who is Melchizedek?

[Fez]

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.

You have proved by your words that it is you speaking, and not God. I cannot see God being sarcastic and making personal attacks.

Such as..

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

Hardly straight from the mouth of God?

[Massorite]

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.

You have proved by your words that it is you speaking, and not God. I cannot see God being sarcastic and making personal attacks.

Such as..

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

Hardly straight from the mouth of God?

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.

You have proved by your words that it is you speaking, and not God. I cannot see God being sarcastic and making personal attacks.

Such as..

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

Hardly straight from the mouth of God?

This Post is nothing more than a personal attack and has nothing to do with the discussion. If you can't particapate in the discussion I suggest you look for some place else to speak your imature insults on someone else who cares about your insults. I never said that I was God but I can say that God/Jesus insulted many of his creation with words. He called certain of his people a brood of vipors, told a woman she was equal to a dog, called his own diciple Satan and so on.

I won't be responding to anymore of this kind of garbage from you in the future.

[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!!

Yep...a lot of questions, for sure!

In all of scripture though, Melchizedek is the only person who was both a priest and a king...everyone else was one or the other, but not both. So...as I read it...Melchizedek's order would be a royal priesthood....unique and distinct in the OT.

As far as the Levitical order...this event took place way before the Levitical priesthood was established.

Bad Advice. According to Hebrew 7:3 Melchizedek is still a priest and is contiually a priest. Which means that his order is still alive and has never been changed or replaced by the order of the Levi priesthood. Melchizedek is still just what the bible says he is. The Priest of God Most High. Genesis 14:18. And who is the Priest of the Most High God and sits at the rihght Hand of God? Jesus

[He giveth more grace]

According to Hebrew 7:3 Melchizedek is still a priest and is continually a priest. Which means that his order is still alive and has never been changed or replaced by the order of the Levi priesthood. Melchizedek is still just what the bible says he is. The Priest of God Most High. Genesis 14:18. And who is the Priest of the Most High God and sits at the right Hand of God? Jesus

The resurrected Jesus was made a priest after the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews doesn't say Christ is Melchizedek. I won't be as dogmatic as you to say that he isn't Mel in the OT, that Hebrews doesn't imply that he is.

I need to tone down my rhetoric on this board, what about you.

[Massorite]

According to Hebrew 7:3 Melchizedek is still a priest and is continually a priest. Which means that his order is still alive and has never been changed or replaced by the order of the Levi priesthood. Melchizedek is still just what the bible says he is. The Priest of God Most High. Genesis 14:18. And who is the Priest of the Most High God and sits at the right Hand of God? Jesus

The resurrected Jesus was made a priest after the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews doesn't say Christ is Melchizedek. I won't be as dogmatic as you to say that he isn't Mel in the OT, that Hebrews doesn't imply that he is.

I need to tone down my rhetoric on this board, what about you.

I have been posting on this board since 2007 in the same way and fashion so no I do not need to tone down my rhetoric. Why Because there is nothing wrong with my rhetoric. Now there have been times in the past when a mod has warned me but that was way back when I was actually insulting people. There is a great difference between making personal insults and negitive statments of fact. I haven't called anybody names, I haven't used any bad language and I haven't compared anybody to anybody or anything else of a lower nature than we are so what is the problem? If you make statements that are not according to scripture I will tell you so and I will not give you a break. Why? Because what you say on this site can lead a new Christian astray and it is also what you would teach and if what you teach is wrong it is false teaching.

I haven't made any assumptions here and I haven't quoted any scripture wrong iether and in all of my replies I have done nothing but throw out scripture and I have never given my opinion based on my opinion alone. It has always been base on scripture.

So now lets get back to the subject at hand.

You said "he resurrected Jesus was made a priest after the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews doesn't say Christ is Melchizedek. I won't be as dogmatic as you to say that he isn't Mel in the OT, that Hebrews doesn't imply that he is." I agree that Hebrews doesn't imply that Jesus is Melchizedek but here is a question for you to explain to me.

If Melchizedek is a priest to God and His priesthood is to last forever and Jesus is also a priest to God and His priesthood is to last forever then way are there two of them?

Heb 7:17

For He testifies: "YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK." nkjv

Heb 7:17

For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. kjv

As you can see there are some differences in translations. The word "according" verses the word "After". The "after" in the KJV is speaking of "one after another" in the Thayer's. However the word "according" is not explained or associated with Hebrews 7:17

Now according Mosaic law, no one could aspire to the high priesthood unless he were of the tribe of Aaron and decended from the high priestly family; and he whom the office was conffered held it until death

So Mosaic law does not apply here for Jesus or Melchizedek because Mosaic law was made for humans and Melchizedec has never died and Jesus did not become a priest until after his death. So do we have two priest to God or one?

We do no that the definition of the word "according in the websters is "in harmony with or in agreement with"

When it comes to scripture I never deal with the realm of imply or seems to lead us to believe or could mean or anything that has associated with being vague. It is either clearly spoken or I do not intertain it. I am not afraid to admit that I am wrong but I need scriptural proof.

[Mcgyver]

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

I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the way you're going about it.

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.

As you don't even know me...that is quite presumptuous on your part. The only thing that you seem to be saying is that anyone who does not agree with you is some sort of idiot. I am well versed in the school of thought that says Melchizedek was an appearance of Christ in the OT...I have spoken with theologians who believe it...and have enjoyed discussing it with them...because they have been able to intelligently articulate and present their side without the overflow of self righteousness and vitriol that you have spewed in this thread.

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.

An interesting interpretation of scripture...Hmmmm

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 can only surmise that you are completely ignorant of what a form of rabbinical argument is. It is a STYLE of presentation common in Jewish theological writings...that's all...a style of writing. Period.

It uses a qal va-chomer, or a fortiori argument utilizing comparison, contrast, typology, and scripture to define and present a point. In the case of Hebrews, the superiority of Christ over all things because he is messiah.

If you're going to blow a gasket...at least know what you are blowing it over.

]"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.

Funny thing, that...the writer of Hebrews was obviously a Christian...establishing the superiority and primacy of Christ, so stating: It is Garantied that this Rabbi does not believe in Jesus and therefore has the wrong frame of mind when creating arguement. has got to rate among the most absurd statements ever made.

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.

In every case...bar none...when a Theophany occurs in the OT, whether by dream, vision, or physical appearance...God is revealed to the person He is visiting; or the person He is visiting recognizes and confesses He is God. Hagar who said You are the God who sees, Moses to whom God said: I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and Issac, and Jacob, Joshua when the man said: Take the shoes off your feet, for where you stand is holy.

Please point out for me...chapter and verse please, where Melchizidek either declares himself to be God, or where Abraham addresses him as "LORD", or where Abraham is told to take the shoes of his feet...point that out to me and I will change my position in a heartbeat.

You might also want to pick up a history book or two...because in those days it was common practice to give tribute to a friendly king when you passed through his country...so Abraham giving a portion to Melchizedek is nothing out of the ordinary, and does not mean that he was worshipping him. And I would also point out that the LEVITICAL LAW OF THE TITHE WAS NOT EVEN ESTABLISHED!

So you probably ought to heed your own admonition and do some more study yourself instead of telling everyone else how they ought to see things.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Mcgyver

[He giveth more grace]

The resurrected Jesus was made a priest after the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews doesn't say Christ is Melchizedek. I won't be as dogmatic as you to say that he isn't Mel in the OT, that Hebrews doesn't imply that he is.

I need to tone down my rhetoric on this board, what about you.

I have been posting on this board since 2007 in the same way and fashion so no I do not need to tone down my rhetoric. Why Because there is nothing wrong with my rhetoric. Now there have been times in the past when a mod has warned me but that was way back when I was actually insulting people. There is a great difference between making personal insults and negitive statments of fact. I haven't called anybody names, I haven't used any bad language and I haven't compared anybody to anybody or anything else of a lower nature than we are so what is the problem? If you make statements that are not according to scripture I will tell you so and I will not give you a break. Why? Because what you say on this site can lead a new Christian astray and it is also what you would teach and if what you teach is wrong it is false teaching.

I haven't made any assumptions here and I haven't quoted any scripture wrong either and in all of my replies I have done nothing but throw out scripture and I have never given my opinion based on my opinion alone. It has always been base on scripture.

It was the pot calling the kettle black, I apologize and ask your forgiveness. Sometimes, I get so tired being me, and I lack so much in my character, wisdom, spiritual growth, and Biblical understand. Sorry that I accused you when I hate to be accused.

[Guest]

According to Hebrew 7:3 Melchizedek is still a priest and is contiually a priest. Which means that his order is still alive and has never been changed or replaced by the order of the Levi priesthood. Melchizedek is still just what the bible says he is. The Priest of God Most High. Genesis 14:18. And who is the Priest of the Most High God and sits at the rihght Hand of God? Jesus

Amen To KING Jesus Our High Priest~!

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7:25

And As For Melchizedek king of Salem

And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.

And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion. Genesis 14:17-24

Well, You Decide

[Fez]

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.

You have proved by your words that it is you speaking, and not God. I cannot see God being sarcastic and making personal attacks.

Such as..

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

Hardly straight from the mouth of God?

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.

You have proved by your words that it is you speaking, and not God. I cannot see God being sarcastic and making personal attacks.

Such as..

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

Hardly straight from the mouth of God?

This Post is nothing more than a personal attack and has nothing to do with the discussion. If you can't particapate in the discussion I suggest you look for some place else to speak your imature insults on someone else who cares about your insults. I never said that I was God but I can say that God/Jesus insulted many of his creation with words. He called certain of his people a brood of vipors, told a woman she was equal to a dog, called his own diciple Satan and so on.

I won't be responding to anymore of this kind of garbage from you in the future.

You have implied that your words are put in your mouth by God have you not?

Please answer a simple yes or no.

I fail to see the attack here. I am simply asking you a question in response to your statement.

[Littlelambseativy]

Melch means King Tzedek means righteousness. I cannot say that he was human or that He was God. All I can say is that in the old testament God walked and talked with Adam and Eve - they saw Him? Abraham knew Him/Jesus and Jacob wrestled with Him. Can Jesus or God appear in human form if He wishes ? After the resurrection Jesus had human form as he did when He wrestled with Jacob - skin and bones yet could walk through walls and disappeared is this the form in heaven?. Who is our righteousness? Who is our High Priest in heaven? Was Jesus the Hight Priest of Heaven before He was born in human flesh? It was after He rose that God told Him to sit at His right hand. As I said before Rumsfelds remark fits accurately here. Too many 'Known unknowns' yet the interpretation is subject to the individual and his interpretation of the Bible and how he sees Jesus. Is it possible that Jesus was Melchizedek? Jesus said there is none righteous no not one. How then does this apply to Melchizedek who is called righteousness and God's High Priest?