 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Your Thoughts on MELCHIZEDEK... |
Aaron Scott |
Give me your thoughts on Melchizedek. He clearly is someone special (apparently even more special than Abraham).
I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
10/28/20 12:04 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Da Sheik |
Quick thoughts in summary: Not a Christophany. They came and went. This man held down two jobs: king and priest. Jesus did not become a man until the incarnation. He is a type of Christ - not Christ. Joseph is a type of Christ. Moses is a type of Christ. David is a type of Christ. Melchizedek is also a type of Christ. He is “like†the Son of God - but not the Son of God.
Hebrews shows the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood. Since Levi is a descendent of Abraham, and Abraham shows deference to Melchizedek- clearly Melchizedek was of greater stature than Abram. In Psalm 110 David prophesies a change of priesthood is coming. In a book filled with genealogies, there is no record of Melchizedek’s birth or death. Not because he’s immortal or divine. But to show that as a type of Christ, there would come an unending priesthood in the person of Jesus Christ. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1865
10/28/20 12:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Da Sheik... |
Aaron Scott |
| Da Sheik wrote: | Quick thoughts in summary: Not a Christophany. They came and went. This man held down two jobs: king and priest. Jesus did not become a man until the incarnation. He is a type of Christ - not Christ. Joseph is a type of Christ. Moses is a type of Christ. David is a type of Christ. Melchizedek is also a type of Christ. He is “like†the Son of God - but not the Son of God.
Why would you think this is not a theophany? Jesus is both the King of Kings and the High Priest of our profession, so there is that alignment. Also, Melchizedek was the king of Salem (which means "peace"). That would seem to align with "Prince of Peace."
Then, notice what Hebrews says of Melchizedek:
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.â€
He had not beginning of days nor end of life--which speaks of eternity, not just a missing genealogy.
To lock that in, it is explained in the next phrase, I think: "BUT made like unto the Son of God...."
In other words, it seems that the verse is saying that the reason Melchizedek didn't have a marked beginning or end was BECAUSE he was like unto the Son of God.
No theophany is perfect. The Captain of the Host that Joshua saw? Well, you could argue he was an angel, I suppose.
The 4th man in the fire? Just because the king said he looked like the Son of God didn't mean he was the Son of God, of course.
But with Melchizedek, there's more than the usual. Notice that he ABIDETH (present tense) a priest forever. We don't hear of any divine priests...except one. And it Melchizedek is STILL a priest, that leads us even closer, I think, to holding that he is surely the Son of God.
Then, to top it off, Jesus is called a priest AFTER THE ORDER of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 7:17
“For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.â€
If Jesus is the HIGH priest, then to order Him after a someone lesser in rank than Himself would seem odd, don't you think?
As for Melchizedek's offices--king and priest--we find not mention of him being the literal king of a place anywhere but here. That is, there is not some scripture that says "King XYZ came against Melchizedek, the King of Salem." And, like Jethro, there was no established priesthood at that time, it being at least four hundred years before the Law.
Now, Da Sheik, I'm not saying you don't have a point. But it seems that there is a lot of weight on the side of Melchizedek being a supernatural being.
Notice this in HEBREWS 7...
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
Who receives tithes? Who is living? Well, we know that it is Jesus...but it seems to be speaking of Melchizedek....
Hebrews shows the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood. Since Levi is a descendent of Abraham, and Abraham shows deference to Melchizedek- clearly Melchizedek was of greater stature than Abram. In Psalm 110 David prophesies a change of priesthood is coming. In a book filled with genealogies, there is no record of Melchizedek’s birth or death. Not because he’s immortal or divine.
I would hope that the above gives you some things to ponder regarding the eternal nature of Melchizedek. To be clear, I am not at all trying to put out some weird, mystical notion that there is some "being" that is/was Melchizedek. I simply believe that it was Jesus in human form.
NOT A HUMAN, BUT IN HUMAN FORM.
Only at His incarnation, when He became a man, was Jesus a human. All other theophanies are, as far as I can tell, simply the immortal taking on mortal FORM.
But to show that as a type of Christ, there would come an unending priesthood in the person of Jesus Christ. |
|
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
10/28/20 1:58 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Da Sheik |
| Clearly you are convinced Melchizedek is Jesus so I won’t be able to persuade you otherwise. But just for consideration: Don’t you find it strange that only the book of Hebrews makes mention of him ? Jesus never appeals to the story of Melchizedek to affirm His deity. He does appeal to Moses, the manna from Heaven, to Abraham, etc. Paul never speaks of Jesus as Melchizedek. He does speak of the rock being a type of Christ. This is never an apologetic tool in the preaching of Acts. Surely if Paul and the Apostles considered Jesus and Melchizedek one and the same that would have been part of their preaching to the Jews right ? |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1865
10/28/20 3:11 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Da Sheik... |
Aaron Scott |
| Da Sheik wrote: | | Clearly you are convinced Melchizedek is Jesus so I won’t be able to persuade you otherwise. But just for consideration: Don’t you find it strange that only the book of Hebrews makes mention of him ? Jesus never appeals to the story of Melchizedek to affirm His deity. He does appeal to Moses, the manna from Heaven, to Abraham, etc. Paul never speaks of Jesus as Melchizedek. He does speak of the rock being a type of Christ. This is never an apologetic tool in the preaching of Acts. Surely if Paul and the Apostles considered Jesus and Melchizedek one and the same that would have been part of their preaching to the Jews right ? |
Please know that while, yes, I do think Melchizedek is a theophany, I am not immune to an reasonable argument to the contrary.
I don't know who wrote Hebrews. I tend to think it was Paul. But in that book it says the following in Hebrews 5:
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
This implies (to me) that there were some much deeper things to spoken of about Melchizedek...but the readers were not yet up to it.
Well, I cannot imagine what might so difficult to accept...unless it is a theophany, can you?
Now, I don't make a doctrine out of this; it's just my own take on the matter. But there were many things that we have not record of the apostles preaching--e.g., the trinity; etc. Yes, we may extrapolate from them to reach certain beliefs, but they did not teach the trinity in any way that was clearly about THAT.
As for Hebrews being the only book...are you perhaps suggesting it is incorrect? not canonical? etc.? I'm not going to take you to task if you do, of course, but we tend to find the notion of saved by grace mainly (only?) in Paul's epistles, even if it is not contradicted elsewhere. We never read of the "third heaven" anywhere but in Paul's writings.
Do you feel that the things being only in Hebrews perhaps disqualifies them in some way? |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
10/29/20 9:53 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
I like this, I have never considered most of this. Very interesting to the neophyte! Thanks.
I ain't smart enough to comment on the actual subject, but to me it is interesting reading.  
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
10/29/20 10:19 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Da Sheik... |
Da Sheik |
| Aaron Scott wrote: |
As for Hebrews being the only book...are you perhaps suggesting it is incorrect? not canonical? etc.? I'm not going to take you to task if you do, of course, but we tend to find the notion of saved by grace mainly (only?) in Paul's epistles, even if it is not contradicted elsewhere. We never read of the "third heaven" anywhere but in Paul's writings.
Do you feel that the things being only in Hebrews perhaps disqualifies them in some way? |
I brought up the book of Hebrews because that book of the NT deals with a very specific issue. The writer was warning the believers not to go back into dead works (aka Judaism). They were being tempted to embrace the Levitical priesthood and leave Jesus Christ. The mention of Melchizedek is used to show that there was a priesthood superior to the Aaronic priesthood and that Psalm 110 shows that this priestly order would once again come into play.
To be a priest under the law of Moses you had to have the pedigree. You had to produce the genealogy proving you were a descendent of Aaron. However, in a book filled with genealogies (Genesis) Melchizideks's genealogy is omitted. This omission was not because he was a divine being, but to show that he was a priest by divine decree, not by virtue of ancestry! Melchizedek was an earthly priest and king. Jesus is the heavenly priest.
When David prophesies in Psalm 110: he says that the LORD (Jesus) would be made an high priest after the order of Melchizedek (i.e. by divine decree). Clearly David viewed the LORD and Melchizedek as separate entities. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1865
10/29/20 6:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Da Sheik... |
Aaron Scott |
| Da Sheik wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: |
As for Hebrews being the only book...are you perhaps suggesting it is incorrect? not canonical? etc.? I'm not going to take you to task if you do, of course, but we tend to find the notion of saved by grace mainly (only?) in Paul's epistles, even if it is not contradicted elsewhere. We never read of the "third heaven" anywhere but in Paul's writings.
Do you feel that the things being only in Hebrews perhaps disqualifies them in some way? |
I brought up the book of Hebrews because that book of the NT deals with a very specific issue. The writer was warning the believers not to go back into dead works (aka Judaism). They were being tempted to embrace the Levitical priesthood and leave Jesus Christ. The mention of Melchizedek is used to show that there was a priesthood superior to the Aaronic priesthood and that Psalm 110 shows that this priestly order would once again come into play.
To be a priest under the law of Moses you had to have the pedigree. You had to produce the genealogy proving you were a descendent of Aaron. However, in a book filled with genealogies (Genesis) Melchizideks's genealogy is omitted. This omission was not because he was a divine being, but to show that he was a priest by divine decree, not by virtue of ancestry! Melchizedek was an earthly priest and king. Jesus is the heavenly priest.
When David prophesies in Psalm 110: he says that the LORD (Jesus) would be made an high priest after the order of Melchizedek (i.e. by divine decree). Clearly David viewed the LORD and Melchizedek as separate entities. |
I think you raise some very good points here. I do understand that why Melchizedek's lineage might be omitted, but it also says "no end of life." I think that might give us pause if we are thinking it was done just to point out that the priesthood is not of genealogy. And I think the "no end of life" is meant literally, in that it says he ABIDETH a priest forever. That is, there is not end to His office--at least as I see it.
The part about David apparently thinking they were two distinct beings...that's a good point. Not insurmountable, I don't think, but a good one. I would perhaps argue that there are plenty of prophecies, I would think, that were not fully understood by the person who gave them. For instance, it is apparent that the Jews did not understand God to have a Son, which you would think they would have thought that way if the prophet himself had thought that. Make sense? |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
10/29/20 7:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Da Sheik... |
Da Sheik |
| Aaron Scott wrote: |
I think you raise some very good points here. I do understand that why Melchizedek's lineage might be omitted, but it also says "no end of life." I think that might give us pause if we are thinking it was done just to point out that the priesthood is not of genealogy. And I think the "no end of life" is meant literally, in that it says he ABIDETH a priest forever. That is, there is not end to His office--at least as I see it. |
I don't know of one respectable Messianic Jew who holds to this interpretation. Not one. Melchizedek lived and died. Aaron and his descendants took over the priesthood for a season. Then Jesus died, rose again, and ascended. Now He has a priesthood after the same order of Melchizedek. Christ abides a priest forever. Not Melchizedek.
Further, the book of Hebrews goes to great lengths to describe how Christ is "better". Better than the old order of things, which has now become obsolete with the sacrifice of Christ. There's no way the writer of Hebrews would venerate Melchizedek or any other Old Testament figure to the detriment of exalting Christ.
| Quote: |
The part about David apparently thinking they were two distinct beings...that's a good point. Not insurmountable, I don't think, but a good one. I would perhaps argue that there are plenty of prophecies, I would think, that were not fully understood by the person who gave them. For instance, it is apparent that the Jews did not understand God to have a Son, which you would think they would have thought that way if the prophet himself had thought that. Make sense? |
This is the same kind of logic the "Jesus Only" crowd uses to explain how Jesus prays to Himself in the garden or on the Cross. There is a reason only the book of Hebrews deals with Melchizedek in the NT. It was to show the inferiority of the Aaronic priesthood in comparison to Christ Jesus. There is no intent there to venerate or create some mystical teaching about Melchizedek.
Melchizedek was the king and priest in Salem. Jesus was not a king and priest in Salem prior to the incarnation. Galatians 4:4 makes this extremely clear. Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils to him (not a tenth of everything he owned btw). He did not worship Melchizedek!!! Genesis 18 is a true Theophany. Notice how Abraham responds during this encounter. When he encounters a true theophany there he worships and prays to Jehovah. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1865
10/30/20 10:12 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
shaunbwilson |
If you really want to do a deep dive on this, I recommend Naked Bible Podcast 166–168, 170 — Melchizedek. "Dr. Michael Heiser does an in-depth study on Melchizedek, a mysterious figure that’s only mentioned in three books of the Bible—so who was Melchizedek?"
_________________
Signature Themes: Connectedness | Futuristic | Ideation | Intellection | Learner |
Site Admin
Posts: 3222
10/30/20 12:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Da Sheik... |
Aaron Scott |
| Da Sheik wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: |
I think you raise some very good points here. I do understand that why Melchizedek's lineage might be omitted, but it also says "no end of life." I think that might give us pause if we are thinking it was done just to point out that the priesthood is not of genealogy. And I think the "no end of life" is meant literally, in that it says he ABIDETH a priest forever. That is, there is not end to His office--at least as I see it. |
I don't know of one respectable Messianic Jew who holds to this interpretation. Not one. Melchizedek lived and died. Aaron and his descendants took over the priesthood for a season. Then Jesus died, rose again, and ascended. Now He has a priesthood after the same order of Melchizedek. Christ abides a priest forever. Not Melchizedek.
I put almost zero stock in anything Messianic Jews say about theology. Mainly because, in my experience, most of them have a tendency to try to hold that certain Jewish practices should be practiced by Gentile Christians, as well. That's not proof that they are wrong, but I have very little confidence in their take on matters.
Da Sheik, it is Melchizedek whom the Bible says abideth a priest forever.
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.
Now, of course Jesus is an eternal priest. So are BOTH priests? You know I think they are one and the same.
Further, the book of Hebrews goes to great lengths to describe how Christ is "better". Better than the old order of things, which has now become obsolete with the sacrifice of Christ. There's no way the writer of Hebrews would venerate Melchizedek or any other Old Testament figure to the detriment of exalting Christ.
In NO CASE of a theophany do the writers claim that that person/being should be venerated. Instead, they point to the "original form" (I guess you could say)--either God or Jesus. I absolutely would be aghast at the veneration of Melchizedek. Not because I don't think He was the Son of God in human form, but that because we worship the Son of God ONLY, ONLY, ONLY in the "form" of Jesus (and in the ways Jesus appears--as a Lamb, as a Lion, etc.)
| Quote: |
The part about David apparently thinking they were two distinct beings...that's a good point. Not insurmountable, I don't think, but a good one. I would perhaps argue that there are plenty of prophecies, I would think, that were not fully understood by the person who gave them. For instance, it is apparent that the Jews did not understand God to have a Son, which you would think they would have thought that way if the prophet himself had thought that. Make sense? |
This is the same kind of logic the "Jesus Only" crowd uses to explain how Jesus prays to Himself in the garden or on the Cross. There is a reason only the book of Hebrews deals with Melchizedek in the NT. It was to show the inferiority of the Aaronic priesthood in comparison to Christ Jesus. There is no intent there to venerate or create some mystical teaching about Melchizedek.
Agreed, the intent was not to create a mystical teaching. At the same time, the writer does say that there are other things to be said about Melchizedek, but that the readers were not able to handle it at that time.
So while the intent it certainly not that we venerate Melchizedek, it seems likely that is is to establish the true nature of Melchizedek.
I think Hebrews' point about Melchizedek is that perfection could not come by a human priesthood. Notice the following:
Hebrews 7:11 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?
But then notice this too in the same chapter:
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the [b]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.
Does that not imply to you that Melchizedek was an eternal being? And if He is still receiving tithes, then is there another priest (i.e., Jesus AND Melchizedek)? I don't think so, but maybe you are seeing something different.
Melchizedek was the king and priest in Salem. Jesus was not a king and priest in Salem prior to the incarnation. Galatians 4:4 makes this extremely clear. Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils to him (not a tenth of everything he owned btw).
No, my friend, Abraham gave him tithe of ALL. And that did not include the spoils...because Abram REFUSED to take any spoils (lest, he said, the King of Sodom say that he had made Abram rich).
There is a reason that I do not believe Salem was just to be taken literally as a place. Salem means "peace." But note also that Mechizedek was also the King of Righteousness--which is one key reason I think "Salem" is about a spiritual thing more than a geographical place.
And surely "King of Righteousness" is not any title that would be afforded to anyone less than a divine being.
He did not worship Melchizedek!!! Genesis 18 is a true Theophany. Notice how Abraham responds during this encounter. When he encounters a true theophany there he worships and prays to Jehovah.
Consider that we do not know what Abram did. We know that he paid tithes. And we know that he was blessed by the better.
|
|
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
10/30/20 12:49 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Da Sheik |
| shaunbwilson wrote: | | If you really want to do a deep dive on this, I recommend Naked Bible Podcast 166–168, 170 — Melchizedek. "Dr. Michael Heiser does an in-depth study on Melchizedek, a mysterious figure that’s only mentioned in three books of the Bible—so who was Melchizedek?" |
That's quite a long video Shaun. Could you give us some bullet points or a summary? |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1865
10/30/20 1:47 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Da Sheik |
Something else to consider using logic. What is it that makes Jesus Christ such a perfect High Priest? Was it not the Incarnation itself? He fully entered into our human experience so that He could sympathize perfectly with us as humans? And what about His ultimate sacrifice? Those things had yet to take place in the days of the patriarchs.
I would strongly suggest that Jesus Christ's High Priestly ministry could not begin prior to the Incarnation. The Old Testament never once hints that Melchizedek was the Messiah. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1865
10/30/20 1:51 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Da Sheik... |
Aaron Scott |
| Da Sheik wrote: | Something else to consider using logic. What is it that makes Jesus Christ such a perfect High Priest? Was it not the Incarnation itself? He fully entered into our human experience so that He could sympathize perfectly with us as humans? And what about His ultimate sacrifice? Those things had yet to take place in the days of the patriarchs.
I hear you on this, but I ask that you consider that the Bible speaks of Jesus being slain from the foundation of the world. That it, it was spiritually true before it was physically true. I would think that might be a solve for your point.
I would strongly suggest that Jesus Christ's High Priestly ministry could not begin prior to the Incarnation. The Old Testament never once hints that Melchizedek was the Messiah.
True. But in not theophany is Jesus presented as the Messiah. He is "like the Son of God" (if you believe He was in the furnace). He was the Captain of the Host for Joshua. And if there are others (I can't recall right off), in no case was He mentioned as the Messiah.
|
|
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
10/30/20 8:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Da Sheik |
The Scriptures (inspired by the Holy Spirit) treat Jesus and Melchizedek as separate entities in Psalm 110 and the book of Hebrews. If the writer of Hebrews considered Jesus as Melchizedek he would have said so. Instead, he compares the two as separate entities. Similar but distinct. Such is the nature of typology.
Theophanies appeared and then disappeared such as Gen 18 and the “4th man in the fireâ€. Melchizedek served as king and priest in Salem. Jesus did not serve a term as an earthly high priest prior to the Incarnation. I will make one last appeal from Scripture to show the chronology. If you refuse to accept, we shall agree to disagree and remain friends (just don’t let me hear of you baptizing folks in the name of Melchizedek!).
Heb 7:26-28 KJV - 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
Notice that last verse and the phrase “since the law� The oath that appointed the Son as High Priest came after the law (and certainly after Melchizedek). And just to correct a factual error you made earlier, it was indeed a tenth of the spoils of the battle of the kings (and not a tithe of all Abraham owned) that Abraham tithed to Melchizedek:
Heb 7:4 - Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. (NKJV) |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1865
10/31/20 9:14 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Da Shiek (UPDATED) |
Aaron Scott |
| Da Sheik wrote: | The Scriptures (inspired by the Holy Spirit) treat Jesus and Melchizedek as separate entities in Psalm 110 and the book of Hebrews. If the writer of Hebrews considered Jesus as Melchizedek he would have said so. Instead, he compares the two as separate entities. Similar but distinct. Such is the nature of typology.
Theophanies appeared and then disappeared such as Gen 18 and the “4th man in the fireâ€. Melchizedek served as king and priest in Salem. Jesus did not serve a term as an earthly high priest prior to the Incarnation. I will make one last appeal from Scripture to show the chronology. If you refuse to accept, we shall agree to disagree and remain friends (just don’t let me hear of you baptizing folks in the name of Melchizedek!).
Heb 7:26-28 KJV - 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
Notice that last verse and the phrase “since the law� The oath that appointed the Son as High Priest came after the law (and certainly after Melchizedek). And just to correct a factual error you made earlier, it was indeed a tenth of the spoils of the battle of the kings (and not a tithe of all Abraham owned) that Abraham tithed to Melchizedek:
Heb 7:4 - Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. (NKJV) |
Thank you, my friend. I have appreciated the discussion.
As for Hebrews 7:4, I have two responses:
1. I don't know how to reconcile that with the clear statement of scripture that Abram refused to accept any spoil.
2. The Greek word for spoils that is used in Hebrews 7:4 appears only once in the Bible. While spoils can be the definition, it shows that the primary and secondary are "firstfruits" and (from the) "top of the heap."
Not saying your point is wrong, but I'm also not saying mine is either (SMILE).
As for the rest, I agree we aren't going to change each others' minds, but you have given me some good things to consider, and I thank you for that.
If it does eventually change my mind, you'll know you deserve some (or all) of the credit.
UPDATE:
As I thought on this, it came to me that if the Son of God appeared in human form as Melchizedek...establishing some sort of priesthood, etc....then, when that theophany was done, it would not make Melchizedek a separate entity from Jesus/the Son of God to say that Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek.
For instance, let's say that I play a role in a movie. And in that movie I do certain things. Well, after the movie is finished, if someone said "You are like that guy in the movie," that doesn't mean we are two separate entities (at least not two separate entities--but rather two different roles).
Further, lets say that in the movie I had on a costume that made me appear very different. For someone to later say that I am like that person in the movie because we have certain characteristics that are similar, that doesn't mean we are separate entities.
Likewise, when Jesus was in the form of Melchizedek (work with me here), He set a certain tone and standard. And now that He is not longer in that form, it would not be wrong to say "You are like Melchizedek. What you established under the guise of Melchizedek, you are just like that."
In any case, bro, I love you--and you have made a very good case. God bless you. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
11/1/20 7:01 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Da Shiek (UPDATED) |
Da Sheik |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | In any case, bro, I love you--and you have made a very good case. God bless you. |
Same here Bro!  |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1865
11/2/20 10:38 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
I have enjoyed this discussion as much as any here on ACTS. There is clearly no winners here but some great Biblical points that us heophytes cn chew on. I hope you guys stay safe and enjoy life. God is good. This has been a sort of blessing just reading the depth in which you guys see scripture.
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
11/3/20 7:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
