Melchisedec

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,143
612
113
70
Alabama
#41
I was re-reading the passage trying to look at it from the perspective of Melchizedek being Jesus. The question I could not answer is:
Why would Jesus be High Priest "in the order of" Melchizedek, if Jesus was Melchizedek?

This verse is a comparison, not a definition. If they were the same person, then this statement would no longer hold any significance. If Melchizedek was Jesus, the comparison of the two is nonsensical.
Jesus is not Melchizedek And Melchizedek was not the pre-incarnate Jesus. The Hebrew writer is comparing the priesthood of Jesus to the priesthood of Melchizedek. Where did you get the idea that they were the same person?
 
L

LT

Guest
#42
the only place I've heard it was in this thread lol, but it seems like a lot of people have this opinion(Melchizedek as a Christophany/Theophany).
I was searching scripture with this possibility, and have found it false.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,242
6,532
113
#43
Malek is King. Ztedek is righteousness. King of Salem is King of Peace. There is only One I know f Who may be called King of Righteousness and King of Peace.

One may find all the theocratic labels invented by men to say this is not the Savior, but the fact is Abraham who worshipped the living God not only paid hommage to Him, he also gave Him offerings. He would never have done this for a mere flesh and blood man. He would not for other kings, but for This One.

Jesus, Yeshua, would naturally be High Priest after this order because it is His Order... There is no other Heavenly High Priest. Meditate on it. There is no other manner of saying Who He is.

 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
689
113
#44
I was re-reading the passage trying to look at it from the perspective of Melchizedek being Jesus. The question I could not answer is:
Why would Jesus be High Priest "in the order of" Melchizedek, if Jesus was Melchizedek?

This verse is a comparison, not a definition. If they were the same person, then this statement would no longer hold any significance. If Melchizedek was Jesus, the comparison of the two is nonsensical.
Melchizedek was definitely not Jesus (because Jesus was not yet born), but he may have been the logos.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,242
6,532
113
#45
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...............the same is Jesus Christ, Yeshua.
Nothing that is made was not made by Him..............The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are One, Isaiah 9 is one confirmation of this.
Reread the first chapter of John. Jesus has always been.

Melchizedek was definitely not Jesus (because Jesus was not yet born), but he may have been the logos.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,143
612
113
70
Alabama
#46
What needs to be understood in the comparisons of Hebrews 7 are the striking similarities. Both men have a genealogy, both men are born of human families, both men had a father and a mother, both men were born and died. To recognize that all of the things applied to Jesus and not Melchizedek fails to recognize the force of the typology.

The comparison of their priesthoods are also the same. Neither priesthood had a beginning of days nor end of life. In other words, both remain priests forever. Both priesthoods had no genealogy. In other words, neither was received from a predecessor nor passed on to a successor, both priesthoods have an endless life.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,242
6,532
113
#48
I have never seen any lineage in the Word for Melchisedek.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,242
6,532
113
#50
Without father, without mother.

Heb 7:1


For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
Heb 7:2
To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Heb 7:3
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

This certainly describes the Son of Yahweh.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,143
612
113
70
Alabama
#51
Without father, without mother.

Heb 7:1


For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
Heb 7:2
To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Heb 7:3
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

This certainly describes the Son of Yahweh.
Go back and read some of my earlier posts where I address this. This defines his priesthood not the man.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,242
6,532
113
#52
Now why would there be mention of a priesthood without father and without mother? None of this is terribly important regarding our salvation by the Blood of the Lamb. If you should be correct on this point, it does not worry me about our salvation. At this point, no argument outside the Word will convince me, nor interpretations of words. I believe what I have posted, but I am not here to be right about points of facts, preferring to fellowship in Yeshua in Spirit and truth. This does not really fall under the heading of proving all things, it is an interesting part of our spiritual heritage, but knowing or not knowing for certain will not send anyone into the outer darkness.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,143
612
113
70
Alabama
#53
You obviously have not read my earlier post. I have already addressed these questions.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,242
6,532
113
#54
You could put them as references in your posts directed to me. Now I will go back and read what your understanding is, providing I am able to find them. Thanks.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,242
6,532
113
#55
Forgive my not indicating I did read your post, and it is all conjecture as far as I can see. Nowhere does it stat Melchisedek was a man, on the contrary. Again, I am not convinced by any writings about the Word, however the Word has me convcinced Melchisedek was the King of Righteousness and the King of Salem with no father and no mother.

Now, it is my bedtime. Good night, or buenas noches desde España...............hasta pronto.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
689
113
#56
If Jesus is the Logos and Jesus was not Melchizedek, then how could Melchizedek have been the Logos?
Not sure, but something happened when the logos became flesh. Same being, but an entirely new 'creation'.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,143
612
113
70
Alabama
#57
Not sure, but something happened when the logos became flesh. Same being, but an entirely new 'creation'.
Jesus is and always has been the Logos but, he has never been Melchizedek. The nature of O.T. typology is that whatever stands as the type is never the reality of the thing it represents. For example, Moses was the type of Christ but, he was not Christ himself. In the same way, Melchizedek is the type of priest that represents the priesthood of Jesus but, he himself was not Jesus.
 
P

popeye

Guest
#58
Look at the grammatical structure of the verse - "But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them..." or more literally, "He who however recons not genealogy from them." This does not say that he did not have a genealogy. It merely says that his genealogy was not through Levi.

Man,you were kicking some serious booty in here way back when Old Dude. LOL

He could not have possibly been a levite. Jesus Priesthood was NOT of that lineage
 
Feb 9, 2010
2,486
39
0
#59
Melchizedek was king of Salem,which is king of peace,and the priest of the most high God,who blessed Abraham,who Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils of a war he was involved in,tithes,before the Leviticus priesthood.

The Bible says He was without father,without mother,without descent,having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Jesus is not Melchizedek incarnate,and Jesus is not Melchizedek at all,but a priest after the order of Melchizedek,or His priestly office,that exceeds the Leviticus priestly office.

Melchizedek is a bodily manifestation of God,for He is without father,or mother,having neither beginning of days,or end of life,but Melchizedek is not a permanent bodily manifestation of God.

Jesus is the only permanent manifestation of God,and the only bodily manifestation of God,born of a woman,and the only begotten Son of God.

Melchizedek was a temporary manifestation of God,a bodily manifestation made from the dust of the earth,which God appeared the same way to Abraham,with two of His angels,on another occasion.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,143
612
113
70
Alabama
#60
Melchizedek was king of Salem,which is king of peace,and the priest of the most high God,who blessed Abraham,who Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils of a war he was involved in,tithes,before the Leviticus priesthood.

The Bible says He was without father,without mother,without descent,having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Jesus is not Melchizedek incarnate,and Jesus is not Melchizedek at all,but a priest after the order of Melchizedek,or His priestly office,that exceeds the Leviticus priestly office.

Melchizedek is a bodily manifestation of God,for He is without father,or mother,having neither beginning of days,or end of life,but Melchizedek is not a permanent bodily manifestation of God.

Jesus is the only permanent manifestation of God,and the only bodily manifestation of God,born of a woman,and the only begotten Son of God.

Melchizedek was a temporary manifestation of God,a bodily manifestation made from the dust of the earth,which God appeared the same way to Abraham,with two of His angels,on another occasion.
Go back and read post #3