Melchisedec

[oldhermit]

OH sir...don't worry about me.
You don't have to "get me to do anything"...

Remember?

No one will need to tell another "know THE LORD" for from the least to the greatest HE will sprinkle them with clean water and remember their sins no more...and they shall all be taught by GOD?

I have the BEST TEACHER.

I really do not need for you to teach me anything...

Then I suppose we have nothing further to discuss.

 

[miknik5]

Yes, I suppose so.

It will not stop me from speaking when I am called to speak though.
But for you to tell me that you need to teach me something?

No sir.
You need to learn and grow up into the HEAD and all KNOWLEDGE of the SON of GOD unto the full measure of CHRIST.

Right now, since you exert yourself in discussing things that are things, it clearly shows that you do not even understand that all these things were simply the TESTIMONY of JESUS CHRIST...

 

[miknik5]

Abram said in lieu of the vision (theophany) as to receiving the blessing from the hand of the Lord ,speaking with the king of Sodom. Abram said: I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth.

Man has a beginning of days and end of life.

Man is with mother and father.

Abraham bowed down in worship and referred to Him as Jehovah twice according to that same form He appeared to Abraham by..

Who was Melchidek’s mother and father?

When was he born.

Why not a Theophany?

Why the need for him to be a man?

actually that isn't truth...you really didn't clear up what Abraham said regarding that Oath which he promised to GOD...
I think you need to fill in the remaining TRUTH and not truncate the scripture...
What did Abraham promise to GOD that he told the king of sodom he would not do?

And yet, Abraham, recognizing this king and priest, "this melchizadek",. gave back to HIM a tenth of what he had received by his defeating the king of sodom?

What exactly did the king of sodom want that Abraham THANKFULLY would not give him?

 

[miknik5]

I am sorry, OldHermit...

I don't want to be in a conflict with you.

But for you to tell me that I am wrong when you are clearly speaking about Melchizadek as if he somehow is equal to CHRIST is not right and is not good.

You want to discuss Melchizadek and I can't understand why

To me it is in line to Paul disciplining those who were saying I follow Paul, I follow Cephas, I follow Apollos...

I can't understand it.
Forgive me for not understanding the hullabaloo of discussing Melchizadek...


Sorry Melchizadek but you also are subject to and in submission to CHRIST...

 

[miknik5]

Sorry OldHermit.
I understand that you are older than me and a man and I must be in submission to you as an authority over me...but when one speaks about "things" that are just "things" and temporal, I can't understand it...

Forgive me for wanting to simply discuss CHRIST and HIM alone...
But that is all that I want to discuss and it is all that I see...

Understanding that all things were simply pointing us to CHRIST...

 

[oldhermit]

I am sorry, OldHermit...

I don't want to be in a conflict with you.

But for you to tell me that I am wrong when you are clearly speaking about Melchizadek as if he somehow is equal to CHRIST is not right and is not good.

You want to discuss Melchizadek and I can't understand why

To me it is in line to Paul disciplining those who were saying I follow Paul, I follow Cephas, I follow Apollos...

I can't understand it.
Forgive me for not understanding the hullabaloo of discussing Melchizadek...


Sorry Melchizadek but you also are subject to and in submission to CHRIST...

First, I am discussing Melchizedek on this thread because that this the subject of the thread. I am simply trying to honor the topic under discussion.

Second, you have clearly misunderstood everything I have said up to this point. I have never even implied that Melchizedek was equal to Christ. I have taken great pains to demonstrate the fact that Melchizedek was a man and nothing more than a man whom God appointed as high priest. Jesus by contrast, is the Almighty God and the priesthood of Melchizedek stood merely as a type of Jesus' priesthood.

 

[miknik5]

Perhaps this will help. The type/anti-type always have a reflexive relationship. That which is the anti-type always reflects that which preceded it as shadow in the world of man. For example, the OT sacrifices were type and Jesus was the anti-type of those sacrifices. The nature of old testament typology is that whatever stands as the type is never the reality of the thing it represents. The type is always patterned after the unseen reality but is never the reality itself. The type is always based on something that is greater than itself. So, all revealed types always reflect back to the unseen reality as the original. Moses was the type of Christ but, he was not the Christ. In the same way, Melchizedek is the type of high priest that represents the priesthood of Jesus just ans Aaron was a representation of Jesus as the high priest but, Melchizedek himself was not Jesus any more than his priesthood was the priesthood of Jesus. Jesus, as the pattern for the type precedes them both as the unseen reality in eternity. This is seen in the reversal of the role by the Hebrew writer who first says in verse three that as a high priest, Melchizedek was “made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.” He then says in verse fifteen that Jesus would “arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek.”

Melchizedek was a man just as Jesus was a man. He was without father and mother in the same way Jesus was without father and mother. He was without beginning of days or end of life in the same way Jesus was without beginning of days or end of life. Yet, both men had an earthly genealogy and both men were born into this world and died. Whatever these terms define for the one they also define for the other. Since Jesus had a natural mother and a natural birth and a natural death then what changes must be our understanding of how scripture uses these terms in connection with the priesthood.

I agreed with what you said in the first paragraph. But the second paragraph almost seemed (to me) to cancel out what you had said previously in the first paragraph...

Almost as if you were making CHRIST and Melchizadek equal...when initially you said that Melchizadek was simply a shadow a type of high priest with CHRIST being the (ETERNAL) Reality and fulfillment of a priesthood authority which ever and always belonged to HIM from the beginning....

I didn't see that in the second paragraph but only saw somehow an implying that Jesus and Melchizadek were the same...

Further, the addition that both had a genealogy is actually an addition and not what is stated in GOD'S WORD at all...rather, Melchizadek is said to have NO GENEALOGY...and yet you imply and add that this is not what is said?

Why?
And how do you change GOD'S WORD to say what GOD did not say by HIS WORD?

Further still, I felt it very important to mention Adam who also did not have a genealogy and to remember that Adam, the first man was flesh and the Last Adam/Man a LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT...that flesh came first and then SPIRIT...

I felt it necessary to remember that Adam had no mother and father...that GOD alone was Adam (the first man's) father...

 

[oldhermit]

I agreed with what you said in the first paragraph. But the second paragraph almost seemed (to me) to cancel out what you had said previously in the first paragraph...

Almost as if you were making CHRIST and Melchizadek equal...when initially you said that Melchizadek was simply a shadow a type of high priest with CHRIST being the (ETERNAL) Reality and fulfillment of a priesthood authority which ever and always belonged to HIM from the beginning....

I didn't see that in the second paragraph but only saw somehow an implying that Jesus and Melchizadek were the same...

Further, the addition that both had a genealogy is actually an addition and not what is stated in GOD'S WORD at all...rather, Melchizadek is said to have NO GENEALOGY...and yet you imply and add that this is not what is said?

Why?
And how do you change GOD'S WORD to say what GOD did not say by HIS WORD?

Jesus and Melchizedek are not the same. One is shadow or type and the other is the reality. Let me try once again to explain what the focus is of this chapter. The focus in not Melchizedek nor Jesus. The focus is their respective priesthoods and how they compare to one another. The contrast to these two priesthoods is the priesthood of the Levites which the writer will demonstrate in the next two chapters. As the writer points out in chapter five, every high priest is taken out of man. This means that every high priest appointed by God was born from the human family just as Jesus was. This by definition means that as a man, Melchizedek had a genealogy just as Jesus did. He was born of a human mother just as Jesus was. He died just as Jesus did. If this is not true then he does not stand as a type of Christ because the typology does not compare. Since these things are true, then we must understand without genealogy, without father or mother, and without beginning of days or end of life as referring not the man but to his priesthood. This is what is being discussed in the chapter. Just like the priesthood of Jesus, Melchizedek's priesthood had no genealogy. In other words his priesthood was not passed down to him from a predecessor. Also, his priesthood had no beginning of days nor end of life. In other words, his priesthood, like that of Jesus abides forever. This is in contrast to the Levitical high priest whose beginning of days as a high priest began when the mantle of the priest hood was passed on to him by reason of the death of his predecessor. The Levitical high priest also saw an end of days because when he died, the office of high priest was then passed to another. In regard to the common Lefitical priests, their beginning of days began at the age of 25 when they were appointed to serve in the priestly function. Their end of days ended at the age of 50 when they were required to retire from priestly service. This is not true of either the priesthood of Melchizedek or the priesthood of Jesus. The priesthood of Melchizedek shows up as an anomaly in this regard compared to other high priests. In contrast to them, like Jesus, his priesthood was a one man forever priesthood.

 

[garee]

Because Hebrews 5:1 says that every high priest is taken out of man. Melchizedek was a man just as Jesus was a man.

Hi brother

Thanks for the reply. I see that a little differently. My two cents..(sorry for the length) .

God does not have a name like you or I needed to distinguish one form another. Eternal God has no form. He was without father and mother in the same way Jesus was without father and mother.

Using words like Jesus which simply means Savor to denote “form” will not work out at least for my own self in my personal study principles I use. . .Using terms like the Son of God to denote no form, or the Son of man which does denote form.It seems to work the best for trying to reconcile the differences.

I think it is needed to make sure we do not offend God who has no form . A proper distinction between the "things of God" and "those of men" is required . It’s there where Satan who has no form gets his foot in the door to tried to prevent Christ from finishing what he had started who alone has the keys to unlock the gates of hell. This is shown with Jesus saving Peter. Snatching Peter from the fires of hell over and over every-time he denied Christ. Christ reinstated Peter one of the elect according to his grace.

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an "offence unto me": for thou savourest not the "things that be of God", but "those that be of men". Mat 16:22

I think if you would follow it to its conclusion to get the fuller context of what you offered (Hebrews 5:1) says ; every high priest taken among men , is ordained for men in “things pertaining to God”, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

And not for God, pertaining to men .God has no needs. In that way he shows us he is not served by human hands.

Eternal God who is not a man abides as the high priest of our calling. He who remains without form as a beginning.

In the beginning when he found sin in men who already had some sort of form, and His angel creation (Satan) that has no form . He subjected the whole creation to corruption.The beginning of the aging process, decaying and leading to an end..

He just did not leave those who he intended to have mercy on behind. So although His Kingdom is not of this world (never will be). He set up a temporal a kingdom on earth to represent Him not seen in heaven. From that perspective ; every high priest taken among men , is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, not seen , that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

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.

The Son of God who has no form, described by Melchizedek who came and went as a vision (theophany) has no mother or father beginning of days or end of life he abides a priest eternally continuously (without beginning or a end) .

Therefore our eternal High Priest ( Christ) who has no form. He of his own volition temporally put on the flesh typified as sinful as the Son of man to demonstrate the invisible work of God having mercy and grace on those who names will be found in the lambs book of life..... as if God had been slain, who is also not a lamb, just as he is not a man .

Therefore using two forms of creation to represent that one work which has been finished from the foundation of the world, as the eternal rest we enter in to by faith (that not seen).

The promised demonstration of that “unseen work” of God pouring out his Spirit that was finished from the foundation of the world. It is in respect to Christ, the anointing Holy Spirit of God..... again pouring out his Spirit (not seen) on all flesh as the Father of all spirits. As new creatures in Christ, of Christ and through Christ, we walk by faith not after the temporal flesh, as the Son of man.. But rather in respect to the eternal Spirit, as of Son of God, not seen, the High priest of our calling as a kingdom of priest .

In order to emphasize we walk by faith and not by sight to help differentiate between the unseen things of God (the eternal) from the things of men as that seen .(the temporal) he uses the phrase; “I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh”. twice

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. Joel 2:28

God will not except worship in respect to the outward demonstration. He has no form. He is not a man or a Lamb.

Isiah 53 I believe helps to show us that more clearly.

Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? Isa 53:1

Eternal Spirit does not have a literal fleshly arm.

For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Isa 53:2

We walk by faith not by sight .It cannot be over emphasized ,I believe.

I think in that statement we can see Christ, as the Son of God (no form) taking on the form, as the Son of man and in that as we are informed there is nothing about it by which we should desire to worship him as God because of it.

This is even though some like the Catholics, a extreme example, say his flesh is the “REAL PRESENCE ” of God even though Christ as the Son of man clearly said His flesh as that seen does not profit as a spiritual work the unseen ..They have many doctrines based on what they call the "REAL PRESENCE" as if God was a man as us.

Again as the Son of man, that seen, Christ resisted all forms of worship.

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD “hath laid” on him the iniquity of us all. Isa 53:3-

The “hath laid” is not "will lay again"... in the above passage is in respect to the foundation of the world.

Salivation, I believe, at least today unless something changes where I stand is not figured from the temporal demonstration of that finished unseen work thousands of years later. God still resists worship in respect to form. He is still not a fleshly man as us........The cause of the fall during the foundation of the world to begin with.

 

[oldhermit]

Hi brother

Thanks for the reply. I see that a little differently. My two cents..(sorry for the length) .

God does not have a name like you or I needed to distinguish one form another. Eternal God has no form. He was without father and mother in the same way Jesus was without father and mother.

Using words like Jesus which simply means Savor to denote “form” will not work out at least for my own self in my personal study principles I use. . .Using terms like the Son of God to denote no form, or the Son of man which does denote form.It seems to work the best for trying to reconcile the differences.

I think it is needed to make sure we do not offend God who has no form . A proper distinction between the "things of God" and "those of men" is required . It’s there where Satan who has no form gets his foot in the door to tried to prevent Christ from finishing what he had started who alone has the keys to unlock the gates of hell. This is shown with Jesus saving Peter. Snatching Peter from the fires of hell over and over every-time he denied Christ. Christ reinstated Peter one of the elect according to his grace.

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an "offence unto me": for thou savourest not the "things that be of God", but "those that be of men". Mat 16:22

I think if you would follow it to its conclusion to get the fuller context of what you offered (Hebrews 5:1) says ; every high priest taken among men , is ordained for men in “things pertaining to God”, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

And not for God, pertaining to men .God has no needs. In that way he shows us he is not served by human hands.

Eternal God who is not a man abides as the high priest of our calling. He who remains without form as a beginning.

In the beginning when he found sin in men who already had some sort of form, and His angel creation (Satan) that has no form . He subjected the whole creation to corruption.The beginning of the aging process, decaying and leading to an end..

He just did not leave those who he intended to have mercy on behind. So although His Kingdom is not of this world (never will be). He set up a temporal a kingdom on earth to represent Him not seen in heaven. From that perspective ; every high priest taken among men , is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, not seen , that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

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.

The Son of God who has no form, described by Melchizedek who came and went as a vision (theophany) has no mother or father beginning of days or end of life he abides a priest eternally continuously (without beginning or a end) .

Therefore our eternal High Priest ( Christ) who has no form. He of his own volition temporally put on the flesh typified as sinful as the Son of man to demonstrate the invisible work of God having mercy and grace on those who names will be found in the lambs book of life..... as if God had been slain, who is also not a lamb, just as he is not a man .

Therefore using two forms of creation to represent that one work which has been finished from the foundation of the world, as the eternal rest we enter in to by faith (that not seen).

The promised demonstration of that “unseen work” of God pouring out his Spirit that was finished from the foundation of the world. It is in respect to Christ, the anointing Holy Spirit of God..... again pouring out his Spirit (not seen) on all flesh as the Father of all spirits. As new creatures in Christ, of Christ and through Christ, we walk by faith not after the temporal flesh, as the Son of man.. But rather in respect to the eternal Spirit, as of Son of God, not seen, the High priest of our calling as a kingdom of priest .

In order to emphasize we walk by faith and not by sight to help differentiate between the unseen things of God (the eternal) from the things of men as that seen .(the temporal) he uses the phrase; “I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh”. twice

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. Joel 2:28

God will not except worship in respect to the outward demonstration. He has no form. He is not a man or a Lamb.

Isiah 53 I believe helps to show us that more clearly.

Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? Isa 53:1

Eternal Spirit does not have a literal fleshly arm.

For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Isa 53:2

We walk by faith not by sight .It cannot be over emphasized ,I believe.

I think in that statement we can see Christ, as the Son of God (no form) taking on the form, as the Son of man and in that as we are informed there is nothing about it by which we should desire to worship him as God because of it.

This is even though some like the Catholics, a extreme example, say his flesh is the “REAL PRESENCE ” of God even though Christ as the Son of man clearly said His flesh as that seen does not profit as a spiritual work the unseen ..They have many doctrines based on what they call the "REAL PRESENCE" as if God was a man as us.

Again as the Son of man, that seen, Christ resisted all forms of worship.

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD “hath laid” on him the iniquity of us all. Isa 53:3-

The “hath laid” is not "will lay again"... in the above passage is in respect to the foundation of the world.

Salivation, I believe, at least today unless something changes where I stand is not figured from the temporal demonstration of that finished unseen work thousands of years later. God still resists worship in respect to form. He is still not a fleshly man as us........The cause of the fall during the foundation of the world to begin with.

You do not seem to understand the purpose and nature of a type. The type is NEVER the same thing as the thing which it represents. As I said before, the type is always patterned after the unseen reality but is never the reality itself. The type is always based on something that is greater than itself. Melchizedek was not a vision, he was not a theophany, he was not the pre-incarnate Christ. He was simply a man who is represented as a type.

 

[miknik5]

He was simply a man Without genealogy....likened to THE SON OF GOD who came forth from GOD.

 

[garee]

He was simply a man Without genealogy....likened to THE SON OF GOD who came forth from GOD.

Did you mean a man as a theophany, a temporal vision? God is not a man. The Son of man has a genealogy in respect to the spiritual seed ,Christ, called the generation of Christ . God cannot die .He remains without mother or father, a priest continually with beginning and without end, as the Son of God. .

A man cannot be likened to God.God is not a man.

 

[miknik5]

Did you mean a man as a theophany, a temporal vision? God is not a man. The Son of man has a genealogy in respect to the spiritual seed ,Christ, called the generation of Christ . God cannot die .He remains without mother or father, a priest continually with beginning and without end, as the Son of God. .

A man cannot be likened to God.God is not a man.

Did you mean CHRIST to HIS DISCIPLES was a theophany, sir?

The ONLY THEOPHANY that JESUS gave to HIS DISCIPLES was to reveal THE GLORY which had been covered over in our covering...on that mount of Transfiguration...


For had CHRIST come to us uncovered, all would have perished.

GOD enfleshed HIS WORD...and THE WORD was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.

Never was it written that the WORD was made flesh...until CHRIST...who came in our likeness (in our fleshly covering) so that through faith in HIM, we might be made and covered over in HIS COVERING...

GLORY TO GLORY...

 

[miknik5]

The visible image of the invisible GOD.
The EXACT representation of HIS BEING
The FULL radiance of HIS GLORY

For it pleased GOD that IN HIM the (((((FULLNESS)))) might dwell.
For GOD gave HIM the SPIRIT without measure...

There is ONLY ONE who came to "MANIFEST/SHOW/REVEAL/DECLARE" the FATHER
And HE alone had ALL AUTHORITY to "MANIFEST/SHOW/REVEAL/DECLARE" the FATHER because HE came forth from GOD...


what do you think CHRIST meant when HE said...I came forth from GOD and into the world....AGAIN...I leave the world and go to the FATHER who sent ME.


What does "AGAIN" mean?

 

[miknik5]

Whose son is the CHRIST?

Not David's.

 

[garee]

Did you mean CHRIST to HIS DISCIPLES was a theophany, sir?

Hi micnik 55

I understand it a little differently.

The Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit of God that worked to give a vision to His disciple Abraham was a theophany. And therefore I believe as a shadow or type it represented the Son of man .

This is seeing it was corrupted flesh that was needed to condemn sin in the flesh. A vision that has no substance as a theophany could not perform that work, it has no flesh.. to be used to condemn flesh.

A theophany could not work to produce the promise he who has no form would come in the flesh for that demonstration. I think it’s difficult to image Christ appeared in flesh typified as sinful. But it’s not of matter of using our imagination of our heart as a source of faith we have the faith of Christ to give us that spiritual truth.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The ONLY THEOPHANY that JESUS gave to HIS DISCIPLES was to reveal THE GLORY which had been covered over in our covering...on that mount of Transfiguration...

The theophany in that parable was used to represent Moses and Elijah as two witnesses as in all things written in the law and the prophets to show us we hear the Son of God only.. I beleive there was no theophany used that time to represent Christ. He who has no form was already being represented as the Son of man in respect the flesh

For had CHRIST come to us uncovered, all would have perished.

Christ the Holy Spirit has no form.

GOD enfleshed HIS WORD...and THE WORD was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.

Yes, temporally as the Son of man for the one time demonstration of the invisible work of pouring out His Spirit, as the Father of all spirits.

Never was it written that the WORD was made flesh...until CHRIST...who came in our likeness (in our fleshly covering) so that through faith in HIM, we might be made and covered over in HIS COVERING..

I would say we might be made and covered in HIS COVERING as the work he performed covering our sin by the unseen work of His Spirit . His labor of love covers over a multitude of sins

God has no form.He remains without Mother or Father beginning of day or end of Spirit life he is with out descent and remains our High Priest continuously.

 

[DP]

Whose son is the CHRIST?

Not David's.

Christ Jesus is... the Son of David, born from David's bloodline.

 

[PilgrimPassingThru]

He is the Son of God, made of the seed of David
God created all things by Christ (even them who he was made of) the Son given