created thee;" which might be applied to David, now settled more firmly on the throne by his late victory. But it literally refers to Christ, either born in time, (ver. 1., St. Augustine; Calmet) or baptized; (St. Justin Martyr) or rather rising again, (Acts xiii. 33.) and born from all eternity, Hebrews i. 5. This shews him superior to the angels. The prophet had both these events in view. Eternity is always the same. (Berthier; Bossuet; Du Hamel) --- He to whom God may speak thus to-day, at all times, must be God also. (Robertson, Lexic.) (John v. 25.) --- To this Socinians can make no reply, without giving up the Epistle to the Hebrews or allowing that the apostle's arguments were inconclusive. (Berthier) --- The same text may thus have many literal senses. (Du Hamel) --- The eternal birth seems here to be the chief, as from that source the nativity, baptism, priesthood, (Hebrews xv. 5.[v. 5.?]) and miraculous resurrection of Christ, necessarily spring. (Haydock)

David often wrote of the Messiah, who is Christ, who is also God being the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity: the Word made Flesh (John 1:14).

This confusion, as evidenced in the starting of this thread, is why ONLY the Catholic Church--being the Church Christ founded--has proper authority to interpret Sacred Scripture... not just any yokel off the street.

Scripturecatholic.com

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Psalm 2 is prophecy, it's in fact a conversation between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit about the Messiah's kingdom after the tribulation.

Where are you getting that from?

David writes what the Lord said unto him.
Which is why David writes "the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

reply to post by WarminIndy

The Bible never says Jesus is Melchizedeck,

But... but...this other Christian dude says Jesus is Melchizedek in this post .

Jesus is the Melchizidek psalm 110 is speaking about

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Jesus is the Melchizidek psalm 110 is speaking about.

I'm hearing from another Christian here that Jesus is not the Melchizedek. So who's right this time?

From what I see, the traits of the Melchizedek don't apply to Jesus.
Like I said earlier...

1."without father or mother" (we know Jesus' mother)
2. "without genealogy" (Jesus genealogy is outlined in Luke 3:23-38)
3. "without beginning of days" (Jesus' days began after his birth)
4. "without end of life" (Jesus' life "ended" with his crucifixion)

reply to post by Klassified

but rather to show that cryptic type terminology is used a lot in the bible.

You're right, the bible uses cryptic language... so it means the data required to make theological sense of the verses in question is insufficient. Its all anybody's guess.

However, a few things are plainly obvious from a grammatical perspective....

John 3:16 makes a claim about an "only begotten son".
Psalm 2:7 written before that, shows God telling David that he is a "begotten son".
"the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

Christians are taking what was told to David and applying it to Jesus, so as to avoid having John 3:16 invalidated by an older verse.