SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Melchizedek - who was he?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 Next Page )
PosterThread
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4803


 Re:

In Scripture we find this testimony...

Heb. 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 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;

The word of God seeks to illuminate, to declare what is. In this section of Scripture we find that Scripture defines what Melchizedec is. As Melchizedec stood before Abraham, Abraham worshiped Him. Melchizedec's presence poured forth the understanding of "equity" with the nature of God. This King of righteousness is the sovereign source by which man might know God.

Melchizedec's presence King of peace, also poured forth the understanding of being unified, at rest, set at one again...

1515. eijrhvnh eirene, i-ray´-nay; probably from a primary verb ei“rw eiro (to join); peace (literally or figuratively); by implication, prosperity:—one, peace, quietness, rest, + set at one again.

If Scripture says that Melchizedec is the King of righteousness and the King of peace, and that he served as priest of the Most High God, then we know that He represented in both image and unity the nature of God to Abraham. This is why Abraham gave his tithe to Melchizedec.

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.

In this next description of Melchizedec we find the he "abideth a priest continually." Unlike the earthly priesthood according to the Aaronic order, Melchizedec's priesthood does not end.

Finally, Scripture is not declaring that Melchizedec is a type of Christ, rather, Christ functions "according to the order of Melchizedec.

Scripture is not pointing to a man who resembles Christ. Scripture is pointing out that Christ performs the function of the priestly order of Melchizedec.

In Christ
Jeff




_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2007/2/8 1:04Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4803


 Re:

Is. 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

Who is the Holy One in this Scripture?

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2007/2/8 1:35Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4803


 Re:

Is. 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:
My Well-beloved has a vineyard
On a very fruitful hill.
2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones,
And planted it with the choicest vine.
He built a tower in its midst,
And also made a winepress in it;
So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
But it brought forth wild grapes.
3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.

Who is the Beloved that Isaiah is writing of?

According to these Scriptures, what function does the Beloved perform?

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2007/2/8 2:16Profile
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3707
Ca.

 Re:

Now will I sing - This is an indication that what follows is poetic, or is adapted to be sung or chanted.

To my well-beloved - The word used here - ידיד yedyd - is a term of endearment. It properly denotes a friend; a favorite; one greatly beloved. It is applied to saints as being the beloved, or the favorites of God, in Ps 127:2; De 33:12. In this place, it is evidently applied to Yahweh, the God of the Jewish people. As there is some reason to believe that the God of the Jews - the manifested Deity who undertook their deliverance from Egypt, and who was revealed as "their" God under the name of 'the Angel of the covenant' - was the Messiah, so it may be that the prophet here meant to refer to him. It is not, however, to the Messiah "to come." It does not refer to the God incarnate - to Jesus of Nazareth; but to the God of the Jews, in his capacity as their lawgiver and protector in the time of Isaiah; not to him in the capacity of an incarnate Saviour.

In Christ: Phillip


_________________
Phillip

 2007/2/8 4:23Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Did he meet the Messiah and the Holy Spirit when he met God? The Bible doesn’t say, but Spiritual discernment leads me to believe that he is indeed saved and in Heaven, waiting for the resurrection.


In other words "in your opinion". That's fine I am very happy for you to have your opinions but more uncomfortable when you present your opinions as biblical fact.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/2/8 5:08Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

As Melchizedec stood before Abraham, Abraham worshiped Him.



To say this is to say something Scripture never says.

Quote:

If Scripture says that Melchizedec is the King of righteousness and the King of peace,



Be careful. This the Scriptures do not do either. It says the two-fold interpretation of his names are this. But it does not say that he actually is the King of Righteousness and King of Peace. Rather, he is the king of a city named Salem, and when one breaks down the meanings of the names mentioned, they mean thus.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2007/2/8 6:25Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Melchisedek

Quote:
I am thankful that KingJimmy gave testimony to the truth that this argument of Melchizedek being a pagan priest is not mine, but held by many scholars.


And I too, had no idea this was so. That being the case I do not see how that dissolves you from them being that you A) brought it forth in a seemingly decided agreement and B) that you also applied the highly speculative, even ridiculous charge of being out for money. Couldn't care less what the 'scholar' says no matter how many Ph d's are attached.
Quote:
Like my friend crsschk, I also had a brush with the prosperity church in the past. The issue of money was one that drove Jesus to anger.


While I may appreciate that and recognize again as you go further here regarding the tithe, that is also otherwise to the point here. So was the issues of whether or not Jesus\Melchisedek were one and the same. They become distractions and actually insinuations, this is not what is driving my particular 'anger'. It would be somewhat multifaceted as I have likely already gone to extreme lengths attempting to express. And apparently failing to convey.

Quote:
It is my hope that in breaking free from the bondage that I felt to tithe, that I will remain a cheerful giver. I have given much of my wealth away as it is, and somehow we still survive, and run a ministry. I love giving, and was quite happy to tithe, but when the wheels fell off at times, I would feel bad that I couldn’t tithe. Now I realize that I don’t have to tithe, and feel free to give whatever I want. I also realize that I had most of my mishaps during my tithing years, contrary to what is supposed to happen according to the prosperity preachers who quote Malachi 3.


Now at least the true motivation behind all this is more plain. Let me state that I agree! But again, these abuses and errors are not resolved by making more errors and applying more speculation and insinuations to things [i]also [b]not[/b] stated[/i]. It compounds the matter, it's just flatly pragmatism and it is dishonest to make assumptions 'facts'.
Quote:
Crsschk, you complain that you know little about my identity. I had to smile at that. Isn’t that what we are all protesting about Melchizedek? ...


No, it is not in it's entirety. You have been doing the opposite by what you have been stating. You have said to have come to a conclusion that he must be a pagan priest out for a money grab, none of which you can prove by scripture only by opinion and those of whoever these so called 'scholars' are. The very fact that we only have such scant information also means that we shouldn't go beyond it, pouring all these absurd ideas into that which is never stated. That is where I would agree with some of the other notions out there as being of the same style speculation (Melchisedek [u]is[/u] 'Jesus'). Here is something applicable, taken from one of the links mentioned in this post;

[i]I am indebted to a man, now with the Lord, who once told me. 'We have got to learn to read the Bible to see what it says and not what we have been told it says. Not what we think it should say but what it actually says. To that end I have covenanted with the Lord that, although I will listen to what other men may say, He will be my No 1 teacher'.

It was almost 40 years ago I first heard that and my stand now is what it became then.

"me too, Lord".[/i]~ Philologos

Quote:
I’d like to thank Sermon Index for the great website! I have been an unregistered user over the years, and consider it one of the best Christian websites. The forum has helped me think through some of my thoughts on this, and hear the sort of objections that are out there, and to gage the kind of views people have. So, I feel that it has been a positive experience all round. If I have caused upset, sorry for that. It wasn’t my intention to do so.



Would have to add some regret for my own ... choice of words here in preceding replies. Think again spiritually it was of the [i]righteous indignation[/i] sort that the equation being proposed both by assumption and more so by bringing reproach upon the Name of the Lord Jesus by all this ... [i]that[/i] indeed caused some upset. I just find the whole thing quite contrary to all that the writer to the Hebrews was expressing by way of his appealing to [i]the order of Melchisdec[/i].

It is difficult to start making more assumptions about the 'scholars' that are stating such things. Having not heard this absurd notion prior nor knowing what else they may have stated. And a PhD can mean many things both good and bad. So without applying a stereotype across the board there is a suspicion that I am sure holds true often enough; That there are some dissecting the Book without knowing the [i]Spirit[/i] of the Book. Some that wish to deride and liberalize, speculate and decimate it, have an agenda of such.

Others who will challenge and dig, contemplate and change their minds as often as need be to get to the marrow of meaning and understanding. Honesty requires it, the Lord Himself demands it of us, our honesty. If we don't know we ought to say so and not go beyond what is written. Would like to think that those here contributing are by and large of this mindset.

I also apologize if I have gone beyond proper limits. Appreciate your forthcoming here.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/2/8 9:54Profile









 Re:

Philologos, we continue to see things differently, as always.

In regards to Nebuchadezzar, unless it was written in black and white that Nebuchadezzar not only believed and worshiped the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that he experienced a changed life (which it does), but that he also believed in Messiah, then it cannot be so.

Your understanding of things of the spirit gives new meaning to the term carnal Christian. In the past I have always thought it applied to Christians, like those in Corinth, who were involved in sexual sin. Now, I can see that it also applies to believers that cannot see past their own skin.

Except a man be born again, he cannot see........John 3:3


We will continue to disagree on almost every issue, that can be sure.

God bless,

Stever :-D

Quote:

philologos wrote:
Quote:
Did he meet the Messiah and the Holy Spirit when he met God? The Bible doesn’t say, but Spiritual discernment leads me to believe that he is indeed saved and in Heaven, waiting for the resurrection.


In other words "in your opinion". That's fine I am very happy for you to have your opinions but more uncomfortable when you present your opinions as biblical fact.

 2007/2/8 11:15
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Your understanding of things of the spirit gives new meaning to the term carnal Christian. In the past I have always thought it applied to Christians, like those in Corinth, who were involved in sexual sin. Now, I can see that it also applies to believers that cannot see past their own skin.


Are you telling me that you 'discern' that I am a 'carnal Christian' or that I need to be born again?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/2/8 11:42Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Consider your words.

Stever,

Am holding my breath awaiting your clarification here. If you [b][i]cannot[/i][/b] distinguish between discussing things with the charity of appealing to what is stated without laying some lofty charge and I do mean [i]lofty[/i], this insinuation ... There is no other alternative than for you to stop your participation here or we will do it for you.

You have been given more grace and forbearance than anyone that has any duration in these parts.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/2/8 14:00Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy