Melchizedek

[flight316]

That's my point excactly Oldhermit, scripture does not provide these answers. We are talking about a main character here. So what other main character in the bible are you refering to when you say that their lineage wasn't given.

 

[oldhermit]

That's my point excactly Oldhermit, scripture does not provide these answers. We are talking about a main character here. So what other main character in the bible are you refering to when you say that their lineage wasn't given.

One who comes readily to mind is Job. If you like, I can do a little more research tomorrow and see what else we can find. We can immediately rule out anyone who is Hebrew. Even though a specific Hebrew's linage history may not be recorded, the fact that he is Hebrew links him immediately to that ancestry.

 

[Starcrash]

You obviously have not read the Hebrews chapter 7 very carefully.

That's it??? You assert that my disagreement with you means that I "haven't read the material very carefully"???

This is clearly not my first time considering the material (that's me in the video, and my argument about Melchizedek comes at the end). I also didn't bring any bias to the table. "But you're an atheist!", you may say, and that is absolutely true, but my lack of belief in a god doesn't hinge on whether Melchizedek was Jesus, a real immortal King of Salem, a generic high priest, a metaphor, or whatever a person may choose to define him as. Thus, I don't *have to* come to a certain conclusion about Melchizedek to maintain my beliefs.

The Old Testament makes it clear that Melchizedek was a historical figure. And everything said in Hebrews 7 about him pertains to a person. If verse 3 of Hebrews 7 isn't clear enough, verse 16 also clarifies that he had an "endless" or "indestructible" life. Verses 15 and 17 ascribe that Jesus is "in the order of Melchizedek", meaning that he became a priest not through his ancestry (as the tribe of Levi that Melchizedek's order is being compared to) but because he'll never die, just like Melchizedek (verses 23 and 24). How is Jesus' life endless? He rose again, and went to heaven before dying again. This is what makes him a perfect priest "just like Melchizedek".

The downside to accepting any of the argument in Hebrews 7 is that it's based on the premise that Melchizedek was an immortal. One doesn't have to accept that being immortal makes you a god (see my YouTube argument cited above), but I can see why such acceptance would lead one to question his or her faith.

 

[flight316]

Oldhermit, stop the madness. You know that Job is not a good example. Alright let me be more specific. Who else is said to be without mother or father. Having no beginning or endinding of days?

 

[nathan3]

John 8:57-59

King James Version (KJV)

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

 

[oldhermit]

Oldhermit, stop the madness. You know that Job is not a good example. Alright let me be more specific. Who else is said to be without mother or father. Having no beginning or endinding of days?

You know the answer to that. No one.

 

[oldhermit]

That's it??? You assert that my disagreement with you means that I "haven't read the material very carefully"???

This is clearly not my first time considering the material (that's me in the video, and my argument about Melchizedek comes at the end). I also didn't bring any bias to the table. "But you're an atheist!", you may say, and that is absolutely true, but my lack of belief in a god doesn't hinge on whether Melchizedek was Jesus, a real immortal King of Salem, a generic high priest, a metaphor, or whatever a person may choose to define him as. Thus, I don't *have to* come to a certain conclusion about Melchizedek to maintain my beliefs.

The Old Testament makes it clear that Melchizedek was a historical figure. And everything said in Hebrews 7 about him pertains to a person. If verse 3 of Hebrews 7 isn't clear enough, verse 16 also clarifies that he had an "endless" or "indestructible" life. Verses 15 and 17 ascribe that Jesus is "in the order of Melchizedek", meaning that he became a priest not through his ancestry (as the tribe of Levi that Melchizedek's order is being compared to) but because he'll never die, just like Melchizedek (verses 23 and 24). How is Jesus' life endless? He rose again, and went to heaven before dying again. This is what makes him a perfect priest "just like Melchizedek".

The downside to accepting any of the argument in Hebrews 7 is that it's based on the premise that Melchizedek was an immortal. One doesn't have to accept that being immortal makes you a god (see my YouTube argument cited above), but I can see why such acceptance would lead one to question his or her faith.

It is amazing to me that such a simple presentation of a text can create such ire in people. All I can do is simply present the material. I can't make you believe it. Anyway, there is the material, make what you will of it and I shall leave you to your discussion.

 

[jb]

You can find a bit of a study on John 17 Here and within it a lot of references to Jesus, our Great High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek...

Yahweh Shalom...

 

[WeStand]

The claim is made that Melchizedek has a genealogy. What is it?

The same as the rest of us Before we got here in this dump; Earth in its current state.

And, After we get to leave this dump, to await the RESTORATION of it; back into the Paradise that it once was.

Lets see hmmmm; One Father who IS Love (of Reverence; Not lust).

HIS Holy Spirit/Wisdom; NOT for the children to lust after; but to Reverence also;" I am Wisdom, I have strength".
( A@#%$^*&+! braindead Lucifer)

And their First Begotten Child of Common Sense; Shining VERILY Brightly before our eyes Everyday, Rock Solid; the Reason the Earth was created in the FIRST place.

For ALL Life comes FROM the Father through The SON/SUN, physically and spiritually. OUR Father DOES NOT LIE.


"and I Will roll back the heavens and remove the darkness" Gee, I wonder what those Black Holes are for?

 

[flight316]

Oldhermit, I always enjoy your chats whether I agree with them or not. You responded to one of my posts quite some time ago and you were very helpful. Continue to share brother.

 

[PlainWord]

1. He would have to have been a man if he was of the Levitical priesthood, which he wasn't.
2. The Greek does have a word that means man. It simply says this one.
3. He did not have a genealogy. That verse simply means that he has no priestly genealogy, yet he is a priest.

There was no Levitical priesthood at the time since Levi was the son of Jacob, bother of Joseph. Neither were born at the time Melchizedek appeared to Abram. The first high priest was Aaron, hundreds of years later, if memory serves.

So, if Melchizedek was Jesus in the OT (which I think a strong case can be made) we then see Jesus in the role of High Priest of God; then as the Son, the Lamb, the sacrifice if you will; then in the Millennium, Jesus will be Lord and King and reign.

So Jesus goes from High Priest, to Sacrifice, then to the Lord (the one whom sacrifices are given)!! Interesting. This all takes place in and around Jerusalem.

Jerusalem goes from "Salem", to "Jerusalem" to "The Lord is There" Ezekiel 48:35.

 

[oldhermit]

There was no Levitical priesthood at the time since Levi was the son of Jacob, bother of Joseph. Neither were born at the time Melchizedek appeared to Abram. The first high priest was Aaron, hundreds of years later, if memory serves.

So, if Melchizedek was Jesus in the OT (which I think a strong case can be made) we then see Jesus in the role of High Priest of God; then as the Son, the Lamb, the sacrifice if you will; then in the Millennium, Jesus will be Lord and King and reign.

So Jesus goes from High Priest, to Sacrifice, then to the Lord (the one whom sacrifices are given)!! Interesting. This all takes place in and around Jerusalem.

Jerusalem goes from "Salem", to "Jerusalem" to "The Lord is There" Ezekiel 48:35.

This quote did not come from me. It came from HeRoseFromTheDead. He did not format the quote properly s o it is showing that it came from me. There are two or three posts like this. My views are on posts #2, 4, 8, and 11.

 

[reject-tech]

For what it's worth, Jesus isn't the only person who can be of the order of Melchizidek.

I think it's some kind of "next level" stuff.

Book of Hebrews.

 

[posthuman]

Nothing that Jesus did filled the role of a priest, and Jesus didn't have a lineage to continue this role that he never took on. In fact, if you believe that Jesus died as a sacrifice, then Pontius Pilate fulfilled the role of a priest and Jesus was just the lamb -- not the person who killed the lamb.

He offered himself. How could Rome hold what death could not?

 

[FEDERALIST]

after paul the apostle explains melchizedek as a getile priest abiding forever and the priesthood overlapping a believer ,paul states this is a thing hard to understand because the man was made unto CHRIST likeness but not as the LORD is.

 

[Lifted_by_the_word]

For what it's worth, Jesus isn't the only person who can be of the order of Melchizidek.

I think it's some kind of "next level" stuff.

Book of Hebrews.

Pretty sure the 12 Apostles were from the order of Melchizidek.I know that the 144,000 will be.Like the verse Ariel82 provided in Genesis 14.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I have never understood people's fascination with trying to make Melchizedek more than what the text says he is.

Well the text clearly presents him as the preincarnate Christ. That is the only way to properly interpret what is said about Melchizedek. Has there been any man on earth "having neither beginning of days nor end of life" and "made like unto the Son of God" other than Christ?

 

[oldethennew]

Melchizedek = Jesus Christ...

 

[Bladerunner]

I did not listen to the entire presentation but, I heard enough to know that this man does not understand what is being discussed in Hebrews 7. Let me just offer a brief synopsis of the Hebrew writer's presentation of Melchizedek then we can go from there.

What you have to understand about this text is that the Hebrew writer is not comparing Jesus with Melchizedek. He is comparing the priest hood of Jesus to the priesthood of Melchizedek. He begins this discussion in 4:14 and in 5:1 he says that "EVERY high priest is taken from among men..." Since Mel. is a high priest, he was of necessity a member of the human community. "Without father without mother" does not relate to the man himself but to his priesthood. Like Jesus, Mel. did not receive his priesthood from a predecessor. It is his priesthood who had no genealogy. In 7:6 it says of Mel. "But the one whose genealogy was not traced from them (speaking of Aaron). This tells us two things, 1) He had a genealogy. 2) His genealogy did not come through Aaron.

"Without beginning of days or end of life" also relates to his priesthood and not the man. With the priesthood of Aaron we can look at Sinai and see where the Levitical priesthood had its beginning of days with the appointment of Aaron and his sons. We can also look ahead at the cross and see where that priest had its ending of days. This cannot be said of the priesthood of Jesus nor of Melchizedek.

As a matter of fact there are only three "Kings and Priest" mentioned in the Bible. They are Jesus Christ, Melchizedek, the Body of Christ.

 

[MarcR]

I did not listen to the entire presentation but, I heard enough to know that this man does not understand what is being discussed in Hebrews 7. Let me just offer a brief synopsis of the Hebrew writer's presentation of Melchizedek then we can go from there.

What you have to understand about this text is that the Hebrew writer is not comparing Jesus with Melchizedek. He is comparing the priest hood of Jesus to the priesthood of Melchizedek. He begins this discussion in 4:14 and in 5:1 he says that "EVERY high priest is taken from among men..." Since Mel. is a high priest, he was of necessity a member of the human community. "Without father without mother" does not relate to the man himself but to his priesthood. Like Jesus, Mel. did not receive his priesthood from a predecessor. It is his priesthood who had no genealogy. In 7:6 it says of Mel. "But the one whose genealogy was not traced from them (speaking of Aaron). This tells us two things, 1) He had a genealogy. 2) His genealogy did not come through Aaron.

"Without beginning of days or end of life" also relates to his priesthood and not the man. With the priesthood of Aaron we can look at Sinai and see where the Levitical priesthood had its beginning of days with the appointment of Aaron and his sons. We can also look ahead at the cross and see where that priest had its ending of days. This cannot be said of the priesthood of Jesus nor of Melchizedek.

There are two basic approaches to interpretation of Scripture:

1) Scripture should be taken literally unless there is compelling linguistic reason to do otherwise.

2) Scripture must be understood allegorically as if everything said were in parables.

IMO Allegorical interpretation leads to unsound doctrine or even outright heresy.

In subscribing to the premise that

Scripture should be taken literally unless there is compelling linguistic reason to do otherwise; the question arises:

What constitutes compelling linguistic reason?

1) recognized idiom

2) established figures of speech

3) Evident didactic hyperbole; where a concept is obviously overstated to show its importance:

i.e. If your eye offend you pluck it out.

IMO your relegating that which is spoken of Melchizedek to the priesthood does not meet the standard of compelling linguistic reason.