This is topic Who was Melchizedek in forum Bible Topics & Study at Christian Message Boards.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://thechristianbbs.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004112

---

Posted by HisGrace (Member # 3438) on :
 
Melchizedek's name was mentioned in another post and it prompted me to study him further. His life is detailed in Hebrews 7, but I will just quote a couple of portions from that chapter.

Like Jesus, Melchizedek had no one like him before and no one after him. He represents the priesthood under the old covenant, but Jesus is our new High Priest under the new covenant.

Hebrews 7:1-7
This Melchizedek was king of the city of Salem and also a priest of God Most High. When Abraham was returning home after winning a great battle against many kings, Melchizedek met him and blessed him.

Then Abraham took a tenth of all he had won in the battle and gave it to Melchizedek. His name means "king of justice." He is also "king of peace" because Salem means "peace."

There is no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors--no beginning or end to his life. He remains a priest forever, resembling the Son of God.

Consider then how great this Melchizedek was. Even Abraham, the great patriarch of Israel, recognized how great Melchizedek was by giving him a tenth of what he had taken in battle.

Now the priests, who are descendants of Levi, are commanded in the law of Moses to collect a tithe from all the people, even though they are their own relatives.[a] 6But Melchizedek, who was not even related to Levi, collected a tenth from Abraham. And Melchizedek placed a blessing upon Abraham, the one who had already received the promises of God.

And without question, the person who has the power to bless is always greater than the person who is blessed.


Vrs's.15-19 The change in God's law is even more evident from the fact that a different priest, who is like Melchizedek, has now come. He became a priest, not by meeting the old requirement of belonging to the tribe of Levi, but by the power of a life that cannot be destroyed. And the psalmist pointed this out when he said of Christ,

"You are a priest forever
in the line of Melchizedek."

Yes, the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless. For the law made nothing perfect, and now a better hope has taken its place. And that is how we draw near to God.
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 
Melchizedek was a priest of God before the priesthood of Aaron or Levi was established; before the covenant "Old Covenant" was given to the Israelites.

It is not said that his parentage was not known or recorded, but that he was without Father OR Mother.... without decent! How is this?

Hebrews 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.


The Bible says that even Levi though Abraham paid Him tithes before Levi was even a thought in the loins of Jacob.

Hebrews 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

I always thought that it was interesting because Abraham paid tithes of all that he had brought back including the things that would be returned to the King of Sodom.

Note also in this story of Melchizedek what it was that the King of Sodom wanted back...

It is a very interesting story indeed!
 

---

Posted by TEXASGRANDMA (Member # 847) on :
 
I find it interesting that he wanted his people back over the money and the goods. I have become so cynical that I often wonder if our government leaders would sale us out for profit.
betty
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 
Yes, Betty. The Kind of Sodom was willing to part with their goods, to give them to Abram as reward for bringing back what had been taken from him. But he wanted the people.

AAbram said you can have the people and the goods. Abraham wanted only what they used and some provision for those that went with him to gather the spoil (which included people)and bring it back.

What did Abram give tithe of?
 

---

Posted by Carmela (Member # 4817) on :
 
He is a "type" of Christ
 

---

Posted by TEXASGRANDMA (Member # 847) on :
 
It looks like Abraham gave a tithe of all the goods before he gave the rest of the goods to the King of Sodom. Like we tithe on our income before we pay out our bills. God should get the first fruits and not what is left over at the end of the month.
betty
 

---

Posted by Aaron (Member # 3761) on :
 
Priests do the work of their god. A god makes his plans known to men through men who swear fealty to the god. That is to say they are ministers of their god's covenant with men. Without a covenant there can be no priests (like there are no bus drivers without busses).

Therefore: God must have communicated His covenant to Melchizedek, otherwise he would not have been a priest. This covenant was not the same covenant communicated to Abraham...that covenant came after Melchizedek. Melchizedek was a priest according to the covenant God (the Father) swore to God (the Son) before time began. In a sense Mel was a priest of the covenant of Christ (a royal priesthood) and I believe he was a "son of God" mentioned in Gen 6 although I do not believe he took part in the iniquity recorded.

Not perfect (it's difficult to explain things from the eternal and temporal perspective) but it will do.

Thoughts?

Aaron
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 

quote:

---

Melchizedek was a priest according to the covenant God (the Father) swore to God (the Son) before time began.

---

And this would make him Who?
 

---

Posted by BORN AGAIN (Member # 5) on :
 
HisGrace wrote that "Melchizedek" means "king of justice", but I thought it meant "king of righteousness"?

One probable reason why the king of Sodom wanted the people over the goods is because in those days without regular police and army forces, it was very dangerous to "not have enough people to defend oneself".

In those early days, it was very dangerous to travel in a too-small group. When two groups saw each other coming in the distance, "military" preparations were always necessary in case the coming group were raiders or mean-spirited, or whatever. They didn't "play" in those days.

So that is probably one immediate reason why the king of Sodom wanted his people back first.

As to what Abram tithed (he was still Abram and not yet Abraham), he probably also tithed some of the people (women and children, especially) as slaves.

God bless, BORN AGAIN
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 

 

---

Posted by HisGrace (Member # 3438) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BORN AGAIN:
[QB] HisGrace wrote that "Melchizedek" means "king of justice", but I thought it meant "king of righteousness"?[/b]

---

quote:

---

From HFHS It is not said that his parentage was not known or recorded, but that he was without Father OR Mother.... without decent! How is this?"
Hebrews 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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by helpforhomeschoolers:

quote:

---

Melchizedek was a priest according to the covenant God (the Father) swore to God (the Son) before time began.

---

And this would make him Who?

---

I don't think he was Christ himself, if that is what you are hinting at.

Aaron
 

---

Posted by Thunderz7 (Member # 31) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't think he was Christ himself, if that is what you are hinting at.

Aaron

---

I think it probably was Yashua,
if that's what you are hinting at .
No one else meets the qualifications.

T7
 

---

Posted by BORN AGAIN (Member # 5) on :
 
Good retort, thunderz7 to brother Aaron. I agree with you, who else has the qualifications?

Also this is written in the New Testament, and htis most likely refers to this very Melchizedek incident:

John 8:56
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it and was glad.

Yahshua was Melchizedek, acting as the Son of God before the Son of God came down to earth in 4 B.C. to be the Son of man, starting in Bethlehem of Judah. That was another assignment for the Son of God.

May the LORD God of Israel bless all of us on this CBBS, I am BORN AGAIN by the
 

---

Posted by David (Member # 1) on :
 
I. The Historical Argument: Melchizedek and Abraham (7:1-10)

First, the writer identifies Melchizedek as a type of Christ (vv. 3, 15). He was both king and priest, and so is Jesus. No priest in Aaron’s line ever sat on a throne. In fact, the Aaronic priests did not sit down at all (spiritually speaking), for their work was never done. There were no chairs in the tabernacle or temple! See Heb. 10:11-14. Furthermore, Melchizedek was king of Salem, which means “peace”; and Jesus is our King of Peace, our Prince of Peace. The name “Melchizedek” means “king of righteousness,” a name which certainly applies to Christ, God’s Righteous King. So, in his name and his offices, Melchizedek is a beautiful likeness of Christ.

But Melchizedek also resembles Christ in his origin. The Bible contains no record of his birth or his death. Of course, this does not mean that Melchizedek had no parents or that he never died. It simply means that the OT record is silent on these matters. Thus Melchizedek, like Christ, is “without beginning of days or end of life”—his priesthood is eternal. His priesthood did not depend on earthly successors, while the Aaronic priests had to defend their office by family records (see Neh. 7:64). Every high priest that descended from Aaron died, but Christ, like Melchizedek, holds His priesthood permanently (vv. 8, 16, 24-25).

Having identified Christ with the order of Melchizedek, the writer now explains that Melchizedek is superior to Aaron, for Aaron paid tithes to Melchizedek while yet unborn in the loins of Abraham. And when Melchizedek blessed Abraham, he was blessing the house of Levi as well; and certainly “the lesser is blessed by the better” (v. 7). On earth, in the Jewish temple, the priests received tithes; but in Genesis 14, the priests (in Abraham’s loins) gave tithes to Melchizedek. This event clearly showed the inferiority of the Aaronic priesthood.

From: Wiersbe's Expository Outlines
 

---

Posted by HisGrace (Member # 3438) on :
 
Great explanation - thanks David.
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Something that Melchizedek was not-Jewish

Face the fact that Abraham paid tribute to what can easily be describe as Gentile.

Jesus identifies with the people outside the gate not inside.
 

---

Posted by HisGrace (Member # 3438) on :
 
I thought Jesus identified with all mankind. It happened on the cross.
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 

quote:

---

And this would make him Who?

---

Aaron!!!!!!his is not a hint. This is a probe for thought.

I do believe that the Word the was with God in the beginning and was God, came to Abram as Melchizedek, he is as T7 has said the only one that meets the qualifications; HE is the only one that can wear those names - King of Righteousness; King of Peace; He is the only one without beginning of days or end of life, without without decent, without mother nor father.
 

---

Posted by yahsway (Member # 3738) on :
 
AMH, Abraham was not Jewish either. Yeshua identifies with all that would come by Faith. Shalom
 

---

Posted by Aaron (Member # 3761) on :
 
This is good stuff!

Question: could Mel simply be a minister of the Son/Father covenant and not necessarily Christ Himself?*


* = This is what I believe.



Aaron
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
HisGrace,

Where was the cross located, (geographical location)?

I think that if you check the later chapters of Hebrews, (13), you will find that it was without the camp. The gate keepers kick Him out.

By the law, the prophets and the Apostles-

Is the tribute money being paid today legal?

I notice that some devout Jews don’t collect tithes in the synagogues. What do they know? Something about 70 A.D. I would say.

And those good ‘ole boys doing the collecting, those spiritual Levites. They require hard currency, not spiritual.

AMH
 

---

Posted by yahsway (Member # 3738) on :
 
Good one AMH, those good ole boys makes me think of Creflo $$$$$$! Sorry, couldnt help myself. Shalom
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Is this possible-

Since most do not have even a cursory understanding of the tithe.

Is it possible that they do not understand the meaning of the tithe?

And furthermore, is it possible that they do not understand huge chunks in the rest of the scripture?

Leviticus 25:4-5 says that on the 7th year there was rest, (this would include tribute rest). You hear a lot about the Sabbath, how about this Sabbath. Will today’s collectors of tribute let us slide on this Sabbath? (I thought that we were not under the law? Then how come we are expected to pay tribute all seven without any rest under grace. At least those under law received some time for rest.)

AMH
 

---

Posted by yahsway (Member # 3738) on :
 
Very True AMH, and may I add that the "tithe" was to be eaten. Shalom
 

---

Posted by HisGrace (Member # 3438) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMH:
HisGrace,Where was the cross located, (geographical location)?

---

quote:

---

Is the tribute money being paid today legal?
I notice that some devout Jews don’t collect tithes in the synagogues. What do they know? Something about 70 A.D. I would say.
And those good ‘ole boys doing the collecting, those spiritual Levites. They require hard currency, not spiritual. AMH

---

Jesus tithed, so looks like we should also tithe.

He said - Luke 18:12 I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I possess.
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
Hisgrace

Could you please stop using things our Lord Jesus said out of context. Jesus never ever said that he fasts twice a week and tithes everything he has. You need to take a few minutes reread that section of Luke, tell you what I'll even put it here for you.


Luke 18: 9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


As you can see Christ did say it, but he was talking about another. A Pharisee who was trying to put himself up on a pedastill. Make himself feel better by pointing out anothers flaws.


You have to read the whole thing not just open a concordance and see the bold print and say " Oh Jesus said that, I'll post it."

AS far as I can see Jesus himself never tithed and certainly not in the verse you are using I am not trying to make this an arguement about tithing so please don't post saying I am. I am only trying to show a fellow Christian that they used a verse way out of context.

God bless
greg
 

---

Posted by HisGrace (Member # 3438) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by oneyearandcounting:
You have to read the whole thing not just open a concordance and see the bold print and say " Oh Jesus said that, I'll post it."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by helpforhomeschoolers:
I believe that the fact that Abram gave Tithe to Melchizedek before there was a Levitical Law calling for Tithe is supposed to show us something about the tithing of the church, who is also as Abram was... not under Law.

---

quote:

---

helpforhomeschoolers,

Even though we have had words, I would discuss your last post.

I am having a hard time accepting what you write. (Not for the sake of argument.) It just does not add up, (to me).

Abraham is a picture of the Father. That he would so willingly turn souls over after saving them is hard to accept, (do you see what I am saying).

---

It could be that I am totally off base here. But I believe that the Spirit showed me this in realtion to the very subject of tithing and tribute and some of the things that we have been discussing here.

It could be that we have different thoughts about election predestination etc that cause us to see things differently.

I do see what you are saying about abram (Not yet Abraham) handing over the souls to the King of Sodom.

I would say that the reason that is not a problem with me is that I see this:

There are some in the world that are not wheat; They are planted by the enemy. These are the tares.

I see here in this parable that some are reaped from where HE did not sow; but they have been given opportunity to be blessed by blessing Abraham's seed...

Matthew 25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

I see that there are some that no matter what happens will not come into the reign of the King of Righteousness - they are not like Lot having a familial relationship to Abraham, and they are not part of the Tithes that Abram gave to Melchizedek either.

2 Peter 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

************************************************

On the other note: I see that Melchizedek is Christ before Jesus was manifest - Like the Rock was Christ... Jesus is begotten - has a Father - and a beginning - Christ is Alpha and Omega.

I believe that this speaks of this meeting:

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Before Abram was Abraham - I am Christ says the Son of Man who is the manifest Son of the Living God, who walks the earth in the image of sinful flesh and now having ascended appears to John... like unto the SON of Man, but having feet of fine polished brass and eyes of flaming fire.... the Alpha and Omega. Without beginning of days or end of life.

Christ appeared to John as one like unto the Son of Man. Christ appeared to Abram as One Like unto the Son of God.


As to the Wine and the Bread that Melchizedek brought - Did Christ not bring the NEW Wine and the Bread of Life which would Bless Abraham and all his house?

Those are my thoughts for what they are worth.
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
helpforhomeschoolers,

You are helpful and kind, like Christ.

AMH
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 
If and when I am it is because He is living in me and I am hid in him; if in when I am not it is because I have walked out of the Spirit and into the Flesh. I think that this is true of all of us. Amen?



Praise God for HIS love and Mercy on us humans!
 

---

Posted by HisGrace (Member # 3438) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by oneyearandcounting:
AMH, Ok I see what you are saying but with what scripture says about Melchizedek is it such a reach to say that he was Christ before the cross.
Don't get me wrong I'm not hung up on the idea and if someone was to show me why I am wrong then so be it I'm wrong. It's just something that very early in my Christian walk after doing a study on Melchezedec I have come to believe.
But we do know that God was on earth in the flesh at least one other time.
But I also must agree with you if we go to far with traditions we are in the same boat as the RCC and the Jews of the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMH: HisGrace,
I find the premise of author Steven Sweetman to be faulty. Originally Israel was to be a nation of priests, (check out Exodus 19:6). Because of a lack of faith it fell to the Levites. AMH

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by helpforhomeschoolers:
But the people were of all 12 of the tribes???

---

quote:

---

AMH Posted:Before we jump to the New Testament is it possible for us to be sure about whether Abraham was acting in accordance with the will of God in the matter of delivering Sodom’s inhabitants? (There are several instances where Abraham neglected to follow clear instructions.)

Abraham had to hurry if he was to overtake Lot’s captors before they made it back to their stronghold. Instead of first praying the record says that he armed and began to pursue. (I cannot find one place in the Bible where the Father ever got in a hurry. The big complaint is always-“How long oh Lord?”)

---

quote:

---

AMH Posted: When he got done no outsider was willing to try invasion again. The people of Sodom believed this so much that they became even more wicked, resting in the fact that their enemies were frozen by fear.

---

quote:

---

AMH Posted: Why didn’t Abraham get Lot and let the rest alone, (Abraham had no interest except for Lot)? He could have even waited until the enemies of Sodom made it back to their stronghold and then opened diplomatic relations and bartered for Lot’s release.

---

quote:

---

AMH Posted: There were many possibilities. (Hind sight is 20 20 but come on. Abraham had to know how bad Sodom was. It was no place for nieces and nephews. Because of Abraham’s actions his own kin were placed right back in the evil. This just cannot be describe as deliverance.)

---

I dont know if this should go with the portion above or here, but if I think of this scene allegorically and not just literally, then I would also say that it comes to mind that the same rain does fall on the just and the unjust in this way the unjust also receive blessing.

Abram went for Lot the Just Lot, but he did bring back the unjust as well. As to handing them over to the King of Sodom, they were his people. I dont know what else to say in that regard, but some gained from what abram did. Also it was Lot's choice to live in Sodom, and I suspect that Sodom was a better place because of it because one just person living among the unjust is better than no just people living among them as the rain does fall on the unjust when God sends it to the just. And we know from the rest of Lot's story that God is able to preserve HIS own in the midst of the wicked.

I dont think that all the details have to be there for a type or an allegory to be seen literally... I think that the example that I gave when we were disagreeing on Mordecai was an example of Moses.... in whom we see a type of Christ... a picture of God's salvation.... But Moses is no Christ. Moses was a murderer!

Again, I am not saying that I have a handle on this or stamping my feet that this is the way it is... it is just what I see. I dont see that it is so much about deliverance as it is about the moving of spoil from one kingdom to another. About what Abram tithed, about what Abram used and where it came from and where it was left in the end. About economies if you will and of course about the King of Salem.

The kings here are really something to see

Melchizedek the King of Righteousness & Peace

The King of Sodom - The King of Burning
The King of Gomorah - Birsha - Son of Wickedness

Chedorlaomer is today believed to be Hammurabi who united Babylonia

I have a feeling you could study this chapter for a long time and not get all there is to get here. There is a of attention to detail in this story for instance it was armed trained servants born in his own house that Abram took with him.
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 
Thanks I was lost for a moment there.
 

---

Posted by HisGrace (Member # 3438) on :
 
I hate to be a grinch, HFHS, but it would be nice to let us know who you are addressing whenever you make quotes.

 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 
Good point well taken Hisgrace!
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
HisGrace,

If we extend Exodus 19:6 into the New Testament we can find fulfillment.

Revelation 1:6 (But sadly there are those today that give up on this one also.)

AMH
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
helpforhomeshcoolers,

1
Who were Abraham’s enemies is something important to identify-

What forced Abraham to go to Egypt was not a lack of provisions but a lack of faith.

When Abraham went down to Egypt he thought that Pharaoh was the enemy, but it was Abraham’s lying tougue.

That Isaac had to endure persecution by his half brother was Abraham’s fault.

(Those rascal kings up north could not handle Abraham; he was way to strong for them.)

2
Support for Sodom’s confidence. You sort of touch on the proof yourself-

You write later that maybe the confederates were getting to strong.

Also the Word clearly gives the reasons for the final destruction of Sodom, it centers on pride. They thought that they had a bullet proof vest after Abraham “saved” them.

Lot became a big man in Sodom after that. They placed him in the gate of the city. Abraham’s own nephew. Father Abraham will protect us. (Sounds a little like a Pharisee prayer.)

3
As stated earlier-
Abraham, (through God’s power) was way to strong for them.

4
That Lot was just is certainly a point where we differ.

AMH
 

---

Posted by HisGrace (Member # 3438) on :
 
Thanks HFHS!

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMH:
HisGrace,
If we extend Exodus 19:6 into the New Testament we can find fulfillment.
Revelation 1:6 (But sadly there are those today that give up on this one also.)AMH

---

Rev.1:6 To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Wow - through Jesus we can be part of the royal priesthood!

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 
2 Peter 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:


A lot of people are unaware that the Bible calls Lot Just.


Just is the word :

1342 dikaiov dikaios dik’-ah-yos

V-righteous 41, just 33, right 5, meet 2; 81
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
helpforhomeshcoolers,

But some of us are very much aware of it.

AMH
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
HisGrace,

The King James has more to offer.

AMH
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 
Ok Ill bite, so why do you disagree that lot was just? I am confused?
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
helpforhomeschoolers,

You are game. I like that.

AMH
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 
Well are ya gonna tell me? Or just keep me in suspense?
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
helpforhomeschoolers,

But this thread was started by HisGrace and was intended to be about Melchizedek. HisGrace already asked me to stop on another topic. The subject of Lot will lead us, for a time, far away from what HisGrace wanted.

My apologies, (I should not have mentioned it).

AMH
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 
Well that is most gracious of you. If we cant tie it into this discussion then we should not discuss it here. I would like to know your thoughts should you chose to start a thread I think that there is a great amount of things that could be studied with regard to Lot. I would certainly listen.
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
helpforhomeschoolers,

Maybe some time we will do that. I find you a most pleasant correspondent.

AMH
 

---

Posted by HisGrace (Member # 3438) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMH:
HisGrace,The King James has more to offer.
AMH

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMH:
HisGrace,
Do not sell your self short.
The King James says that not only do we believers have a stake in the Priesthood; Christ has also made us kings, (just like Melchizedek).AMH

---

My version said Royal Priesthood. You can't get any more kingly than that.

BTW AMH I just checked 1 Peter 2:9, KJV, which includes us, and it doesn't say anything about kings.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light (KJV)
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 
I believe that AMH refers to Rev 1:6 & 5:10.
 

---

Posted by HisGrace (Member # 3438) on :
 
I never quoted Rev. 5:10. Anyway the NLT says -

And you have caused them to become God's Kingdom and his priests. And they will reign on the earth.
Looks very kingly to me. Rev. 1:6 mentions the kingdom as well. I don't think I have to be too concerned about selling myself short.

Anyway I am starting to feel kind of silly trying to clarify such pettiness.
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 
I dont think the probelm is you. I never said you quoted anything. I thought you were asking about where it says we are Kings... the only scripture I know of are these so I thought perhaps they were what AMH was refering to when he said "The King James says that not only do we believers have a stake in the Priesthood; Christ has also made us kings, (just like Melchizedek)."

Sorry I thought I was being helpful; it seemed that you thought it was in Peter and couldnt find it.

(She now crawls back into her cave, lights a candle opens her Bible and minds her own business!)
 

---

Posted by HisGrace (Member # 3438) on :
 
Sorry HFHS - It is AMH who I think is being a bit petty.
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 
(She stays quietly in the safety of the cave and hopes they cant see the little light of the candle - it is better this way - some some people should keep their mouths shut when they are tired because they often end up with their feet in their if they dont when they are tired and punchy)
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
HisGrace,

Since you do not want it, may I have your crown?

(And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. Luke 16:8)

AMH
 

---

Posted by HisGrace (Member # 3438) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMH:
HisGrace,
Since you do not want it, may I have your crown?
AMH

---

AMH, nothing personal, but I consulted the Bible and the scriptures are telling me to keep it Sorry.

Revelation 3:11 (KJV)
Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
HisGrace,

Crowns are fit only for kings.

Some trade, “My kingdom for a horse.”
Others a bowl of pottage
To halt “Stars in their course.”
Strike only words from happy cottage

AMH
 

---

Posted by HisGrace (Member # 3438) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMH:
HisGrace,
Do not sell your self short.
The King James says that not only do we believers have a stake in the Priesthood; Christ has also made us kings, (just like Melchizedek).AMH

---

quote:

---

Since you do not want it, may I have your crown

---

Are you retracting from the above statements with this AMH -

"Crowns are fit only for kings."


 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
HisGrace,

Retract what?

Don’t you become suspicious when someone wants to take something from you?

AMH
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
For all those who say “Melchizedek is none other than Christ incarnate”,

I have three plus witnesses whose actions say that he was not-

Abraham was in his presences but Abraham never falls down and worships Melchizedek. Abraham only gives Melchizedek money, (Christ needs money).

The Psalmist never worships Melchizedek; he only compares him to the Son.

The writer of Hebrews only compares Melchizedek to Christ; he never commands we worship him.

And finally-

I don’t see any of you worshipping Melchizedek. What is wrong?

AMH
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
AMH

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. I had to go check the scripture to see if Melchizedek died for my sins. After reviewing the scripture the verdict is he did not. There for I do not worship him.


God bless
greg
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
oneyearandcounting,

If we worship Melchizedek then would we expect to be put out of the Church as just another cult?

Or how about those incarnate angels that pop in and out of Scripture. Should we worship these also?

AMH
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
AMH

If My very limited knowlege serves me correct. Don't some people who call themselves Christians already worship certain angels?

By this I mean the RCC. SO TO ansewr your question yes I guess some will worship even the angels that are in the Bible.


God bless
greg
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
oneyearandcounting,

Right. And the reason for this is-

They do not know the truth. So they worshipped the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.

And for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections.

It did not stop here. They changed even their own natural affections.

Until you have someone like Lot married to his own offspring.

AMH
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 
No one worshiped the rock either, but still the rock was Christ........

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
oneyearandcounting,

You see how it works?

Christ is now a piece of granite. Or God could be anything, gold, silver, wood. What ever is available.

AMH
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
AMH

I see what you are saying.

SO do you believe that Melchizedek was just a regular person who achieved some kind of rightousness. Much like what we as Christians strive to achieve.

God bless

greg
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
oneyearandcounting,

As I wrote to you before about the wine and the bread-

How far are you willing to go?

Is the bread and wine Christ?

Is the granite Christ?

Is Melchizedek Christ?

If you answer yes then worship of these is in order.

AMH
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 
Please! God appeared to Moses as a burning bush... so does that make you to think God is a tree?

Repectfully, Andy, If thinking that Mechizedek was the Word of God manifest to Abram as Melchidek leads you to make God to be gold and silver then reject it.

The Bible tells me that Mechizedek was without beginning of Days or end of Life and that speaks to me of ONE, and I seeing that does not cause me to make God to be gold or silver or granite.

And if we worship Christ we worship because He is God. We worship God Almighty and no other.
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
helpforhomeschooler,

You are the one with the doctrine problem as usual.

AMH
 

---

Posted by helpforhomeschoolers (Member # 15) on :
 
I have no problem with my doctrine. I trust that if it needs correcting God will accomplish that. I have no problem with you holding the beliefs that you have in this regard (Melchizedek) I trust that if it needs correcting God will accomplish that. I was trying to express this.

I believe that we have now crossed the point of open discussion and have begun to be rude and so again, you may have the last word, I have nothing more to contribute.....
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
oneyearandcounting,

The Scripture is God’s truth revealed. The Lord uses words to communicate with us. He takes things that we understand and says-

I am like this.

Or,

You are like that.

There is a Godly line given in the Old Testament that follows right through to the birth of Christ.

Melchizedek is not included in the Godly line given to us. This makes him a “type” in that his linage was not included. He came from “no where” so to speak and then returned to “no where” so to speak. As did Christ. But Melchizedek was only a man. And we must not worship him. And helpforhomeschooler will tell you not to worship Melchizedek if you were to ask helpforhmeschooler.

But we do worship Christ. Always and in everything. From the beginning to the end. Before and after A.D. 0.

AMH
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
AMH

I'm sorry But I have to disagree with you concerning your last post.

It seems to me that you are doing two things.
1. You are putting limitations on what God can do.
2. It seems that you are saying that anything that Christ has been called IE the bread then we are worshipping it. If this last thing is not what you are sayng then please forgive me.

By the way please call me Greg I don't particularly like this screen name.

God bless
greg
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
Amh

I'm almost lost again when did I say that I worshipped Melchizedek. If this is not what you are implying then again let me say I am truely sorry.


God bless
greg
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Greg,

Can we have an honest discussion?

We worship God the Creator. We worship Christ the Savior. If someone says that this is God or Christ then we should worship.

If someone says that Melchizedek is Christ then we should worship.

When you say that Melchizedek is Christ then you are implying all that goes with it. Even worship.

I see that you are not prepared to worship Melchizedek just as helpforhomeshcoolers is not prepared to worship Melchizedek.

So you really do not believe that Melchizedek was Christ.

Or are you a secret worshipper?

At least the RCC is honest enough to admit this about the bread and the wine blessed by the priest. They do worship it.

AMH
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
AMH

Wow, first off I thought we were having an honest discussion. First off as far as worshiping Melchizdek If he was Christ and Christ is God. Then everytime we worship we are worshipping him. If he wasn't as you say and he was a man with no parents, who just popped onto the scene. Then when we worship we aren't worshipping him.

AS Linda mention God was a bush to Moses. Do we worship the bush. God forbid, but when we worship we worshipo God for the what he is, what he does, what he will do, what he has done and what he is doing.

In my Torah that I have it says the old Rabbis taught that Melchizedek was Shem. What do we know about that that can't be true? We know what the book of Hebrews says about him. If not Christ then who.

I believe from reading The scripture that he quite possibly (no I don't think I will waver on this) he was Christ. He was Christ before Christ did the one thing that eliminates the loophole. BE born and live a life as a man.

YEs I said loop hole every religion has one except Christianity. Do you know it.


God bless

greg
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Greg,

OK then.

At the BBS there is Melchizedek worship.

Very well.

AMH
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
Amh
You make me laugh. you really do.

Answer me this who was he. Our choices are limited.

Adam oh wait he died.

an angel there is no evidence that an angel was ever given such authority.

another man that God created and just planted on the earth.

Or the Word in the flesh before the Word was born into flesh.

Not sure where you are pulling the worship thing from, but anyway if that what it seems to you then so be it. GOd knows who I worship.

How about my loophole question you have a answer?

Sorry if this is offensive in anyway but the worship thing had me laughing pretty hard.

God bless you

greg
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Greg,

Two days ago you never even heard of transubstantiation, now you would crown Melchizedek King of the Universe. You have come a long way baby.

Your laugh is very familiar.

I bow down in worship to superior intellect.

AMH
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
AMH

First off if saying that you make me laugh was offending to you it wasn't ment to be. I was laughing at the post of yours that mentioned worship of melchizedek. you see the way you worded it made me laugh.

You are correct I didn't know what transolition or what ever it was you said ment. But at the same time when you posted that I believe that I said I believed Christ and Melchizedek were the same.

I am in no way trying to be smarter than you or show my intellegence. I am basically trying to have an open conversation with you. So if you think that I believe you to be less intellegent than me ,well for that I again say I am sorry.

I have been a Christian for a short time. Do I know everything that is to be known? Obviosly no I don't but at the same time the things I do know I haven't learned from a man. That is why I always say prove your point to me.

Now we can keep going and have a good honest conversation or we can say ok enough. to that I leave up to you. But we are now to the point where if he (Melchizedek) wasn't Christ then we need to figure out together who he was. But this I will leave up to you.

Again let me say I am very sorry if I offended you in any way. That has not been my intention . My intention through this whole thread was to learn something maybe look at something in a different way.

God bless
greg
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Greg,

(I am not so sure. But we will leave it at that.)

Why do you say that we need to figure out who Melchizedek was? If God intended for us to know something about Melchizedek He would have told us through His word and not some interloper because Melchizedek is that important.

In the final analysis I can not prove anything about Melchizedek. The only thing that I know about him is what I read.

I do know that the worship of Christ is paramount. Can this be said about Melchizedek?

Melchizedek was a king that lived during the time of Abraham.
Melchizedek was a priest that lived during the time of Abraham.
We do not know where he came from or where he went. The same can be said about the wind. Is the wind Christ?

But really I am not the one required to prove anything. You couch the argument as though the Bible says that Melchizedek was Christ. Then you want me to prove the Bible wrong. But you and helpforsomeschoolers went out on the limb. The Bible does not say anywhere that Melchizedek was Christ. So prove that he was.

(In the meanwhile I am going to watch for all of your proofs.)

AMH
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
Amh

Something tells me that no matter what I say and what I believe the scripture is saying that you won't believe it anyway. It seems to me that you are looking for me to come right out with a scripture and say "This is the verse that proves it."

WE both know that this isn't going to happen.

Yes you are correct Linda and I both did go out on a limb. So while we are out on the limb and you are cutting every branch around us Iwill try to give you my proofs. Now like I said I am able to change my opinion if and only if someone shows me my error. So far you haven't done this.

Ok the first thing Iwill throw out on the table for you to slap back at me is this verse from Hebrews.

Heb 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec.

My question is simple and let me use some of your words for a second on this one. If the King of the Universe was going to have a Priesthood. Why would it be based after the Priest hood of a mere man if Melchizedek was just a man. Wouldn't the King of the Universe have a priesthood better than that of any man?

My next bit of proof can be found in John 8:56
and these are Chrisrs own words.

John8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

You notice the word saw that means Abraham saw Christs day. Now what was Christs day I believe that Abraham saw the Messiah. But how could this be? When he saw Melchizedek, he saw Christ thus he saw the Messiah. But again I am sure that this will be smacked right back to me from you. In fact I can see Your response right now " greg I'm sorry he didn't see Christ he saw an example of Christ or something like that.

In one of your posts you mentioned Melchizedeks geneology. What I think you were going for was the fact that he isn't mentioned in Christs blood line. If I am wrong by this I am sorry. In response to that statement though I have to say why would he be mentioned in his blood line?

Now lets discuss the verses in Hebrews that mentions his parents.

Heb7:3 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.

Now we both believe that the Bible is the word f God correct? If our answer is yes then we need to ask ourselves why God would have this verse put in there. From what I can tell there really isn't any need accept to point us down the path that both Linda and I have taken. If I am missing something please correct me.

I just don't think that it is necessary to have this there if he did after all have parents. Plus by saying that he didn't have parents when he actually did well doesn't that make God a liar?

Maybe you see the dilema maybe you don't. We can say well the writter of Hebrews made a mistake. but we start walking on dangerous ground. If we have a mistake there then what else can be written off as a mistake.

This brings me to his title Heb7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace

Would not Christ be the King of Peace, or is he only the Prince of Peace. So his title is either equal to that of Melchizedek or his title is beneath Melchizedek. How can this be Christ if he the King of the Universe.

So now we have Or lord an savior by title equal to or beneath that of a man. Hmm this can't possibly be correct. What am I missing.

Now I am sure your response will be something like this. Greg its only a name and a title. But I think we can both maybe agree that in the Bible the names are very important.

Lets take Emmanuel. Doesn't that mean God with us. Butr if a name is only a name then when the baby was born and named Emmanuel was God really with us? Or how about Jesus doesn't it mean Yahweh saves. If a name is only a name maybe Yahwah doesn't really save. Heaven forbid that this is the case where would thet leave us poor creatures of sin.

For now this is all I have I look forward to your reply. By the way In doing my study on this the last few days I can see where you can get that he wasn't. This very well could be one of those mysterys that aren't answered till we are with the Lord.

God bless
greg
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Greg,

I promise to answer every point that you brought up in your last post if you will but answer one small question of mine-

Will you worship Melchizedek as God, yes or no?

AMH
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 

 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
Amh

Once we are in Heaven and we are worshipping God we will be worshipping him. WE will worship God for everything that he has done. If he was Melchizedek It won't be Melchizedek that is being worshipped but God. Just like it won't be the bush that we worship but God. We will worship the one that died for us.

Now one thing I am pretty sure of if Christ wasn't Mechizedek then he will be standing right there worshipping with us.

God bless
greg
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Greg,

I do not understand your last post.

Are you answering “Yes” or “No” to my last question?

AMH
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
Amh

Basically I look at your question as a trick question. If I say I think he ws Christ and I say no then I am saying I wont worship God.

But if I say yes and he wasn't Christ then I am saying I would worship a false God.

But if like I said you worship God because he is God and for everything that he is, was and will be then you are worshipping God.

You can answer your own question by answering this one. We know that GOd was a burning bush there fore will you worship the burning bush?

God bless
greg
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Greg,

So that you do not think that I am only a sham-

I will never worship Melchizedek as God. Melchizedek is not my king.

Jesus Christ is my Lord, my Savior, the only King that I will ever serve. Very man of very man and very God of very God.

To Him be praise and glory for ever and ever

AMH
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
Amh,

Fair enough.

But will you worship the bush.


GOd bless
greg
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Greg,

You know, so far I feel that I have been patient with you. But there is a limit.

I am not in the habit of addressing or answering in any way fool questions.

AMH
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
Amh

You are right. that last question was quite foolish. For that I am sorry I really am. But it was for a reason. You see you feel it would be foolish to worship the Burning bush as do I. I also think that your question on whether I would worship Melchizedek is foolish.

No I would not worship Melchizedek. I will not stand before Jesus and Say I worship you Melchizedek.

God bless
greg
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Greg,

I think very little of your tactics, (motive). With them you stand to lose much more than you gain.

Games are for children.

AMH
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
Amh

Now I am the one who is confused yet again what are my tactics or (motive). You asked me a simple question I answered it I think about four times. I have asked you a few, And some you have answered.

We both no that we wont agree on this topic. so we can leave it be or we can keep going.

That I leave up to you.

God bless you
greg
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Greg,

I can see clearly that you are confused. Maybe you should choose your friends a little more carefully.

AMH
 

---

Posted by oneyearandcounting (Member # 4449) on :
 
Amh
And On that note I take it that this thread is over and done with. To bad I was actually enjoying our conversation.

You know I always enjoy your posts even if you hardly ever use scripture. But maybe its just better if this thread dies out now.

God bless you Andy
greg
 

---

Posted by Thunderz7 (Member # 31) on :
 
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.

One can go to the Hebrew and say that -
without father, without mother without descent,
means
not recorded in the genealogies.

From the Hebrew,
neither biginning of life nor end of days proves this point.
He is not on record in the genealogies because he was not born, did not die, and produced no human offspring.

The original language proves that.


Hebrews 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


Melchizedek is the King of peace;
the child (Is.9:6) is the Prince of Peace.


11 ¶ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

If perfection comes by the order of Melchisedek;
who is the prefect high priest?

14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.


Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Do we worship Emmanuel?


Matthew 21:9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
Matthew 21:15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,
Mark 11:9 And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord:
Mark 11:10 Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.
John 12:13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.


Do we worship Hosanna?

Hebrew would spell the NAME above all names
Yeshua - Yashua - Y'shua - Yehoshua
The Messiah never heard His mother call him Jesus!

Who do we worship?

Do I have to list all the Old Testament Names of GOD (who is actually YHWH)?
Who do we worship?
Is Melchizedek not among them?

T7
 

---

Posted by BORN AGAIN (Member # 5) on :
 
This was good, AMH

quote:

---

For all those who say “Melchizedek is none other than Christ incarnate”,

I have three plus witnesses whose actions say that he was not-

Abraham was in his presences but Abraham never falls down and worships Melchizedek. Abraham only gives Melchizedek money, (Christ needs money).

The Psalmist never worships Melchizedek; he only compares him to the Son.

The writer of Hebrews only compares Melchizedek to Christ; he never commands we worship him.

And finally-

I don’t see any of you worshipping Melchizedek. What is wrong?

---

Interesting.

God bless, BORN AGAIN
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Yes, we have just been pecking at the surface since coming here. As bad as the “literalness” is, there is something way worse and much more persistent residing at this site. As a matter of fact the “literalness” is only a symptom. The residing persistence targets faith, politics and for sure education. It was destroyed only to rear its ugly head once again. Miraculous!

AMH
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Thunderz7,

Your logo is impressive. Is your post open for discussion?

AMH
 

---

Posted by Aaron (Member # 3761) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderz7:

The Messiah never heard His mother call him Jesus!

---

quote:

---

Thunderz7,

Your logo is impressive. Is your post open for discussion?

AMH

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderz7:
Aaron, my point certainly is not that there is no power in the name of Jesus,
my point is GOD has been called by many names.

I believe when YHWH confused the tongues of men at Babel, HE already knew all the names, in all the languages, that HE would be called.
I believe HE honors the utterance of those names when they come from a born again beleiver.

---

Ah. Thank you for clarifying that.

Aaron
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Greg,

You had your chance, (or does your memory also lack). The invitation was given but the altar is now closed. Too late.

I am willing to cast a hungry dog a bone though-

Thunderz7 draws his sword but he does seem a little rusty now. Add another name to his list for his lord-

Illiterate

AMH
 

---

Posted by Thunderz7 (Member # 31) on :
 

quote:

---

I am willing to cast a hungry dog a bone though-

Thunderz7 draws his sword but he does seem a little rusty now. Add another name to his list for his lord-

Illiterate

AMH

---

A dog, rusty, illiterate?

OH, OH, I get it, an Irish Setter who can't read his name on the food bowl.

Guess I'll get on all four, wag my tail,
go outside and howl at the moon.

be blessed in Jesus
T7
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Whether we like it or not, whether we realize it or not we all have a philosophy.

(That someone, as appears in this thread, would actually think that God is a bush or a rock or any other thing is not such a threat today because hedonism was thoroughly defeated.)

What is a very real threat though is ignorance.

As oddly as it may sound to some there is class warfare being fought in Christian circles. Even right here at this website, even in this very thread, right under our noses.

It centers on who is to be in control.

In order for the ruling class (bourgeois) to remain in power they must act in such a way that the power of the working class (proletarians) is neutralized. (Before you call me a communist let me give an example.)

In the early days of the Roman Catholic Church the clergy was able to control their subjects through ignorance. The masses could not read therefore they were totally dependent on the local priests and monks for Bible knowledge. The RCC coveted this power so much that it was death to anyone who would dare publish Bibles in the common language.

Clergy today still covet power.

They would have us believe that God cannot communicate with us in our own common language. This is a method they use to enslave us.

Their proverb sounds something like this-

Going back to the “original manuscript…”

Or

Reading from the “original language…”

By saying this they not only commit the masses to ignorance but they claim that God is somehow illiterate. That God cannot make Himself known to modern man.

But the Lord says that He has made us both kings and priests. We are to rule our own lives through His grace. We do not need these interlopers (clergy).

AMH
 

---

Posted by Thunderz7 (Member # 31) on :
 
AHM,
I like some of the thoughts on the clergy trying to control and manipulate power and truth.

Do you think it would make a good thread topic?

By the way,
I do read English,
though I speak Southern,
and don't spell or type English well.

have a great day
T7
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
I made a startling discovery last night.

Every time that I typed the letters t-h-u-n-d-e-r-z-7 my computer would start shaking.

Then I went into a hypnotic trance as I gazed at the spinning sword.

My hands uncontrollably began typing. I could not stop as I went into sensory overload.

And this was the result-

In my pea brain I was taken back to my childhood days. To the time when I too liked playing games. All my old friends were there. And we were playing this game called pin the tail on the donkey. And we were using, (here my computer starts shaking again) thunderz7’s sword.

And the teacher told us-“Every time the donkey answers a question he gets a piece of candy.” And we all just cheered and cheered.

So tell us little burro-

What was the original language that Abraham used to communicate to Melchizedek?

And what was the original language that Mary and Jesus and the Disciples used to speak to one another?

And finally-

Why does the Lord hate the Nicolaitans so much?

(If I sign off by saying “God bless” will that make everything all right?)
AMH
 

---

Posted by BORN AGAIN (Member # 5) on :
 
Who was Melchizedek?
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Who were Melchizedek’s contemporaries?

AMH
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Dear Mr. Computer,

Do not be so alarmed. Although we do not know thunderz7, (now stop that shaking) very well he is probably a very nice guy. He just likes props, you know-

Names that remind us of Thor’s hammer
Swinging swords
Original languages

None of these are actually real. There, now isn’t that better.

(thunderz7, thunderz7, thunderz7) very good, no shaking.

It is not that “Original” things do not have their place Mr. Computer. It is just that we are not dependent on them. What we are dependent on is the Lord. Our friend likes lists so here is another-

Original things that we no longer have-

Moses' staff
The Ark of the Covenant
The Ten Commandments
Original Languages
Original Manuscripts

Mr. Computer do you know why we no longer have these?

Because some of us would worship them. They would become idols to us.

God will not allow this to happen. Besides we do not need them.

AMH
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
Here is a chance for those who prefer to defer to the “Original” to shine-

The language of Genesis 11 is very clear that Shem was a contemporary of Melchizedek. Doubt is cast on this record by the use of Luke 3.

So it is up to the “Originals” to decide the matter.

What is it going to be Originals?

Do we accept Genesis 11 or Luke 3?

AMH
 

---

Posted by BORN AGAIN (Member # 5) on :
 
AMH writes

quote:

---

Here is a chance for those who prefer to defer to the “Original” to shine-

The language of Genesis 11 is very clear that Shem was a contemporary of Melchizedek. Doubt is cast on this record by the use of Luke 3.

So it is up to the “Originals” to decide the matter.

What is it going to be Originals? Do we accept Genesis 11 or Luke 3?

---

Shem? I hadn't thought about Shem. I know for sure that Shem was a contemporary of Melchizedek. See my Topic Old Testament Age and Year Chart at http://thechristianbbs.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003619#000000.

From the chart:

50. Genesis 11:10ff Shem+602 + + Eber 435 + + + + Ishmael 124 Isaac 110 Jacob 50
[Shem, the son of Noah, dies at 602; he has outlived Abraham by 35 years.]

Shem outlived Abraham by 35 years, and Shem was thus alive when Abram pursued the 4 eastern kings to Dan, and when Abram came back with the spoil and the people, Abram met Melchizedek by Salem.

AMH, since Abram did not worship Melchizedek, are you proposing that Shem had migrated to the land of Canaan at some point after the dispersion? But how did Shem get to be “a priest of the most High God”?

Genesis 14:18
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

And certainly the things Hebrews says of Melchizedek cannot not be said to be attributes of Shem?

Hebrews 7:3
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like the Son of God; and abides a priest continually.

Certainly there cannot be “two” priests of the most high God, if each “abides continually”, and Yahshua-Jesus was made after the order or Melchizedek?

Psalm 110:4
The LORD has sworn, and will not repent, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

God bless, BORN AGAIN
 

---

Posted by AMH (Member # 4895) on :
 
BORN AGAIN,

There is some Jewish folklore that claims Shem as Melchizedek.

I was only pointing out that the possibility of there being many believers at the time in question as more than likely. And that these believers would have been in need of a priest. There have been many true priests of the Lord, with Melchizedek being unique in that Abraham, (another priest of the Lord) did show himself inferior, which is what the writer of Hebrews is showing us. Israel’s priest system was inferior from the beginning to the priesthood Melchizedek represents.

Much is made of the “non-existent” linage of Melchizedek. But the Bible repeats that Christ and Melchizedek are comparable, never equivalent.

A big concern is “literalism” that continues to creep its way into everything Christian. Taken to the extreme the Bible becomes pure nonsense, (one does not have to look very far as this website is replete with examples).

As far as Melchizedek’s priesthood continuing-

God’s plan of salvation transcends Israel.

(We also do not want to lose sight of the fact that acceptance of Genesis 11 is acceptance of a miracle. Miracles are also under attack.)

AMH
 

---