who is Melchizedek?

[nebula]

"Truly, ou ha

Massorite, think about this a bit, ok?

Was Jesus born twice? Or did He go back in time? Or did He incarnate Himself without a birth?

Did He live forever? Or did He die? How did He become king of a city then cease to be king? Why did He only rule a city?

Seriously, to make the claim you are making, you have to factor in what was going on...how He came, why He came, where did He go?

Or you consider what Mcgyver said: "A passing familiarity with what is know as the "Rabbinical form of argument" (for this book is written to the Hebrews by one who is obviously a trained rabbinical scholar) **I think** will show that the author is presenting Melchizedek in the manner of a "typology" in presenting Jesus as King and High Priest."

This fits a whole lot better with the rest of Scripture. The interpretation you gave creates a whole lot of puzzles and confusion.

Ok these are good questions and I always abide by what scripture says and the scriptures say that God is the Father, The Son , and the Holy Spirit and all three are one but seperate at the same time.

Now if Jesus is the Word of God and we know from scripture that the Word is God, then Jesus has lived since before the foundations of the world, which is also what scripture says. Which mean that Jesus was alive and kicking long before Abraham was born and the bible says that both Jesus and Mel have no beginning of days and that they also will live for ever, and that both of them are discribed in the word of God as being the Prince of Righteousness. Then we are talking about a malfunction in the word of God because they both can't be the same Prince of Righteousness who has always been and who will live forever. Right? Because that would mean that we would have two Princes of Righteousness who will both live forever. Unless of course they are one and the same being, and we all know that in the end Jesus will be the King of Jerusalem (just like the word of God says that Melchizedek was the King of Jerusalem) and we all know there can be only one King of Jerusalem. Right?

Now while it is true that Jesus/the word became flesh and then died on the cross to pay for all of our sins, it doesn't change that fact that Jesus was God in the Flesh. What was it that Jesus said to Peter after Peter cut off the servents ear "Do you not think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more then twelve legions of angels?"

So with that in mind I ask you. What human can call angels down from heaven to fight for them?

The fact that God/Jesus became flesh was his choice. He didn't have to do it and becoming flesh for us because He loves us doesn't or didn't change the fact that He was the All Mighty, All powerful, One and only Living God who Loves us so much that He became flesh and died as an example for us to follow after and to wash our sins away and guess what? He was still God while He was suffering on the Cross.

And now He sits at the throne at the right hand of God and that is where He went.

So is that enough factoring in for you? Because unless some one can show scripture that says the opposite of what I know scripture has already shown me, I will stand by what I have read in the word of God.

Why is it that it is so simple and believable to me and so hard for others to grasp? God is God and He can do what ever He wants to. He can appear to Abraham as Melchizedek and He can appear to Abraham as three men up on a hill, He can appear as Jesus in the flesh and He can appear as Jesus on the cross and He can appear as Jesus in His glorified body after His Death in the flesh. But actually He never died did He? Because God can't die, He lives for ever and ever. Right? Only the flesh died on the cross.

"Truly you have a dizzying intellect."

No, if Jesus has always been walking the earth as a man, then the his birth (rebirth?) through Mary is . . . pointless.

[Massorite]

But, can he, Melchizedek, be human and Christ who is God be after the order of Melchizedek a human? Why not the Levitical order if human? A known unknown if there ever was one!!

There is nothing in scripture that says that Melchizedek was human and that is where I think a lot of folks make a mistake. They assume without scriptural proof that Melchizedek was human.

[Massorite]

"Truly, ou ha

Massorite, think about this a bit, ok?

Was Jesus born twice? Or did He go back in time? Or did He incarnate Himself without a birth?

Did He live forever? Or did He die? How did He become king of a city then cease to be king? Why did He only rule a city?

Seriously, to make the claim you are making, you have to factor in what was going on...how He came, why He came, where did He go?

Or you consider what Mcgyver said: "A passing familiarity with what is know as the "Rabbinical form of argument" (for this book is written to the Hebrews by one who is obviously a trained rabbinical scholar) **I think** will show that the author is presenting Melchizedek in the manner of a "typology" in presenting Jesus as King and High Priest."

This fits a whole lot better with the rest of Scripture. The interpretation you gave creates a whole lot of puzzles and confusion.

Ok these are good questions and I always abide by what scripture says and the scriptures say that God is the Father, The Son , and the Holy Spirit and all three are one but seperate at the same time.

Now if Jesus is the Word of God and we know from scripture that the Word is God, then Jesus has lived since before the foundations of the world, which is also what scripture says. Which mean that Jesus was alive and kicking long before Abraham was born and the bible says that both Jesus and Mel have no beginning of days and that they also will live for ever, and that both of them are discribed in the word of God as being the Prince of Righteousness. Then we are talking about a malfunction in the word of God because they both can't be the same Prince of Righteousness who has always been and who will live forever. Right? Because that would mean that we would have two Princes of Righteousness who will both live forever. Unless of course they are one and the same being, and we all know that in the end Jesus will be the King of Jerusalem (just like the word of God says that Melchizedek was the King of Jerusalem) and we all know there can be only one King of Jerusalem. Right?

Now while it is true that Jesus/the word became flesh and then died on the cross to pay for all of our sins, it doesn't change that fact that Jesus was God in the Flesh. What was it that Jesus said to Peter after Peter cut off the servents ear "Do you not think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more then twelve legions of angels?"

So with that in mind I ask you. What human can call angels down from heaven to fight for them?

The fact that God/Jesus became flesh was his choice. He didn't have to do it and becoming flesh for us because He loves us doesn't or didn't change the fact that He was the All Mighty, All powerful, One and only Living God who Loves us so much that He became flesh and died as an example for us to follow after and to wash our sins away and guess what? He was still God while He was suffering on the Cross.

And now He sits at the throne at the right hand of God and that is where He went.

So is that enough factoring in for you? Because unless some one can show scripture that says the opposite of what I know scripture has already shown me, I will stand by what I have read in the word of God.

Why is it that it is so simple and believable to me and so hard for others to grasp? God is God and He can do what ever He wants to. He can appear to Abraham as Melchizedek and He can appear to Abraham as three men up on a hill, He can appear as Jesus in the flesh and He can appear as Jesus on the cross and He can appear as Jesus in His glorified body after His Death in the flesh. But actually He never died did He? Because God can't die, He lives for ever and ever. Right? Only the flesh died on the cross.

"Truly you have a dizzying intellect."

No, if Jesus has always been walking the earth as a man, then the his birth (rebirth?) through Mary is . . . pointless.

Yeeeees my point exactly. Until the word became flesh, Jesus walked this earth in what ever kind of body God gave him to walk on this earth with. There is no scriptural proof that Melchizedek was human at all so to assume that he was human is to assume that which is not written in the bible and there for wrong. Did you know that God has a butt? Just like we do?

[He giveth more grace]

Yeeeees my point exactly. Until the word became flesh, Jesus walked this earth in what ever kind of body God gave him to walk on this earth with. There is no scriptural proof that Melchizedek was human at all so to assume that he was human is to assume that which is not written in the bible and there for wrong. Did you know that God has a butt? Just like we do?

[i'm just kidding]Where do you get this stuff, a comic book?[i'm just kidding?] But serious, Christ walked the earth in multiple forms? God has a buttock? Getting real personal with your Maker, aren't you.

[Massorite]

The name "Melchizedek, means "The Prince/King of Righteousness or The Prince/King of Peace/Salem. In the book of Hebrews chapter 7 in verse 1 it says the Melchizedek, is the priest of the Most High God, In verse 3 it says that Melchizedek is without Father or Mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of days of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

So what can we groom from all of this information?

#1. First of all there is only one King of Righteous and his name is Jesus Christ.

#2. We know from the word of God that Melchizedek did not have a Father or a Mother or any relatives, Which means that He was not concieved like you and I were, He was created by God without using a humasn to do it.

#3. He has no beginning of days and no ending of life, which means that He has always been and will live forever, is still alive even from the days of Abraham and will never die. And to this very day still remains the Priest to the Most High God.

And lastly, when we give our money up on Sunday or any other day, who are we giving it to? Non other than the Most High God. The word of God says that "if you have seen me you have seen the Father. (Words of Jesus Christ) So who was it that Abraham gave a tenth of all he took from the kings who took his brother.

The Conclusion?

Melchizedek was Jesus Christ who was created by God, who has alway been and always will be, who is God incarnate as we know him, who is and always has been the one and only King of Righteousness, who is and always will be the King of the city of Jerusalem which is the city of Peace, who is and always will be the Priest to the Most High God.

A lot of people have trouble with this bit of truth but what the hay. I am not the paper boy, all I did was research the scriptures given to all us about Melchizedek and the bible says what it says. Who am I to argue with what the word of God says?

I must respectfully disagree with the conclusion...

A passing familiarity with what is know as the "Rabbinical form of argument" (for this book is written to the Hebrews by one who is obviously a trained rabbinical scholar) **I think** will show that the author is presenting Melchizedek in the manner of a "typology" in presenting Jesus as King and High Priest.

In all of scripture for example, aside from Jesus there is only one figure who is both a king and a priest...and that is Melchizedek. Vs 17 serves to show that Jesus is both Priest and King after the order of Melchizedek.

I believe that Vs 3 which says: without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

Merely refers to the fact that there is no genealogy recorded, and as there is no record of his death...he remains a priest...once again a typology.

I'd point out that Jesus has a genealogy, and this genealogy is extremely important within a Jewish context in showing that Jesus is Messiah...His genealogy is recorded in all the synoptic gospels. Perhaps this is the reason that the genealogy of Melchizedek is omitted, but that's just a guess...

So...I don't think that this was an example of a Theophany (or Christophany as it is known today), but rather an example of a man who was used as a type, or foreshadowing of the role of Messiah.

JMO

You should be arguing with God and not me, because I didn't write what the word of God says about Melchizedek. God did, however if you can prove me wrong by using scripture alone then I would gladly reconsider my conclusions

You based your conclusions on this - Theophany (or Christophany as it is known today) and Jewish context which do more to confuse those who are uneducated in context and Christophany, which are some 99% of the people who read the word of God. Any body who has at the least a rudimentry education can read and understand the bible because that is how simple God has made it to read. But folks like you add confusion to that which God has made simple and you know who the author of confusion is right? Satan is the author of confusion.

As for your assertion that Jesus had some geneology, we should remember the the word of God says that God simply spoke and the word became flesh. It had nothing to do with the sperm and the egg binding together like when we were concieved, and the blood line of Jesse was only extended to Mary and not Joseph. Even Jesus himself said "I have no family" when the people around him thaqt his family was looking for him and he didn't go to them, did he?

Setting aside for a moment the accusation that you have made that I add confusion and the inference that somehow I am in league with Satan, let me clarify how I arrive at my conclusions.

In any issue, in any theological point, in any question: I attempt to study diligently and "rightly divide" the word of truth. In this approach, I always endeavor to use the WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD, from Genesis through Revelation. The reason is obvious: Anyone can take scripture out of context...a passage here and a passage there...and weave any theology that they wish and any doctrine that pleases them. Now admittedly I am not always as successful as I would like, but I would never accuse someone else of sowing confusion simply because they have a different answer than I.

I have found the Bible to be its own best commentary, serving to enlighten rather than obscure.

So then, shall we take a look at theophanies in the OT and compare them against Melchizedek? Why not...

In the OT God appears in visions (Gen 15:1-21, Isaiah 6 et.al.), in dreams (Gen 20:3-7 et.al) and physically as: THE Angel of the Lord (Ex 3:2-6), The Lord (Gen 18), Commander of the Lord's Army (Josh 5:14-15), etc.

In every instance, bar none...God reveals Himself as God without question...the people to whom He appeared knew and confessed He was the Lord. Worship was given and received.

None of this is seen with Melchizedek. No worship, no revelation as God, nothing.

Item 2: Nowhere does God appear either as the king of a city, or a priest of...well...God. The role of a priest is to stand between man and God and offer petitions etc. on one's behalf. God in appearing to an individual has no need for a priest, because that individual is in the very presence of God.

God appearing as a priest to Himself? Not in the OT scriptures.

It is also not in the scriptures that God spoke Jesus into the flesh...that is waaayyy off in left field. What is written is John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

And again: But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law Gal:4-4

There was no insult intended but I did speak my mind and I truly believe that I am 100% right.

It seems that people like you miss so much when you make it so complicated to understand scripture and I have also found that people like you never learn how to do anything different.

1. In EXODUS 33:22 God did appear to Moses as God but God did not allow Moses to see his face. God allowed Moses to see his backside. Which means that if we are made in the image of God then God has a butt like we do.

I do not give the "Rabbinical form of argument" any power because they are not always accurate. On this subject and according to you they say that Melchizedek was a typology of Jesus and indeed the bible is full of typology. however there no scriptural proof that Melchizedek as human and infact scripture tells us that Mechizedek will live for ever which means that his body is not corrupted and not limited by death as humans are. However if you stick to what the Rabbi's say then Melchizedek was human and therefore would have to die because Why? Because it is given to every human/man to die once. Isn't that what the word of God says? Hebrew 9:27. So where is the record of the death of Melchizedek?

Another reason I give no power to any Rabbinical argument is because for the most part they have the worng mind set. Is this a Rabbi who belives in Jesus or not. I can't reseach this Rabbi because you don't tell us who the source of these statments are. So quoting Ribbinical aurguments without telling us who the Rabbi was is useless. It gives us nothing.

"I believe that Vs 3 which says: without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually Merely refers to the fact that there is no genealogy recorded, and as there is no record of his death...he remains a priest...once again a typology."

Not only that but this so called argument minipulates the verse. It comes up with a lame argument about the Geneology and says nothing about the fact that the same verse say that Melchizedec had no beginning of days and no end of life. So where are the Ribbiniacl arguments for these statments. Only a self blinded Rabbi would not see that if Melchizedek had no beginning of days that there would not be a Father or a Mother recorded in the first place and where does that put you when you are falling in right behind him. It is Garantied that this Rabbi does not believe in Jesus and therefore has the wrong frame of mind when creating arguement.

You wrote "I have found the Bible to be its own best commentary, serving to enlighten rather than obscure." Well good then I would suggest that you do just that instead of quoting Rabbinical Arguements that are missleading.

You wrote "None (WORSHIP) of this is seen with Melchizedek. No worship, no revelation as God, nothing. WRONG AGAIN, Giving a tenth of our first fruits is worshipping God and we are instructed by God to do so as a form of worship. The scriptures are too many to quote.

You wrote "It is also not in the scriptures that God spoke Jesus into the flesh...that is waaayyy off in left field. What is written is John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory,the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Ok you got me there. Guess I got a bit over zealous.

[Massorite]

Yeeeees my point exactly. Until the word became flesh, Jesus walked this earth in what ever kind of body God gave him to walk on this earth with. There is no scriptural proof that Melchizedek was human at all so to assume that he was human is to assume that which is not written in the bible and there for wrong. Did you know that God has a butt? Just like we do?

[i'm just kidding]Where do you get this stuff, a comic book?[i'm just kidding?] But serious, Christ walked the earth in multiple forms? God has a buttock? Getting real personal with your Maker, aren't you.

Exodus 33:22 &23 So it shall be , while My glory passes by that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. Then I will take away My hand and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.

So if God has a hand and we and God have the same image wouldn,t God have a butt also? LOL

Gen 18:1-3 Then the LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day.

So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw

them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground,

and said, "My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight, do not pass on by Your servant.

"The the Lord appeared to him"- Singular

"and behold, three men were standing by him"- Plural

"My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight" - Singular

The three men are the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. Read all of chapter 18 and you will find that even though there were three men the only one who spoke was God. Can you imagine all three men speaking all at the same time?

Yes! I am getting as personnal with my maker as His word allows. Alot of people think I am nuts when I say what I say but it comes straight from the mouth of God.

[Sevenseas]

Alot of people think I am nuts when I say what I say but it comes straight from the mouth of God.

Honestly...you can't make this kind of stuff up.

[Sevenseas]

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only

begotten

of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only

begotten

Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only

begotten

Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because

he hath not believed in the name of the only

begotten

Son of God.

1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only

begotten

Son into the world, that we might live through him.

The Bible reveals God has other sons. For example, believers in Jesus are called the sons of God but through adoption. Adam was called the son of God. God gave the angels the title of the sons of God. Israelbecame God’s son, and Solomon sat on the throne of Israel as the son of God. However, the Lord Jesus remains distinguished from all these sons of God. He is singular and unique as the only begotten Son of God with the Father from eternity. He has a different relationship with the Father. Any tampering with the Lord as the only begotten Son of God would just make Him one of many sons of God in the Bible. A verse to show this follows:

Galatians 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (6) And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

BEGOTTEN NOT CREATED. Begotten means to father

Ohhh please give me a break. Did God come down and have sex with Mary?

You certainly do have a way with words. I don't issue breaks; I imagine you are offered them quite regularly considering your

gentle and helpful posting style.

Interesting disregard for scripture you appear to have....I didn't make up that word. One wonders how you might actually

address God.

Yeeeees my point exactly. Until the word became flesh, Jesus walked this earth in what ever kind of body God gave him to walk on this earth with. There is no scriptural proof that Melchizedek was human at all so to assume that he was human is to assume that which is not written in the bible and there for wrong. Did you know that God has a butt? Just like we do?

What there is actually no scriptural proof for, is your crude attempt at trying to prove Jesus was Melchizedeck...one thing to postulate

a theory, another to basically cut down, be rude and just plain nasty in an attempt to bully others out of this thread so you can have

the ...oh I don't know........last word?

[*Zion*]

But, can he, Melchizedek, be human and Christ who is God be after the order of Melchizedek a human? Why not the Levitical order if human? A known unknown if there ever was one!!

made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

Made like, not is.

Blessings.

[Massorite]

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only

begotten

of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only

begotten

Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only

begotten

Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because

he hath not believed in the name of the only

begotten

Son of God.

1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only

begotten

Son into the world, that we might live through him.

The Bible reveals God has other sons. For example, believers in Jesus are called the sons of God but through adoption. Adam was called the son of God. God gave the angels the title of the sons of God. Israelbecame God’s son, and Solomon sat on the throne of Israel as the son of God. However, the Lord Jesus remains distinguished from all these sons of God. He is singular and unique as the only begotten Son of God with the Father from eternity. He has a different relationship with the Father. Any tampering with the Lord as the only begotten Son of God would just make Him one of many sons of God in the Bible. A verse to show this follows:

Galatians 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (6) And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

BEGOTTEN NOT CREATED. Begotten means to father

Ohhh please give me a break. Did God come down and have sex with Mary?

You certainly do have a way with words. I don't issue breaks; I imagine you are offered them quite regularly considering your

gentle and helpful posting style.

Interesting disregard for scripture you appear to have....I didn't make up that word. One wonders how you might actually

address God.

I agree about the other sons of God both created and born of a woman, but we are not talking about them are we. We are talking about Melchizedek and we are not talking about wether or not he was a son. We are talking about wether or not he was human or not. Wether he was Jesus or not. The other sons of God are a side issue and have nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

So you have chosen not to answer my question? Is that it? Or is it because you don't have an answer because the word "begotten" in verses talking about Jesus do not speak of a "human" geneology?

Ok lets try again. According to the Strongs # 3439 the word "begotten" when ever the bible is taking about the only begotten Son of God simply means "only born" and has nothing to do with geneology.

However the Strong's numbers for all other uses of the word "begotten" are # 3205, #4138, #3318 in the Hebrew and the # 3205 has many meanings which can be pointed at anything including "only Son"

The Strongs numbers for "begotten" in the Greek are # 1080, #318, #446 and the #3439 which means "Only born". All of the other uses of the word "Begotten" are speaking of Geneology with a father and a mother who came together and the mother concieved of a child, and since the Father was God there is no geneology past God himself. So it looks like to me that you have interpreted the word "begotten" with regards to the statment of God "My only Begotten Son" wrongly

If you think I have disregaded scripture please don't be afraid to tell me what scripture you are talking about. Go ahead I can take it.

Thank you for your compliments. I am tough on those make claims without knowledge and I do tell it like I see it. No insults intended.