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.

miknik5

Senior Member
Jun 2, 2016
7,833
588
113
Why would HE be called "living"?
The Living Jesus was known to be living afterwards, sir...
 
J

jaybird88

Guest
Why would HE be called "living"?
The Living Jesus was known to be living afterwards, sir...
so if the book was legit the introduction should have said the dead Jesus? makes no sense to me.
 

miknik5

Senior Member
Jun 2, 2016
7,833
588
113
so if the book was legit the introduction should have said the dead Jesus? makes no sense to me.
No...
It should have been understood by even the most common of men that this JESUS was not just a "mere man"...

And...it should have made men want to KNOW HIM...and the POWER of HIS RESURRECTION before trying to "figure out" HIS sayings...

They should have been like Peter who said: to whom should we go?
YOU have the WORDS of eternal life...

They went to HIM and they remained with HIM...because they KNEW HIM...
 

miknik5

Senior Member
Jun 2, 2016
7,833
588
113
Please do not fool around.
Your post was meant to try to confuse...

But the TRUTH is THE GOSPEL is THE TRUTH...
 

miknik5

Senior Member
Jun 2, 2016
7,833
588
113
And to stay on topic...
"Melchizadek" is NOT Melchizadek
Just as "Zerubabbel" is NOT Zerubabbel...
 
J

jaybird88

Guest
No...
It should have been understood by even the most common of men that this JESUS was not just a "mere man"...

And...it should have made men want to KNOW HIM...and the POWER of HIS RESURRECTION before trying to "figure out" HIS sayings...

They should have been like Peter who said: to whom should we go?
YOU have the WORDS of eternal life...

They went to HIM and they remained with HIM...because they KNEW HIM...
the substance is not in the introduction.
 

miknik5

Senior Member
Jun 2, 2016
7,833
588
113
Every WORD of GOD in lower signs and visible representations spoke of and pointed us to CHRIST

the TESTIMONY of CHRIST. IS. THE SPIRIT of PROPHECY
 
J

jaybird88

Guest
And that's exactly the problem.
why dont you just say what the problem is because i am having a hard time understanding what your talking about.
 

miknik5

Senior Member
Jun 2, 2016
7,833
588
113
why dont you just say what the problem is because i am having a hard time understanding what your talking about.
I am talking about the TRUTH of CHRIST. And that it is only in, by, and through CHRIST that we have a relationship with THE FATHER
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,143
612
113
70
Alabama
well I thought you understood that all these mentioned were simply prefigures of whom GOD spoke and pointed to from the beginning.
CHRIST
Yes, I understand that but this does not suggest that Melchizedek was himself Christ or some emination of God. He was precisely what the Hebrew writer says he was - a man.
 
J

jaybird88

Guest
I am talking about the TRUTH of CHRIST. And that it is only in, by, and through CHRIST that we have a relationship with THE FATHER
i agree but how is it related to Thomas?
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
Yes, I understand that but this does not suggest that Melchizedek was himself Christ or some emination of God. He was precisely what the Hebrew writer says he was - a man.
Hebrews does no say he was a man .His temporal form could of represented a man . We are created in His likeness not him after the likeness of man, as a god.

It does not appear to say he is a man.(flesh and blood) Looks like one possibly, but Jehovah is not a created being.

Scripture refers to that as a Theophany. A outward form of a man without DNA, ( flesh and blood) It is used of God and of the angels who also have no form.

It was only a vision used in a parable. . God is not a man as us. The description only fits Jehovah called many names, as Emanuel which when interpreted means:. God with us, not God was one of us.

He is the only Spirit being that has no beginning of days or end of Spirit life as the Father of all spirit life. He is supernatural which denotes no nature, as a beginning. He remains without mother or father.

Abram said in lieu of the vision 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.
The greater God blesses the lesser creation.

That does not sound like a man anymore then the next time he comes in contact with Jehovah. this time with his new name Abraham. This is when he was visited the second time by the same Theophany. This time appearing with two others spirit beings as angels , two witnesses to represent the law and the prophets . Two is the number he has set aside to represent those two witnesses .

Abraham saw the appearance of three men not having any DNA, as a vision . Again with one used to represent Jehovah. Abraham bowed down in worship to the one used to represent Jehovah. Worshiping by bowing down in regard to any other disembodied spirit as a god, other than our Father in heaven is to violate the first commandment.

I would ask what would be some reasons not to look at it as a theophany? What advantage that opposes it is ? How would that interpretation it was a theophany cause confusion with other doctrines?
.
 
Last edited:
P

popeye

Guest
Hebrews does no say he was a man .His temporal form could of represented a man . We are created in His likeness not him after the likeness of man, as a god.

It does not appear to say he is a man.(flesh and blood) Looks like one possibly, but Jehovah is not a created being.

Scripture refers to that as a Theophany. A outward form of a man without DNA, ( flesh and blood) It is used of God and of the angels who also have no form.

It was only a vision used in a parable. . God is not a man as us. The description only fits Jehovah called many names, as Emanuel which when interpreted means:. God with us, not God was one of us.

He is the only Spirit being that has no beginning of days or end of Spirit life as the Father of all spirit life. He is supernatural which denotes no nature, as a beginning. He remains without mother or father.

Abram said in lieu of the vision 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.
The greater God blesses the lesser creation.

That does not sound like a man anymore then the next time he comes in contact with Jehovah. this time with his new name Abraham. This is when he was visited the second time by the same Theophany. This time appearing with two others spirit beings as angels , two witnesses to represent the law and the prophets . Two is the number he has set aside to represent those two witnesses .

Abraham saw the appearance of three men not having any DNA, as a vision . Again with one used to represent Jehovah. Abraham bowed down in worship to the one used to represent Jehovah. Worshiping by bowing down in regard to any other disembodied spirit as a god, other than our Father in heaven is to violate the first commandment.

I would ask what would be some reasons not to look at it as a theophany? What advantage that opposes it is ? How would that interpretation it was a theophany cause confusion with other doctrines?
.

The bible is a book of mystery.

Jesus was baptized into the priesthood. He did not need a baptism of repentance by John. Jesus' baptism was for the change in priesthood. The priesthood under moses/Aaron was not a change,but an establishment of a priesthood.

So,no Jesus was not Melchesidik
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,143
612
113
70
Alabama
Hebrews does no say he was a man .His temporal form could of represented a man . We are created in His likeness not him after the likeness of man, as a god.

It does not appear to say he is a man.(flesh and blood) Looks like one possibly, but Jehovah is not a created being.

Scripture refers to that as a Theophany. A outward form of a man without DNA, ( flesh and blood) It is used of God and of the angels who also have no form.

It was only a vision used in a parable. . God is not a man as us. The description only fits Jehovah called many names, as Emanuel which when interpreted means:. God with us, not God was one of us.

He is the only Spirit being that has no beginning of days or end of Spirit life as the Father of all spirit life. He is supernatural which denotes no nature, as a beginning. He remains without mother or father.

Abram said in lieu of the vision 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.
The greater God blesses the lesser creation.

That does not sound like a man anymore then the next time he comes in contact with Jehovah. this time with his new name Abraham. This is when he was visited the second time by the same Theophany. This time appearing with two others spirit beings as angels , two witnesses to represent the law and the prophets . Two is the number he has set aside to represent those two witnesses .

Abraham saw the appearance of three men not having any DNA, as a vision . Again with one used to represent Jehovah. Abraham bowed down in worship to the one used to represent Jehovah. Worshiping by bowing down in regard to any other disembodied spirit as a god, other than our Father in heaven is to violate the first commandment.

I would ask what would be some reasons not to look at it as a theophany? What advantage that opposes it is ? How would that interpretation it was a theophany cause confusion with other doctrines?
.
Melchizedek was not theophany. He was a man just as you or I and nothing more, nor does the Hebrew writer portray him as anything more than a man.
 

miknik5

Senior Member
Jun 2, 2016
7,833
588
113
i agree but how is it related to Thomas?
It isn't...that is why it was removed from the Canon of Scriptures because it "jumps ahead" and implies that a man, apart from THE GOSPEL, apart from being washed by CHRIST HIMSELF, can have a part in dictating and directing his own "salvation"...

And men can not...apart from CHRIST, come to the FATHER any other way.

This "gospel" implies "another way"...and in the hands of baby christians just beginning in their walk...it creates "truncated christians" not even having STARTED IN CHRIST...
 

miknik5

Senior Member
Jun 2, 2016
7,833
588
113
Melchizedek was not theophany. He was a man just as you or I and nothing more, nor does the Hebrew writer portray him as anything more than a man.
He was NOT a man just as you or I.
If he were a man just as you and I...he would have had a genealogy...

It would never have been said, without father or mother, without beginning of days...
 
Last edited:

miknik5

Senior Member
Jun 2, 2016
7,833
588
113
The Hebrew writer indeed portrays him (Melchizadek) as a picture of CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD, only to show the position of CHRIST to the Hebrew readers as a HIGH PRIEST FOREVER...in which they could come to HIM and did not have to offer anymore sacrifices before the throne of GOD...that HIS BLOOD, HIS ONE TIME SACRIFICE is sufficient to clear the consciences of all those who come to HIM through faith in HIS BLOOD...because HE lives forever to intercede for all those who come to HIM...


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; 2To 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; 3Without 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.