Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
|
You are trying to imply that this says what?
5. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but
he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6. As he saith also in another place,
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto
him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet
learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the
right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens
Which is consistent with exactly where Jesus said He would be. On the right hand of the throne of the Majesty. The Majesty - is God.
Is there a point to be gleaned from this repeated fragment? Perhaps to demonstrate that
Hence, making two persons of them (God and Jesus), denying the work of God, i.e, denying that Jesus is truly God manifest in the flesh is antichrist.
If so it was a terrible reference. Find another one. Jesus Himself made two persons of them.
Mark 16:19 says: After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.
Threaded Mode
