Questions

[Quahom1]

O.K., well of course I see it differently, but since I'm here on the Christianity board I just want to ask if the above reflects a view generally held by Christians.

I think that the Bible invests heavily in types. Moses is a type of God (archetype). I don't think that reincarnation was an unknown concept in early pre-Judaism, but I also don't think the authors of the OT material had that in mind. Jesus is, according to St. John, the supreme archetypal intelligence. The Logos: the master plan for everything. Theoretically, the Logos should incorporate all types, so every story ever told would be, at essence, about him.

Chris

Chris. Forget it. Moses was never ever considered a god (archetype or otherwise). Re-Incarnation is not a Christian concept. It is not happening.

v/r

Joshua

 

[BlaznFattyz]

Jesus Christ is that Word, who created everything.
I believe that Jesus was who walked in the garden in the cool of the day.
Jacob wrestled with God in Genesis 32, I believe it was Jesus whom he wrestled.
God says He speaks to Moses face to face, so it must be Jesus to whom Moses is speaking.
In Daniel we read about Jesus walking in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.
He told Noah how to build an Arc.
He sat and ate with Abraham.
He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
He came as Melchezidek.

Of course those were all before his incarnation.

moses spoke to both god and the son and saw the holy spirit as a fire---all three were there. it was not christ that made the ground holy but christ was the way to the holy presence of god the father who made the ground holy. there is no scripture that leads us to believe christ is melchezidek, other than he was a highly regarded and respected high priest at that time that took tithing from abraham. and the bible states christ is of the order of melchizidek, which leads me to believe since they are seperately named and one proceeded the other, they are seperate entities, perhaps one of the angels of the lord.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Chris. Forget it. Moses was never ever considered a god (archetype or otherwise). Re-Incarnation is not a Christian concept. It is not happening.

v/r

Joshua

I guess I didn't say that very well, Joshua. What I mean is that Moses, in his human roles of lawgiver and judge, played, on the human level, a role in the story which is a sub-type of the archetypal role God plays where He is Lawgiver and Ultimate Judge. I hope that makes sense.

Chris

 

[taijasi]

Re-Incarnation isn't Christian ... but I'm not sure that has anything to do with what Christ taught, or what folks believed in the day. Thank 2000 (or 1500) years of accepted dogma, for the lack of belief in rebirth.

 

[Dor]

moses spoke to both god and the son and saw the holy spirit as a fire---all three were there.

Ok well answer me one question. If Jesus can not tell a lie then explain this verse.
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]John 5:37 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.[/FONT]

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Chris. Forget it. Moses was never ever considered a god (archetype or otherwise). Re-Incarnation is not a Christian concept. It is not happening.

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

Matthew 16.

Phew! Is it me or is it getting a little HOT in here?

I don't know about other churches, but the Church of England takes its direction from three sources: The Bible, tradition, and revelation.

The Bible is not living beacuse to be alive is to be subject to change, which the Bible is not. The Living Word refers to Christ, not the Bible.

Jesus could not have been Moses because at the transfuguration Jesus and Moses were seen together.

A little more careful consideration and a little less shooting from the hip might not go amiss perhaps?

Peace, VC

 

[BlaznFattyz]

Ok well answer me one question. If Jesus can not tell a lie then explain this verse.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]John 5:37 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.[/FONT]

this is referring to man's inability to see the glory of god the father directly but only thru the son until we are glorified in heaven and there are nature will be changed so we can see. moses did however speak to god and even saw his back, but that is all he was allowed. moses had to take off his sandals because what was being represented was the temple and the holy of holies. jesus being the living temple and how man can approach the holy of holies being where the presence of god the father is. no one can see the true nature of god the father but the son as jesus has said. but moses did speak to god (the father and the son) face to face thru the burning bush. the presence of god the father caused moses to glow. god the father has also spoken to the disciples concerning his son thru a cloud when he told them to listen to his son. for the time being we can only see god thru his son, and before his son came saw only a representation of the father and jesus as the angel of the lord. no one since has dialogued with god the father but moses.

 

[moseslmpg]

Chris. Forget it. Moses was never ever considered a god (archetype or otherwise).

Yes he was, which is why I brought it up. Some people did (or still do) consider him as an appearance of God, just not in Christianity.

To clarify, I am just pointing out that he was considered a manifestation of God by some people, not that I believe this, or that it is true, so I don't need any rebukings and all that unless you feel like giving them out.

Virtual Cliff, no one ever said Jesus was Moses, and just because they were seen together would not preclude them from being the same person anyway. Case in point: Jesus is supposed to sit at the right hand of God right? But that doesn't make them different people...supposedly.

 

[Quahom1]

I guess I didn't say that very well, Joshua. What I mean is that Moses, in his human roles of lawgiver and judge, played, on the human level, a role in the story which is a sub-type of the archetypal role God plays where He is Lawgiver and Ultimate Judge. I hope that makes sense.

Chris

Actually, that does. Similar to the Vicar in Rome playing a similar role today to the Catholic faithful. However, unlike the "civil Judges" of the world and the "spiritual lawgivers" of the world, Moses was the embodiment of both, and hence a human representetive or extension of God's roles here for the people Moses looked after. Yes, that does make sense. And I agree with your theorhectical.

 

[Quahom1]

Yes he was, which is why I brought it up. Some people did (or still do) consider him as an appearance of God, just not in Christianity.

To clarify, I am just pointing out that he was considered a manifestation of God by some people, not that I believe this, or that it is true, so I don't need any rebukings and all that unless you feel like giving them out.

Virtual Cliff, no one ever said Jesus was Moses, and just because they were seen together would not preclude them from being the same person anyway. Case in point: Jesus is supposed to sit at the right hand of God right? But that doesn't make them different people...supposedly.

Who considers Moses as an appearance of God, just not in Christianity? The Jews?

 

[Quahom1]

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

Matthew 16.

Phew! Is it me or is it getting a little HOT in here?

I don't know about other churches, but the Church of England takes its direction from three sources: The Bible, tradition, and revelation.

The Bible is not living beacuse to be alive is to be subject to change, which the Bible is not. The Living Word refers to Christ, not the Bible.

Jesus could not have been Moses because at the transfuguration Jesus and Moses were seen together.

A little more careful consideration and a little less shooting from the hip might not go amiss perhaps?

Peace, VC

Cliff, Moses was not a prophet. He was a leader and humble to God's will (though it took him about 80 years to get there). However, he never foretold of anything in a prophetic sense.

 

[moseslmpg]

Who considers Moses as an appearance of God, just not in Christianity? The Jews?

Some Qabalists, I don't really know how many exactly. The point is, that he has been regarded as God by someone at some point, whether he was or not doesn't matter.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Jesus Christ is that Word, who created everything.
I believe that Jesus was who walked in the garden in the cool of the day.
Jacob wrestled with God in Genesis 32, I believe it was Jesus whom he wrestled.
God says He speaks to Moses face to face, so it must be Jesus to whom Moses is speaking.
In Daniel we read about Jesus walking in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.
He told Noah how to build an Arc.
He sat and ate with Abraham.
He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
He came as Melchezidek.

Of course those were all before his incarnation.

Melchizedek is an interesting, enigmatic figure. I think the authors who mention him must be presuming that their audience is familiar with who he is and what he symbolizes, but the scant references to him in Genesis and Psalms don't really give us a clear picture.

Here's the Wiki entry on Melchizedek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek

And here's an exerpt from the Christian point of view that I found interesting and informative:

Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah spoken of as "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek" (Ps. 110:4), and so Jesus plays the role of High Priest once and for all. Jesus is considered a priest in the order of Melchizedek because, like Melchizedek, Jesus was not a Levite, and thus would not qualify for the Levitical priesthood (Heb. 7:13-17). One must remember that a priesthood or other holy order implies that there is more than one holder or member, respectively.
The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament discussed this subject considerably, listing the following reasons for why the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to the Aaronic priesthood:

1. Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek; later, the Levites would receive tithes from their countrymen. Since Aaron was in Abraham's loins then, it was as if the Aaronic priesthood were paying tithes to Melchizedek. (Heb. 7:4-10)
2. The one who blesses is always greater than the one being blessed. Thus, Melchizedek was greater than Abraham. As Levi was yet in the loins of Abraham, it follows that Melchizedek is greater than Levi. (Heb. 7:7-10)
3. If the priesthood of Aaron were effective, God would not have called a new priest in a different order in Psalm 110. (Heb. 7:11)
4. The basis of the Aaronic priesthood was ancestry; the basis of the priesthood of Melchizedek is everlasting life. That is, there is no interruption due to a priest's death. (Heb. 7:8,15-16,23-25)
5. Christ, being sinless, does not need a sacrifice for his own sins. (Heb. 7:26-27)
6. The priesthood of Melchizedek is more effective because it required a single sacrifice once and for all (Jesus), while the Levitical priesthood made endless sacrifices. (Heb. 7:27)
7. The Aaronic priests serve (or, rather, served) in an earthly copy and shadow of the heavenly Temple, which Jesus serves in. (Heb. 8:5)

The epistle goes on to say that the covenant of Jesus is superior to the covenant the Levitical priesthood is under. Some Christians hold that Melchizedek was a type of Christ, and some heterodox Christians hold that Melchizedek indeed was Christ. Reasons provided include that Melchizedek's name means "king of righteousness" according to the author of Hebrews, and that being king of Salem makes Melchizedek the "king of peace." Heb. 7:3 states, "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he (Melchizedek) remains a priest forever." Melchizedek gave Abraham bread and wine, which Christians consider symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the sacrifice to confirm a covenant.

Chris

 

[aburaees]

I understood a priest in the order of Melchizedek to mean a person who performs a dual role of Priest AND King. Both Jesus and Melchizedek were/are believed to be BOTH a Priest and a King, whereas throughout Israelite history the Priest and the King have been from different tribes.

 

[Dor]

Some Qabalists, I don't really know how many exactly. The point is, that he has been regarded as God by someone at some point, whether he was or not doesn't matter.

Well yes whether someone was or was not God does matter very much.