raleigh Posted December 31, 2008 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 13 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/19/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/07/1971 Share Posted December 31, 2008 JESUS WAS MELCHIZEDEK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botz Posted December 31, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 76 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,492 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 191 Days Won: 18 Joined: 03/29/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted December 31, 2008 JESUS WAS MELCHIZEDEK Profound explanation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraught Posted December 31, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 105 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,741 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 28 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/30/1959 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Abram lived amongst these wicked people but was not among them if you get my drift. He was there, right there in that wicked land with those wicked peoples but he dwelt as a Traveller. It was his nephew who settled down right in Sodom though and then partook of the Judgement of God upon it. He was more than confederated with them he was living among and amongst them. He beheld the well watered plain and that was all he saw. Then when the situation came about because of the wickedness of the peoples as Judgement fell he was taken up with it. Note that the King of Sodom soon to be Judged was a coward and fled to the Mountain but comes back just in time for the victory celebration and trys to manipulate it and steal the blessing. Even after this Lot goes bck to Sodom for the impending Judgement as if this one wasn't enough for him. What you mention about Lot is correct, and it is hard to believe this man who 'vexed his righteous soul' would continue to remain in such a loathsome disgusting city...I mean their sin was so bad, G-d felt they had to be destroyed...just like the wickedness of all flesh before the flood. So . . . how can we or what should we learn from this? In what ways do we as Christians act like Lot? (It's not like we can be nomads these days . . . so how does this apply to us where we live?) And how can we be more like Abram? I think mainly to be 'in the world, but not of the world' as we are instructed. sounds like Abraham was 'in sodom, but not of sodom, ya know? btw, love the thread ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botz Posted December 31, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 76 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,492 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 191 Days Won: 18 Joined: 03/29/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted December 31, 2008 Hiya Fraught.... I think mainly to be 'in the world, but not of the world' as we are instructed. sounds like Abraham was 'in sodom, but not of sodom, ya know? I reckon you probably mean 'Lot' was in Sodom but not of it. Glad you like the thread. Many people in the West often use the Scriptures to glean spiritual lessons from them, which is fine, but the overall intent of this thread is not really to try and spiritualise things, but to mine some substance from the rich vein of truth that Paul is exposing in his teaching...I am sure individual spiritual application will be forth-coming once the essence of the message finds fertile soil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RebekahDavid Posted December 31, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 320 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 3,166 Content Per Day: 0.45 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/31/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted December 31, 2008 blessings Botz, i am still interested in the thread tho i have not had much time to devote to it recently with holidays and family things to attend to. i hope you are not waiting for me! lol i will have to ask my friend if it is okay to share before i do so. we really have not had much of a chance to talk about that yet, tho they are willing to share, as we are in different time zones and had a lot of catching up to do on families and world events etc ( much has happened since we last talked.) looking forward to reading what people post here. love your sister in Christ, Rebekah David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massorite Posted December 31, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 38 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,973 Content Per Day: 0.32 Reputation: 36 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/26/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/13/1953 Share Posted December 31, 2008 JESUS WAS MELCHIZEDEK I agree raleigh. If you take the bible for what it says,(without making any assumtions or adding in what the bible doesn't say) He was not born, His days had no beginning and will never end. He was not of this world. He was the King of Rightiousness and there is only one King of Rightiousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botz Posted December 31, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 76 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,492 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 191 Days Won: 18 Joined: 03/29/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted December 31, 2008 Hi Massorite...I can understand you agreeing with Raleighs considered exegesis, but maybe you could spare some time to answer the couple of questions I posed for those like yourself who believe Jesus was indeed Melchizedek...they were:- Botz...A. Can you cite any other Scriptures where the L-rd appears in pre-incarnation form, and resides amongst men for an extended period of time? B. If Jesus was already this High Priest, then how is it that Hebrews 6:20 talks of Him as 'having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek'? (This also puts verse 4 from Psalm 110 into context) You go on to say:- Massorite...If you take the bible for what it says,(without making any assumtions or adding in what the bible doesn't say) He was not born, His days had no beginning and will never end. He was not of this world. He was the King of Rightiousness and there is only one King of Rightiousness. Actually if you dig a little deeper you will see that Melchizedek is the name of this king, and not his title, for as you rightly point out there is only one King of Righteousness... G-d has not called us to be Luddites. In Him.... Botz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massorite Posted December 31, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 38 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,973 Content Per Day: 0.32 Reputation: 36 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/26/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/13/1953 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Hi Massorite...I can understand you agreeing with Raleighs considered exegesis, but maybe you could spare some time to answer the couple of questions I posed for those like yourself who believe Jesus was indeed Melchizedek...they were:- Botz...A. Can you cite any other Scriptures where the L-rd appears in pre-incarnation form, and resides amongst men for an extended period of time? B. If Jesus was already this High Priest, then how is it that Hebrews 6:20 talks of Him as 'having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek'? (This also puts verse 4 from Psalm 110 into context) You go on to say:- Massorite...If you take the bible for what it says,(without making any assumtions or adding in what the bible doesn't say) He was not born, His days had no beginning and will never end. He was not of this world. He was the King of Rightiousness and there is only one King of Rightiousness. Actually if you dig a little deeper you will see that Melchizedek is the name of this king, and not his title, for as you rightly point out there is only one King of Righteousness... G-d has not called us to be Luddites. In Him.... Botz First of all every single Jewish name in the bible has a particular meaning according to what is unique about that person who was given that name. One very controversial example is in Genesis 4:26. The name "Enos" means frail, incurable or human and the very next words in the bible are "then man began to call upon the name of the Lord. So by this and all of the other names in the bible we can know that any name is indicative of who or what that person is. Another good example is in the book of Hosea 1:9. The name Lo-ruhamah means "not my people" because literally speaking the house of Israel was at that time full of paganism and claiming other gods as their god instead of Jehovah. So God rejected them as His people. And what about the name for Jesus which is "Emmanuel" and means "God with us" and Jesus was God in the flesh who was dwelling with us. I could run a whole bunch of other names here but I won't. The point is that what ever the name of a person who is of Jewish decent in the bible has been named that name because of who or what they are. Some names are also symbolic and can represent any number of things. But when we read what the bibles says about Melchizedec we see that the bible doesn't say that name Melchizedec represents the King of Righteousness the bible says that the name means King of Righteousness. In other words the name Melchizedec is another name for the King of Righteousness and the title of the King of Righteousness belongs only to Jesus who was God among us just like the name Emmanuel is speaking about. One in the same thing/person/God. Until the miracle birth of Jesus there is no Scripture that tells us that He was here for more then one day and the other day that the bible speaks about is when Abraham was sitting in the door of his tent in the desert of Mamri. Those tree men were God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Jesus made more then one appearance on earth before He was born to Mary. As far as Hebrew 6:20 goes I do not have an answer I can base on scripture. But I can say this. Why did Jesus need to be baptized if He was God among us? Why did His faith need to be tested in the wilderness if He was God? Why did satan talk to and tempt Him like He was not God. I mean Jesus already had everything that satan tempted Him with. Right? I believe that because God became flesh and for the purpose of giving us an example of how to live for Him and to die for us He had to progress like we do. He had to grow up. He had to become a Rabbi because nobody is born a Rabbi. He had to suffer temptation because everybody else does. And He had to suffer for what He believed in because that is what He expects from us. In the end Jesus was a King who was a Priest to the Most High God just like Melchizedec was a King who was a Priest to the Most High God. They are one in the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead Posted December 31, 2008 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 871 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 17 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/28/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted December 31, 2008 Thanks for starting this thread Dave, and to those that have posted. I had a few lingering questions about him myself, I have enjoyed all the insights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted December 31, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.26 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 31, 2008 Grace to you, Massorite, King of Righteousness could mean by implication of Melchizedek's Faith. David was called a Righteous King and many men of God have carried the title Righteous. Jesus inherits King Davids Throne as The King of Righteousness, not a King of Righteousness, and also heir because He is a son of David. That is somewhat what is happening with a Priest after the Order of Melchizedek. David was a Prophet and a King but not a Priest because only a Levite could Minister before God. However Melchizedek was a Priest, Prophet, and King and it was this order that came first and is last. Peace, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts