Mark777

Here is a link that I found that explains the "Argument from Silence" theory about Melchizedek. http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/melchiz.htm I don't buy it at all. I think it is slight of hand in the linguistical sense. But it is the most accepted scholarly position. You will learn from it that at Qunran they found some gnostic fragments about Melchizedek - which point to a gnostic belief that he was Christ. Mark

OC, That is not the right attitude to have when doing research. The authors opinion is secondary to the source information. Use it to find other pertinent source documents. Take things with a grain of salt until you develop a complete historical picture. Mark

Here is a link to a list of historical documents that refer to Melchizedek: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/med_melchizedek.html I am going to search the church fathers. I will be a while doing it. Mark

OC, You will like this. The Commentary on Genesis by John Calvin agrees largely with you. I am wondering if anyone knows a church father that thought Melchizedek was Christ? Well anyway here is the section on Melchizedek by Calvin: ------------------------------------------------------- And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth. This is the last of the three principal points of this history, that Melchizedek, the chief father of the Church, having entertained Abram at a feast, blessed him, in virtue of his priesthood, and received tithes from him. There is no doubt that by the coming of this king to meet him, God also designed to render the victory of Abram famous and memorable to posterity. But a more exalted and excellent mystery was, at the same time, adumbrated: for seeing that the holy patriarch, whom God had raised to the highest rank of honor, submitted himself to Melchizedek, it is not to be doubted that God had constituted him the only head of the whole Church; F360 for, without controversy, the solemn act of benediction, which Melchizedek assumed to himself, was a symbol of preeminent dignity. If any one replies, that he did this as a priest; I ask, was not Abram also a priest? Therefore God here commends to us something peculiar in Melchizedek, in preferring him before the father of all the faithful. But it will be more satisfactory to examine the passage word by word, in regular order, that we may thence better gather the import of the whole. That he received Abram and his companions as guests belonged to his royalty; but the benediction pertained especially to his sacerdotal office. Therefore, the words of Moses ought to be thus connected: Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and seeing he was the priest of God, he blessed Abram; thus to each character is distinctly attributed what is its own. He refreshed a wearied and famishing army with royal liberality; but because he was a priest, he blessed, by the rite of solemn prayer, the firstborn son of God, and the father of the Church. Moreover, although I do not deny that it was the most ancient custom, for those who were kings to fulfill also the office of the priesthood; yet this appears to have been, even in that age, extraordinary in Melchizedek. And truly he is honored with no common eulogy, when the Spirit ratifies his priesthood. We know how, at that time, religion was everywhere corrupted since Abram himself, who was descended from the sacred race of Shem and Eber, had been plunged in the profound vortex of superstitions with his father and grandfather. Therefore many imagine Melchizedek to have been Shem; to whose opinion I am, for many reasons, hindered from subscribing. For the Lord would not have designated a man, worthy of eternal memory, by a name so new and obscure, that he must remain unknown. Secondly, it is not probable that Shem had migrated from the east into Judea; and nothing of the kind is to be gathered from Moses. Thirdly, if Shem had dwelt in the land of Canaan, Abram would not have wandered by such winding courses, as Moses has previously related, before he went to salute his ancestor. But the declaration of the Apostle is of the greatest weight; that this Melchizedek, whoever he was, is presented before us, without any origin, as if he had dropped from the clouds, and that his name is buried without any mention of his death. (<580703>Hebrews 7:3.) But the admirable grace of God shines more clearly in a person unknown; because, amid the corruptions of the world, he alone, in that land, was an upright and sincere cultivator and guardian of religion. I omit the absurdities which Jerome, in his Epistle to Evagrius, heaps together; lest, without any advantage, I should become troublesome, and even offensive to the reader. I readily believe that Salem is to be taken for Jerusalem; and this is the generally received interpretation. If, however, any one chooses rather to embrace a contrary opinion, seeing that the town was situated in a plain, I do not oppose it. On this point Jerome thinks differently: nevertheless, what he elsewhere relates, that in his own times some vestiges of the palace of Melchizedek were still extant in the ancient ruins, appears to me improbable. It now remains to be seen how Melchizedek bore the image of Christ, and became, as it were, his representative, ajnti>tupov (avtitupos. F361) These are the words of David,

Here is a link to an article about Melchizedek on Wikipedia online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek After surveying online resources, I think it is generally believed that Salem was ancient Jerusalem. And OC, I think it is generally held by Rabbinical sources that Melchizedek had an actual kingdom. I will keep on looking. Mark

Hi OC, Thanks for the time spent answering me! I haven't had the time to research it yet but I think that Salem was ancient Jerusalem. It was a spiritual center of that area. Give me time and I will see if I can verify that. Melchizedek COULD have been Christ and His kingdom could have been the eternal one that He is King of. If Salem is Jerusalem then it is God's Eternal city. It could have been protected by its unimportance to other kings. Who knows how Melchizedek used the tithe of Abraham. Maybe He dispersed it or built and developed the city of Salem. This is all conjecture, I know. It could have been exactly how you have described it. (thank you for the work you did on it.) I still wonder about the statement about Melchizedek in Hebrews - "without parent and without beginning of days or end of life. I have read where this is explained by saying that God made Melchizedek's geneology obscure to style him as a Christ type figure. I do not accept this explanation though. Why would God make someone look like Christ - who really wasn't? Mark

Then I am a devil. And if it is any other way other than OSAS - I'm not good enough to attain salvation or keep it. I think I will stick with OSAS, though. I might be a devil but I am a secure one. Mark

Leonard, Could you direct me to that passage in the Talmud? Maybe an online link? Mark

Who cares about all this crap!! Lets talk about all things God. There isn't enough time in life to cover it all and this stuff is a waste. EGO EGO EGO!!! Be the first to stop it or ignore mean spirited stuff. I am going to step up and try to start a trend - here goes - I am not important enough to treat others badly. I may disagree with them - I may get hacked off - I may debate until I am blue in the face - but I will not personally offend my brother or sister in Christ. What we should go back to is the point where germanjoy and st. worm left off but without the meanness. Mark

st. Worm: "There have been numerous instances of name calling directed at me but apparently you have no problem with that." Mark777: I have a hard time with that statement seeing it is from a person that I have to refer to as a worm!! OK, all you authority lovers!! I will keep my criticisms to myself - lock away!

Ovedya, I'm for that. Its just that so many times the discussion really gets going and then - LOCK! And any time I get out of line just tells me to SHUT UP!!! Mark

Ovedya, Christ wasn't always friendly. Maybe the moderators could fashion a whip and beat some sense into the insulters. It just might work. I think a discussion forum needs to be as open as possible for the discussion to be a honest one. A possibility could be that you edit the offender's post and warn them that banning could be possible. Germanjoy's comments were hardly insulting and while st. worm is a master at "the phrase" I am sure if properly dealt with he would tone it down. I also think that a thread with a problem should be looked at for content before it is shut down. If it is just some baseless pointless thing then maybe lock it. but if a good discussion is being had and the participants are getting out of hand - maybe locking it isn't the way to go. Being Christ friendly might involve being a little patient and fatherly in rebuke. Mark

So, I agree, but now define "the body of Christ". Thanks Mark

See, I'm being abused! No seriously, Passion is good - name calling BAD!!!(wags finger.) And Micen, I have a triunity of opinion about you but I will refrain from disclosing it!!! [Now, back to you regular scheduled program..........]

Thanks for answering. I understand that it is time consuming to moderate - but it is still irritating to be punished along with the "evil doers". (Just Joking.) Being user friendly should be part of the concern. Hey Micen, long time no disagree!! Mark

To whomever, Why is it that the solution to people getting irritated with each other is to close the thread? Why can't you delete the offenders or publicly warn them and threaten to ban them. But also, passion is good in a discussion. Name calling is easily rebuked and if the person persists ban them for a while. Stopping threads that are getting somewhere just because someone can't control themselves is irritating. Punish them not the rest of us. Personally, I found germanjoy's argument interesting and would have liked to discuss it further with other participation. I guess what I am trying to say is that I think this board is too sensitive and the solutions arrived at are not user friendly. Mark

Juan, Maybe you should just let it go at - God draws whom He will and trust Him. Read the rest of my post, which said, "... Also, witnessing doesn't always save - it sometimes condemns the listener when they reject the gospel." Don't trap yourself into historical arguments - they are very limiting. Take the scriptures and think about them directly. How ever God sorts us out, we know: He demands our participation, He does the saving, and we cannot approach Him until we are draw to Him. It might be that He allows the possibility that all men can be drawn to Him - I believe that. Mark

Juan, God didn't leave it up to us - He just asks us to participate. No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them. Also, witnessing doesn't always save - it sometimes condemns the listener when they reject the gospel. Mark

Keith, Look back a few pages for a thread called "Once Saved Always Saved". It covers a lot of territory - 92 pages. Mark

Yea AK, I don't think God uses proxies! Mark

Psalms 24:7-10: " Lift up your heads, O ye gates; And be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors: And the King of glory will come in. Who is the King of glory? Jehovah strong and mighty, Jehovah mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O ye gates; Yea, lift them up, ye everlasting doors: And the King of glory will come in. Who is this King of glory? Jehovah of hosts, He is the King of glory."

Shepherdgrace, That was cool! I do not have that book by Walvoord but I have his Revelation commentary - which is well written. Mark

Here are three prophecies that were fulfilled. Each can be historically studied and verified. Each has a clear text and is detailed. Anyone, feel free to add other fulfilled prophecies. 1. : The return of the Jews to the land of Israel The prophecy - Jeremiah 31: 4-12: "Again I will build you and you will be rebuilt, O virgin of Israel! Again you will take up your tambourines, And go forth to the dances of the merrymakers. Again you will plant vineyards on the hills of Samaria; The planters will plant And will enjoy them. For there will be a day when watchmen on the hills of Ephraim call out, Arise, and let us go up to Zion, To the LORD our God. For thus says the LORD, Sing aloud with gladness for Jacob, And shout among the chief of the nations; Proclaim, give praise and say, O LORD, save Your people, The remnant of Israel. Behold, I am bringing them from the north country, And I will gather them from the remote parts of the earth, Among them the blind and the lame, The woman with child and she who is in labor with child, together; A great company, they will return here. With weeping they will come, And by supplication I will lead them; I will make them walk by streams of waters, On a straight path in which they will not stumble; For I am a father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn. Hear the word of the LORD, O nations, And declare in the coast-lands afar off, And say, He who scattered Israel will gather him And keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock.. For the LORD has ransomed Jacob And redeemed him from the hand of him who was stronger than he. They will come and shout for joy on the height of Zion, And they will be radiant over the bounty of the LORD

Chris, Jesus "represented" the Father 100%. Jesus did not express the Father 100% because WE did not experience Jesus 100%. We only witnessed the human Jesus not the infinite Jesus. Mark

Chris, Are you referring to Jesus the Son when you say "word"? If so, you can only separate the Son from the Father for puposes of revelation. In substance, they are one and the same being. There is one God made up of three persons. You can witness the emphasis of each one but when you see one you see all three! I know, I know........ Mark