All Claims of The Son's Deity

[Runningman]

you do not pay sufficient attention. Melchizedek basically remains undefined, unexplained and without apparent beginning or end. I can see how that idea does not register in a unitarian's mind, but for other people this is suggestive of a divine existence or of a type of Christ who has divine existence before creation and forever more.

But the reader understands that even though that is what the author of Hebrews said about Melchizedek, his point is entirely rhetorical. Of course we know Mel is not an eternal being, which is why the author compared Mel to Jesus, because Jesus is also not eternal. Are you saying the divinely inspired author of Hebrews is wrong because he contradicts trintiarianism repeatedly throughout the book?

 

[mikesw]

But the reader understands that even though that is what the author of Hebrews said about Melchizedek, his point is entirely rhetorical. Of course we know Mel is not an eternal being, which is why the author compared Mel to Jesus, because Jesus is also not eternal. Are you saying the divinely inspired author of Hebrews is wrong because he contradicts trintiarianism repeatedly throughout the book?

If the writer had missed the elements of the Triune God, you might have a point. However, you miss even obvious points made about Melchizedek. So the writer is not wrong in relating Melchizedek beyond the constraints of beginning and end, just as the divine Son, in fact, has no beginning or end. It should be obvious that the mention of no beginning only serves to reflect that aspect of Christ's divinity; it does not have to be a factual attribute of Melchizedek. The (potentially) contrived attribute is all the more significant here when not factual of Melchizedek. The obvious details have to be distorted by unitarians to convince themselves of the obvious meaning, as you have continued to do here. Unitarians have blatant rejection of the obvious to make their arguments.
You should avoid discussing these verses like this that point to the divinity of Christ. That is your general inclination. That also is more strictly held by Peterlag.

 

[Red Baker]

@Peterlag

Son of man means human. Why would not a human be called a son of man?

This is correct ~but the Lord Jesus was also called the Son of God, and with that title, makes him "equal to God", and thereby, he was God manifest in the flesh just as Paul said in 1st Timothy 3;16. Even Jesus' enemies understood him making himself equal with God by him confessing that God was his Father, and he was indeed according to Luke's gospel.

​

John 5:18​

“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

​

Philippians 2:6​

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:”

• Paul uses Christ’s example to exhort us to greater humility and service.
• Prior to becoming incarnate as Jesus Christ, He was the Word of God (John 1:1)
• The only begotten Son given to Israel is and was the Mighty God (Isaiah 9L6-7; Micah 5:2)
• Setting aside His eternal glory, He assumed a lowly position In this world (Isaiah 53:2).
• He showed "Infinite humility" and service in dying for His enemies (Romans 5:6-19)

Micah 5:2​

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”

Jesus was more than just a male child born unto Mary ~ he was BOTH man, yes, fully man; and he was God, yes, fully God!