Christ is Melchisedec

[Elijah674]

Question, who was the heavenly Jerusalem's temple high priest before Christ?

Not to clear on the question? Before Adam sinned, why would there be a need of a High Priest in heaven, except in forknowledge that the Proverbs (Prov. 8:23) [PLAN] would need to be brought forth? Psalms 1:7 & then Heb. 1:3-*5. (compare Acts 13:32-33)

And after Adam sinned, we at first find King Mel. And my belief is that Adam brought the 'firstlings of his flock' & killed it himself, and that this had another purpose as well as that of Obedient Sacrifice of Christ. He could also now understand the immediate effect that his sin had. Even to the killing of Abel by his first born Cain.Can you just not 'feel' that pain?

--Elijah

 

[Asyncritus]

Question, who was the heavenly Jerusalem's temple high priest before Christ?

Answer:

There wasn't one.

I presume you mean before Adam was created, so

A High Priest's function is to go between God and sinners, and to offer sacrifices:

Heb 9.11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Since there were no sins or sinners in heaven, there wasn't a high priest.

As we're on the subject, which high priest was ever equal to the God he served?

 

[mamre]

Hi mamre

Thanks for making this point, I hadn't registered it before:

Excellent.

However, you spoil it with this:



Don't you think this is a bit far-fetched?

As I asked before, and only got a few mumblings in response - like, 'it's too deep/profound etc for us, and is none of our business anyway' or words to that effect, perhaps you might like to attempt a response using the same powerful logic that you have exhibited above.

Please, show me clearly where is the place that I have said with my own words: "it is too deep/profound, etc. and it is not of your business anyway"

So, when you understand the logic it is fine and dandy, but when you don't, then you seem to get offended?

Logic is logic. If you didn't understand, just say so or point to me the flaw of the reasoning. No need to interpret it as an offense.

My point is. Just because one is reading from the bible it doesn't mean one has the licence to forget logic. God is perfect, therefore His words WILL stand to logic. IF they don't seem too the flaw is in us imperfect beings.

These days, we can transplant a fertilised ovum (or zygote, if you like) taken from woman A, into the womb of woman B.

Woman B then carries the child to full term and it is born normally.

Woman B can in no circumstances be said to be the genuine 'mother' of the child, but the 'surrogate mother'.

The child cannot, in any circumstances, be said to have been conceived by woman B. The child is certainly NOT 'her son'.

It is an 'implantation' or a 'transplantation', whichever is the correct technical term.

Therefore, if Jesus existed as a spirit before He was born of Mary, then there are at least 4 consequences.

Consequence 1:

He was 'implanted' or 'transplanted' into her womb. He was certainly not 'conceived'.

Consequence 2:

Luke, the doctor, was completely mistaken when he recorded the angel as saying: Lk 1. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Consequence 3:

Jesus is not 'her son', and Luke is again mistaken.

Consequence 4:

Isaiah is also mistaken when he says:

7. 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The fact that the virgin (Mary) 'shall call his name Immanuel' is proof positive that she is his real mother - because she names him, which is the parent's prerogative.

Notice that it is not Joseph who would name him Jesus - because Joseph was not his father, but Mary was his genuine mother, and had that right.

Quite incidentally, the fact that Melchizedek did not exist from all eternity, is another proof that Jesus didn't either.

All of which casts considerable doubt on your understanding of John 1, and the interpretation which you have put on it.

I haven't the slightest idea about what you are referring to above. I need your re-explanation with simpler terms.

What in the world are talking about?

Question: Are you trying to make a point that Jesus (The Son of God) didn't exist before this earth?

If that is the case, please notice that the scriptures say that Jesus is the Lamb that has been prepared from the foundation of the world.
Jesus is ALSO the creator of this world.

BY LOGIC: The creator of the world HAS to exist before the world can be created by HIM.


mamre

 

[mamre]

You seem to be making a point that Melchizedek cannot be the Son of God, because he was a man...I'm not sure why that's such a big deal...Jesus was a man as well and is referred to as a man many times. There is no reason why being a man automatically means that Melchizedek cannot be a pre-incarnation of Christ here on earth.

But, handy, that is the main point. IF Melchizedek and Jesus are both men and the same person, then that person has been born twice on this earth. Being physically born twice on this earth means "re-incarnation".

re = repeat, twice, again, etc.

incarnation = to be in the flesh

Also, Jesus had an earthly mother, but not an earthly Father. So, the point about Melchizedek having to have a "father and mother" because he was a man...falls short as well, especially since the Scriptures explicitly state that he had no father and mother. If the Son of God, Christ, can come to earth once without an earthly Father, and yet walk fully as a man, then it's no stretch to my faith that He could have come prior to His birth by Mary and walked as a man without earthly father or mother as well.

I cannot understand what you are trying to say here.

Perhaps you are one who denies the virgin birth of Christ...I know some do.

All I really have time for today...

I am not sure I should connect this to your previous statement or I should take is a diversion from something you cannot argue against. Seems like you are trying to divert the subject to muddy the subject.

No offense but:
WHAT DENYING THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST HAS TO DO WITH HE NOT BEING MELCHIZEDEK?


mamre

 

[mamre]

I'm afraid this is getting quite silly.

The point Paul makes in the whole letter to the Hebrews is a quite simple one, really.

Christ is superior to the Law of Moses, so don't go back to it.

Why not?

Because Christ is a greater H Pr that Aaron, and has credentials which precede and exceed Aaron's.

What are those credentials?

He is AFTER the ORDER of Melchizedek. Who's that, and what kind of a person is he?

Melchizedek is clearly described as a MAN:

4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

Therefore he WAS NOT GOD.

He also has a DESCENT, or genealogy:

7.6 But he (i.e. Melchizedek) whose descent (= Gk genealogy) is not counted from them (i.e. from Levi/Aaron) received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

If he had a genealogy, then he had father and mother.

Therefore, when Hebrews says '7.3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually'

He means:

3 Without father, without mother, (= of the tribe of Levi)

without descent (i.e genealogy = from Levi),

having neither beginning of days, nor end of life (recorded in scripture);

but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

The 'like unto' makes it clear that he WASN'T the Son of God.

Ps 110.1 says very clearly that Jesus was not God. 'Sit thou at my right hand' is God granting Jesus permission to do so.

'Till I MAKE thine enemies the footstool of thy feet' is telling us who is doing the making - and it isn't Jesus.

Given all that, and there's more beside, can we stop this silly arguing that Melchizedek was Jesus in some kind of previous incarnation?

And I again raise the unanswered question: Which High Priest was ever equal to the God he served?

You've got it!

Since Jesus is NOT without a Father and Merchizedek is a man (with a father and mother) the only logical explanation to that verse is the one you give above.

That one priesthood (Aaronic) required a earthly ascendancy, to Aaron or the Levite Tribe.
The other (Melchizedek) didn't require earthly ascendancy, because it comes from the Father. Hence, it doen't have begining or ending of life, no father and mother.

The priesthood of the Order of the Melchizedek is the higher order.

mamre

 

[Asyncritus]

Excellent.

Please, show me clearly where is the place that I have said with my own words: "it is too deep/profound, etc. and it is not of your business anyway"

Sorry not to make myself clearer. I meant that Drew (or was it Free?) said that some while ago.

So, when you understand the logic it is fine and dandy, but when you don't, then you seem to get offended?

It's difficult to offend me.

I haven't the slightest idea about what you are referring to above. I need your re-explanation with simpler terms.

What in the world are talking about?

I thought it was clear enough.

I am saying that if Jesus was conceived, as both Luke and Isaiah say, then the idea that he existed before He was born is a non-starter.

The facts about surrogate motherhood come in to play there. Was Mary His real mother or a surrogate mother?

A. If real, then He could not have existed before His birth.

B. If surrogate, then you have a point.

However, as both Luke and Isaiah say, He was CONCEIVED, which leads me to conclusion A (above).

Question: Are you trying to make a point that Jesus (The Son of God) didn't exist before this earth?

If that is the case, please notice that the scriptures say that Jesus is the Lamb that has been prepared from the foundation of the world.

The scriptures also say that we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. I don't remember being there at that time, but maybe you do. Do you?

If that is really the case, then the Lamb that was 'slain before the foundation of the world' is simply saying that 'in the purpose of God' that was the case. It is a non-literal statement that should not be construed literally.

Jesus is ALSO the creator of this world.

That is a false premise. Please look up my comments on this point in the article on John 1: 1-14.

Therefore, since the premise is incorrect, this conclusion is insupportable:

BY LOGIC: The creator of the world HAS to exist before the world can be created by HIM.

We know that God created the world.

We also know that Jesus is the 'beginning of the creation of God'.
He is also the 'firstborn of all creation', and was made so by God:
Ps 89:27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

Therefore, He is God's most senior Son, having replaced Israel, who once was God's firstborn:

Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Therefore, He was created. And if He was created, then he was not 'THE Creator'.

Asyncritus

 

[dadof10]

Dad,

I'm not sure that just because Hebrews tells us why Jesus is being compared to Melchizedek is reason enough to state that Melchizedek isn't a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus.

No, Handy. I agree. That in and of itself wouldn't automatically exclude your interpretation. I just think that it gives us the reason why the Author wrote what he did. It wasn't to PROVE Jesus came once before as Melchizedek, it was to prove that Jesus is a legitimate High Priest.

To me, only Melchizedek being a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus fully explains the text...how someone could be without father or without mother, how someone could have no beginning of days or end of life, why is he called "king of righteousness" and "king of peace" and that he is a priest forever...

You may be right, if you interpret it literally.

"For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him; and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever."

Certainly he could be called "king of peace" and "king of righteousness" without necessarily having to be a pre-incarnation Jesus. The blue text above is, IMHO, not to be interpreted literally.

I think the Author was basically saying that Melchizedek came onto the stage of history, accepted the tithes, offered the sacrifice, then disappeared from history ("has neither beginning of days nor end of life"). He, like Jesus, was not in the priestly line ("He is without father or mother or genealogy"), yet was a legitimate priest ("but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever".) He is making the case that Jesus fits the bill of the Messiah in every way, including being a legitimate priest.

Unless we want to say that the writer to the Hebrews was being deliberately misleading as to the nature of Melchizedek to make some kind of point about Christ, these statements don't make sense.

I think the point he was making was that Christ is "such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven".

If this was meant to be taken literally, where did the Author get his information? Was it an oral tradition? Was it Divine revelation? All Scripture says about Melchizedek is that he met Abraham, accepted tithes, blessed Abraham, then disappeared. Genesis doesn't mention anything about him being eternal or having no parents. That's why I tend to lean toward the "not literal" side here.

 

[dadof10]

Question, who was the heavenly Jerusalem's temple high priest before Christ?

Why don't you just get to your point? Why do you continue to bait everyone? I know your relatively new here, and may not know...Most people don't like to play "gotcha" games. Just make your point and people will respond.

 

[handy]

No, Handy. I agree. That in and of itself wouldn't automatically exclude your interpretation. I just think that it gives us the reason why the Author wrote what he did. It wasn't to PROVE Jesus came once before as Melchizedek, it was to prove that Jesus is a legitimate High Priest.


You may be right, if you interpret it literally.

"For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him; and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever."

Certainly he could be called "king of peace" and "king of righteousness" without necessarily having to be a pre-incarnation Jesus. The blue text above is, IMHO, not to be interpreted literally.

I think the Author was basically saying that Melchizedek came onto the stage of history, accepted the tithes, offered the sacrifice, then disappeared from history ("has neither beginning of days nor end of life"). He, like Jesus, was not in the priestly line ("He is without father or mother or genealogy"), yet was a legitimate priest ("but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever".) He is making the case that Jesus fits the bill of the Messiah in every way, including being a legitimate priest.



I think the point he was making was that Christ is "such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven".

If this was meant to be taken literally, where did the Author get his information? Was it an oral tradition? Was it Divine revelation? All Scripture says about Melchizedek is that he met Abraham, accepted tithes, blessed Abraham, then disappeared. Genesis doesn't mention anything about him being eternal or having no parents. That's why I tend to lean toward the "not literal" side here.

As a rule of thumb, unless a passage is clearly metaphorical in nature, I do tend to read things pretty literally. Given the passage about Melchizedek, I see no reason not to. I believe that all Scripture is Divine revelation. ;)

Is this an all important issue? No, not really, but it is an interesting one. I do believe in pre-Incarnate appearances of the Son of God in Scriptures and do think that Melchizedek is one such case...but, if it turns out not to be, then there truly is no big deal.

 

[dadof10]

As a rule of thumb, unless a passage is clearly metaphorical in nature, I do tend to read things pretty literally. Given the passage about Melchizedek, I see no reason not to. I believe that all Scripture is Divine revelation. ;)

Is this an all important issue? No, not really, but it is an interesting one. I do believe in pre-Incarnate appearances of the Son of God in Scriptures and do think that Melchizedek is one such case...but, if it turns out not to be, then there truly is no big deal.

Hummmm.... I guess it's harmless enough, the way you describe it. The only harm I can see coming from this is if someone ran with the idea that if Jesus appeared in different forms before the Incarnation, He will after also. Some might be tempted to believe a charlatan who says he is a post-incarnation Jesus. I don't think you're in this camp, so as you said, it's interesting, but harmless. Heck, its not like you are believing some heretical doctrines, like we are saved by faith alone or all revelation is contained within the pages of Scripture. Now that would be harmful.

Sent using my cellular telephone device via the interweb.

 

[handy]

Heck, its not like you are believing some heretical doctrines, like we are saved by faith alone or all revelation is contained within the pages of Scripture. Now that would be harmful.

Touche!

 

[Pard]

Thank you for this. Very enlightening. It's refreshing to see something that can help build up what we already know.

 

[mamre]

Sorry not to make myself clearer. I meant that Drew (or was it Free?) said that some while ago.
It's difficult to offend me.

I thought it was clear enough.

I am saying that if Jesus was conceived, as both Luke and Isaiah say, then the idea that he existed before He was born is a non-starter.

The facts about surrogate motherhood come in to play there. Was Mary His real mother or a surrogate mother?

A. If real, then He could not have existed before His birth.

B. If surrogate, then you have a point.

However, as both Luke and Isaiah say, He was CONCEIVED, which leads me to conclusion A (above).

The scriptures also say that we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. I don't remember being there at that time, but maybe you do. Do you?

If that is really the case, then the Lamb that was 'slain before the foundation of the world' is simply saying that 'in the purpose of God' that was the case. It is a non-literal statement that should not be construed literally.

That is a false premise. Please look up my comments on this point in the article on John 1: 1-14.

Therefore, since the premise is incorrect, this conclusion is insupportable:
We know that God created the world.

We also know that Jesus is the 'beginning of the creation of God'.
He is also the 'firstborn of all creation', and was made so by God:
Ps 89:27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

Therefore, He is God's most senior Son, having replaced Israel, who once was God's firstborn:

Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Therefore, He was created. And if He was created, then he was not 'THE Creator'.

Asyncritus

Asyncritus,

Still not clear. I am not sure what you really stand on this subject.

I see you believe that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. That, definitely, is according to the scriptures. So if Jesus is the firstborn of God, then He can ONLY be the firstborn spirit BEFORE the creation because we know that Adam is the first physical man ever created on this earth.

So do you or do you not believe that Jesus, the Son of God existed before the foundation of the world?

mamre

 

[mamre]

Hummmm.... I guess it's harmless enough, the way you describe it. The only harm I can see coming from this is if someone ran with the idea that if Jesus appeared in different forms before the Incarnation, He will after also. Some might be tempted to believe a charlatan who says he is a post-incarnation Jesus. I don't think you're in this camp, so as you said, it's interesting, but harmless. Heck, its not like you are believing some heretical doctrines, like we are saved by faith alone or all revelation is contained within the pages of Scripture. Now that would be harmful.

Sent using my cellular telephone device via the interweb.

dadof10,

Just to clarify. I don't want to make this a long discussion off the subject.
But your statements: "save by faith alone" and "all revelation is contained within the pages of Scripture," caught my attention.

So, is it your belief that one needs to do more than believe and have faith to be saved?
And, do you believe in revelation outside the bible?

They labeled me non-Christian for believing things like that. I am confused.


Also, I am just curious. I have given an explanation to handy on the subject of Melchizedek not being Jesus earlier that are almost exactly like yours, but she seems to believe in yours better. Are you her dad? Don't need to answer that if you don't want to? Just curiosity.

mamre

 

[dadof10]

dadof10,

Just to clarify. I don't want to make this a long discussion off the subject.
But your statements: "save by faith alone" and "all revelation is contained within the pages of Scripture," caught my attention.

So, is it your belief that one needs to do more than believe and have faith to be saved?
And, do you believe in revelation outside the bible?

They labeled me non-Christian for believing things like that. I am confused.


Also, I am just curious. I have given an explanation to handy on the subject of Melchizedek not being Jesus earlier that are almost exactly like yours, but she seems to believe in yours better. Are you her dad? Don't need to answer that if you don't want to? Just curiosity.

mamre

I can't speak for my daughter Handy as to why she "accepted" mine and not-so-much yours. Maybe emphasis? I'm Catholic so do not believe the non-Biblical doctrines of sola-scriptural and sola-fide...and Ive been labeled much worse than non-Christian for revealing this fact in certain circles (not here btw).

Just kidding about Handy being my daughter. She's not and I was also just teasing her about her "heretical" beliefs. That's why she said "touche" in her next post.


Sent using my cellular telephone device via the interweb.

 

[Little Feather]

Melchisedec

As we believe the Bible to be true, that means at one point everyone worshiped God, but the tower of Babble confused their language and they separated.

So it should not be a surprise that Abram meet some that still followed God. Salam, latter called Jerusalem, was one of these, and the city seems to have always been a holy city.

The High Priest and King, common back then, worshiped the same God that Abram did.

But the priesthood of the order of Melchisedec was not under the Law of Moses!

A gentile does not have access to the High Priest and the inner courtyard of the Temple.
A High Priest under the Law of Moses can not minister to Gentiles, it would make him unclean.

Jesus Christ, as High priest of the Order of Melchisedec, can minister the Gentiles, and we can come to Him.

 

[handy]

Hey there Dad, gonna change your name to "Dadof11"!?!

Mamre, I still hold to my belief that Melchizedek is a pre-incarnation appearance of Christ here on earth.

But, what I said to "Dad" I'll also say to you...this is by no means a "make-or-break" issue to me, such as Jesus being God the Son, or the Resurrection would be. It's interesting, but not important, and if someone convinces me that the Scriptures regarding Melchizedek show that he could not have been Christ...OK...I just haven't been convinced that they don't show that, and a basic, literal reading of the texts indicate to me that he was.

 

[dadof10]

Hey there Dad, gonna change your name to "Dadof11"!?!

Mamre, I still hold to my belief that Melchizedek is a pre-incarnation appearance of Christ here on earth.

But, what I said to "Dad" I'll also say to you...this is by no means a "make-or-break" issue to me, such as Jesus being God the Son, or the Resurrection would be. It's interesting, but not important, and if someone convinces me that the Scriptures regarding Melchizedek show that he could not have been Christ...OK...I just haven't been convinced that they don't show that, and a basic, literal reading of the texts indicate to me that he was.

Lol..I'm too old to have any more kids...

Sent using my cellular telephone device via the interweb.

 

[mamre]

Hey there Dad, gonna change your name to "Dadof11"!?!

Mamre, I still hold to my belief that Melchizedek is a pre-incarnation appearance of Christ here on earth.

But, what I said to "Dad" I'll also say to you...this is by no means a "make-or-break" issue to me, such as Jesus being God the Son, or the Resurrection would be. It's interesting, but not important, and if someone convinces me that the Scriptures regarding Melchizedek show that he could not have been Christ...OK...I just haven't been convinced that they don't show that, and a basic, literal reading of the texts indicate to me that he was.

handy,

Well, truly, it was important to the author of Hebrews, and they are scripture. I guess you can convince yourself that is not important.

However, you must know that a belief is only a belief.
The object of a belief may or may not be true.

While you don't find out that the object of your belief is true, it is not a real knowledge. You will never know, you will always have a doubt. You can choose to believe anything, but you don't know it to be true or not.

have a good day,
mamre

 

[mamre]

I can't speak for my daughter Handy as to why she "accepted" mine and not-so-much yours. Maybe emphasis? I'm Catholic so do not believe the non-Biblical doctrines of sola-scriptural and sola-fide...and Ive been labeled much worse than non-Christian for revealing this fact in certain circles (not here btw).

Just kidding about Handy being my daughter. She's not and I was also just teasing her about her "heretical" beliefs. That's why she said "touche" in her next post.


Sent using my cellular telephone device via the interweb.

Oh, ok.
As I said, it really doesn't matter to me if she "accepted" or not. It was just curiosity from my part.

mamre