WHO IS MELCHISSEDEC.

  • 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.
Mar 22, 2011
386
1
0
#21
It's a really good thing nobody takes time to read the post that actually explain who Melchizedek was.
Just because Jesus was compared to Melchizedek in the book of Hebrews does not mean Melchizedek was Jesus.
It is far more likely that Melchizedek was actually Shem, the son of Noah, which is something held in Jewish tradition as true.

Yes Jesus was after the order of Melchizedek. This is only showing that in the same way the order of Melchizedek was higher than the Aaronic order and priesthood, Jesus was higher than the Aaronic order as well, which included the law.
SHEM. MY DEAR BROTHER , PLEASE, PLEASE ,SHEM HAD A BIRTH DAY
 

musiclover123

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2009
133
0
16
31
#22
Who says Melchizedek did not? The reason it is held by Jewish tradition that this was Shem, was because Shem outlived even Abraham. He was around during this whole time. There is nothing that tells us that Melchizedek was anything but a priest and a human.
Even if he was something such as an angel of the Lord that we seem many times in OT..well usually that is presented with something saying it is, so it doesn't fit either.
 
Mar 22, 2011
386
1
0
#23
SHEM MELCHIZEDEK. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE BROTHER DONT SAY THAT SHEM HAD A BIRTHDAY WITH NO PRE EXISTENCE
 
Mar 22, 2011
386
1
0
#24
OK .WE'RE IS SHEM TODAY? LARD AV MERCY THAT MI AH SAY IN JAMAICAN TONGE
 
O

oncemore

Guest
#26
KING MELCHIZEDEK!

BUT ONE HAS TO REMBER THAT IN GEN.14 ABRAHAM WAS A PROPHET AND I KNEW YOU ALL READ YOUR BIBLE A PROPHET MUST BE VINDICATED A PROPHET AND THE LORD DOES THAT HIM SELF AND THAT WHY MELCHIZEDEK MET HIM HE WAS TUSTING IN THE PROMISE. AND THERE WAS THREE OF THEM BUT ABRAHAM SAID MY THE LORD. LOT SAID MY LORDS SO THEY WAS NOT ALL ANGELS ONE THEM WAS EOLHIM HIMSELF. HEBS4VS 12 IN TENT HE WAS SITTING WITH HIS BACK TO HER AND TOLD HER WHAT WAS IN HER HEART. YOU MANY STILL SAY THIS IS ANGELS BUT ONE SAY WITH ABRAHAM AND TWO WENT TO SODOM TO TAKE LOTS FAMLIY OUT. THANK FOR YOUR TIME AND MANY THE LORD WATER THE SEED!
 
Feb 14, 2011
1,783
4
0
#27
who has no beginning of days and no ending of days? JESUS. HE IS ALSO THE WORD

melchisedec was the word of God translated into flesh.what was his purpose?
to be the first king in salem(jerusalem was not a city at that time) salem means,peace.
melchisedec had no population to rule over; and yet he is king, how can you be a king
with no kingdom? his kingdom is is a spititual kingdom.
he is king of peace and a king of righteousness. anything to do with peace and righteousness he is king of.

''wakeup''.
 
Feb 14, 2011
1,783
4
0
#28
KING MELCHIZEDEK!

BUT ONE HAS TO REMBER THAT IN GEN.14 ABRAHAM WAS A PROPHET AND I KNEW YOU ALL READ YOUR BIBLE A PROPHET MUST BE VINDICATED A PROPHET AND THE LORD DOES THAT HIM SELF AND THAT WHY MELCHIZEDEK MET HIM HE WAS TUSTING IN THE PROMISE. AND THERE WAS THREE OF THEM BUT ABRAHAM SAID MY THE LORD. LOT SAID MY LORDS SO THEY WAS NOT ALL ANGELS ONE THEM WAS EOLHIM HIMSELF. HEBS4VS 12 IN TENT HE WAS SITTING WITH HIS BACK TO HER AND TOLD HER WHAT WAS IN HER HEART. YOU MANY STILL SAY THIS IS ANGELS BUT ONE SAY WITH ABRAHAM AND TWO WENT TO SODOM TO TAKE LOTS FAMLIY OUT. THANK FOR YOUR TIME AND MANY THE LORD WATER THE SEED!

you are correct, only two went to sodom, the other was the lord himself. remember abraham bowed down to him,and he did not reject
to be worshipped. these were also translated into flesh, they ate and drank,can be touched.

''wakeup''.
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#29
It's a really good thing nobody takes time to read the post that actually explain who Melchizedek was.
Just because Jesus was compared to Melchizedek in the book of Hebrews does not mean Melchizedek was Jesus.
It is far more likely that Melchizedek was actually Shem, the son of Noah, which is something held in Jewish tradition as true.

Yes Jesus was after the order of Melchizedek. This is only showing that in the same way the order of Melchizedek was higher than the Aaronic order and priesthood, Jesus was higher than the Aaronic order as well, which included the law.

i agree with her on both of her posts. :)

Melchizedek was a priest who was of a priesthood that is HIGHER than Aaronic order who was appointed by Moses with the old convenant. Jesus was BEFORE this and traces His PRIESTHOOD back to Melchizedek order and rebukes the Pharisees who trace theirs back to Aaron. there could be two types of priest back then two. we have countless denominations and sects of christainity and judaism now.

why the question? is it a salvation issue?

blessings to all who walk in the Will of God.
 

musiclover123

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2009
133
0
16
31
#30
Thank you AnandaHya! I have still yet to figure out where people are getting the idea that he was any of the other things listed (Jesus, Word of God, or an angel) when it says nothing of the sort
It seems that is much adding of ideas to this..when it is never mentioned
We may be able to guess and come up with our own ideas, but we can't really know anything more than the fact he was a priest that Abraham payed tithes too..as well as the rest of the things i've put up about what the bible actually says.
 
O

oncemore

Guest
#31
YEAH VERY SORRY FOR MY IDEA!

THATS THIS PERSON THAT THE FATHER OF FAITH PAY HIS TITHES TO MADE HASTED MAKE FOOD FOR WAS EOLHIM AND IT DOES SAY IN YOUR BIBLE THAT ABRAHAM CALLED HIM LORD! CHECK WHAT THAT MEANs I BEG YOU TO DO that FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR SOUL! IF I TELL WHAT THAT MEANS YOU MAY SAY THATS MY IDEA. BUT IF NOT AND YOU ARE SEEKING THE LORD! CHECK IN THE GREEK THAT WORD LORD MEANS THEN COME BACK MAY THE LORD SPEAK TO YOUR HEART IN THIS LATE HOUR.
 
Jul 30, 2010
882
4
0
#32
Thank you AnandaHya! I have still yet to figure out where people are getting the idea that he was any of the other things listed (Jesus, Word of God, or an angel) when it says nothing of the sort
It seems that is much adding of ideas to this..when it is never mentioned
We may be able to guess and come up with our own ideas, but we can't really know anything more than the fact he was a priest that Abraham payed tithes too..as well as the rest of the things i've put up about what the bible actually says.
Yes, but he was a high priest without beginning and without end. No mother or father. No beginning of life and no end. He just appeared out of no-where and was a king. But Jerusalem, the city was not yet formed, so he was the king of who? He has no population to rule over. He then vanishes.....

His title is the King of Peace & Righteousness. Who does this title belong to? Can you think of anyone?

If Jesus was the first, and the last, and he is coming back to reclaim his place in Salem (JeruSALEM) then wouldn't you say he was that FIRST one there and will return to be the LAST to rule from Jerusalem. The scriptures will be fulfilled then. Jesus is not coming to take another ones throne, like King david, he is reclaiming his own throne. What belongs to him.

Is there any high priest besides Jesus?

Do you know what being translated means? It is not born, it just changes form.
 

musiclover123

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2009
133
0
16
31
#33
Actually, as I've shown before, it seems that the name actually transfers to 'righteousness is my king'. This is only from what I've found, it could be incorrect.

And I'll say once again..what says that Melchizedek didn't have an end? Just because his birth isn't mentioned doesn't mean he doesn't have a beginning.

I also pointed out that it's been passed through Hebrew tradition that this was Shem, Melchizedek being his title while in position.
I consider that to be far more likely, considering the Jews did take great care to keep the OT scriptures, and their meaning, in tact throughout all the time they had it.
 

musiclover123

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2009
133
0
16
31
#34
I would also like to point out that I cannot find a single verse where Abram called Melchizedek Lord. I see where he tells Melchizedek that instead of taking spoils of war, he would give them up to God. This is when Abram tithed to Melchizedek, as he was a priest of God.
 
Jul 30, 2010
882
4
0
#35
I would also like to point out that I cannot find a single verse where Abram called Melchizedek Lord. I see where he tells Melchizedek that instead of taking spoils of war, he would give them up to God. This is when Abram tithed to Melchizedek, as he was a priest of God.
[/QUOTE]Yes, correct you wont find it. I think that one there was for us to work out. Remember Jesus is the preeminence of everything. The first. No one else gets this title, King of Peace and righteousness. No one.
 
Feb 14, 2011
1,783
4
0
#36
It's a really good thing nobody takes time to read the post that actually explain who Melchizedek was.
Just because Jesus was compared to Melchizedek in the book of Hebrews does not mean Melchizedek was Jesus.
It is far more likely that Melchizedek was actually Shem, the son of Noah, which is something held in Jewish tradition as true.

Yes Jesus was after the order of Melchizedek. This is only showing that in the same way the order of Melchizedek was higher than the Aaronic order and priesthood, Jesus was higher than the Aaronic order as well, which included the law.

SO. WHO IS HE?
 
O

oncemore

Guest
#37
THIS IS MY WHITE FLAG!

I DID NOT REPLY TO THIS THREAD TO PROVE ANYTHING. ITS JUST THAT I SEE THIS GREAT PERSON OF ( GOD. LORD.EOLHIM) ALL OVER THE BIBLE. I CAN SEE HIM AS FOURTH MAN WITH THE HERBREW CHILDERN I SEE HIM ON JOSHUA AS THE CAPTAIN. I SEE HIM ON DAVID AS THE ANIONTED. I SEE HIM ON JOB I HAVE HEARD OF THEE BY THE HEARING OF EAR BUT NOW MY EYES SEE THEE. AND SAMSON I CAN SEE HIM THERE OH LORD JUST ONCEMORE ONCEMORE LORD JUST ONCEMORE I PRAY THEE STRENGTHEN ME I PRAY THEE. YOU DON T HAVE TO SEE IT LIKE THAT. GOD BLESS.
 

musiclover123

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2009
133
0
16
31
#38
I don't disagree that he is a type of Christ, a representation of Him from the OT. My only disagreement was with people saying he was Christ. There is no solid evidence for it.

Who he was, as far as we can actually tell, is stated quite clearly.

A priest of the mos high God, to whom Abram payed tithed before tithes were required. Not of the Aaronic priesthood for High Priest, but before, and above it. A representation of what was to come as many things in the OT were.

And then we find that Jesus was what to come. He followed after the neverending order of Melchizedek.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#39
I don't disagree that he is a type of Christ, a representation of Him from the OT. My only disagreement was with people saying he was Christ. There is no solid evidence for it.

Who he was, as far as we can actually tell, is stated quite clearly.

A priest of the mos high God, to whom Abram payed tithed before tithes were required. Not of the Aaronic priesthood for High Priest, but before, and above it. A representation of what was to come as many things in the OT were.

And then we find that Jesus was what to come. He followed after the neverending order of Melchizedek.
I agree, Christ is not Melchizedek. Melchizedek is a representative of Christ however. And Hebrews lays this out.

1. Melchizedek was king of Salem (which later became known as Jerusalem) As Christ will be king when he comes and establishes his kingdom on Earth on David's throne.

2. Melchizedek had no beginning or End. As Christ did not.

etc etc.

Abraham did not see Melchizedek as God, or son of man, or an angel of God. He saw him as a king. We should not try to make Melchizedek something he is not.
 
Mar 22, 2011
386
1
0
#40
I don't disagree that he is a type of Christ, a representation of Him from the OT. My only disagreement was with people saying he was Christ. There is no solid evidence for it.

Who he was, as far as we can actually tell, is stated quite clearly.

A priest of the mos high God, to whom Abram payed tithed before tithes were required. Not of the Aaronic priesthood for High Priest, but before, and above it. A representation of what was to come as many things in the OT were.

And then we find that Jesus was what to come. He followed after the neverending order of Melchizedek.
SOLID EVIDENCE. ITS WRITTEN THATS THE EVIDENCE. ARE YOU BLIND? WHERE IS YOUR FAITH?