Who is Melchizedek?

[Chemnitz]

Dan 7 jesus
rev Jesus

Hebrew a man named Melchizedek.

If you are going to try and draw comparisons based on word usage at least pick similar styles of literature. The prophetic and apocalyptic literature does not use language in the same fashion as the more literal style of the epistles, so your prooftexts prove nothing. Like in Daniel and Revelation is drawing a picture whereas like in Hebrews is making a comparison.
Again within the context of the passage of Hebrews the similarity is based on being a priest despite the lack of levitical lineage.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
I have one question if Melchizedek was the pre-incarnate Son of God why didn't Abraham give any indication he recognized him as such particularly when concidering in Gen. 18:1-3 Abraham immediately recognizes the three men approaching him as YHWH.

The most powerful evidence is that Abraham paid the Tithe, thru which all his descendants, all Israelites ( including Holy Mother Mary) paid Tithe to Melchizedek!
None of Israelites was superior to Melchizedek.
If Abraham didn't recognize Melchizedek as so important person, he would have not paid the Tithe.

I have surveyed the articles denying the possibility of Pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, and there was only one interesting article, but it says that Shem was still alive at that time and Melchizedek could have been Shem. However, we know Shem has a father ( Noah), had the end of life living 600 years, Shem was not the Continual Priest for God the Most High.
Apparently Salem is different from Jerusalem as we read Psalm 76:2. In Jerusalem there lived Jebusites, the Canaanites. I don't think Abraham paid the Tithe to a Canaanite. He didn't worry about Pharaoh since he came out of Egypt, He slaughtered kings of Elam ( Iran), Shinar (Iraq), and many other nations, and rescued Sodom and Gomorrah. Who could dare to challenge Abraham at that time?

Who can be called " King of Righteousness" while Romans 3:10 " There is no one righteous, No, Not one"?

Who could still live until the wirter of Hebrews wrote the epistle?

Again, it is the way of approach to the same identity that the writer say the similarity between 2 persons first, then eventually both are the same person. In Revelation 1: 13, the one was like Son of Man, and eventually the person turned out to be Jesus Christ. Even though the person was LIKE Son of Man, it didn't mean the different person from Son of Man, but eventually He was the very Son of Man!

Hebrews writer explain all the similarities between 2 persons including the fact that both live forever, then Jesus has become the Eternal Priest in succession to Melchizedek. Where is Melchizedek gone?

If anyone check with the websites, hundreds of articles confess that Melchizedek is the Pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ, while a few articles are denying it with very weak logics simply saying that Resemblance means Difference, which is the only logic for them.

 

[Chemnitz]

If Abraham didn't recognize Melchizedek as so important person, he would have not paid the Tithe.

If I give ten percent to a priest does that make them God? Hardly, I would only be acknowledging that they are God's representative.

I have surveyed the articles denying the possibility of Pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, and there was only one interesting article, but it says that Shem was still alive at that time and Melchizedek could have been Shem. However, we know Shem has a father ( Noah), had the end of life living 600 years, Shem was not the Continual Priest for God the Most High.
Apparently Salem is different from Jerusalem as we read Psalm 76:2. In Jerusalem there lived Jebusites, the Canaanites. I don't think Abraham paid the Tithe to a Canaanite. He didn't worry about Pharaoh since he came out of Egypt, He slaughtered kings of Elam ( Iran), Shinar (Iraq), and many other nations, and rescued Sodom and Gomorrah. Who could dare to challenge Abraham at that time?

Pure speculation and a waste of time as there is no way to prove anything conclusively from Biblical evidence concerning Melchizedek.

Who can be called " King of Righteousness" while Romans 3:10 " There is no one righteous, No, Not one"?

Pointless as Melchizedek is never called "King of Righteousness."

Who could still live until the wirter of Hebrews wrote the epistle?

Moses, Elijah or at least it can be inferred since they were walking and talking on the Mount of Transfiguration, but being alive doesn't necessarily mean walking on the face of the Earth.

If anyone check with the websites, hundreds of articles confess that Melchizedek is the Pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ, while a few articles are denying it with very weak logics simply saying that Resemblance means Difference, which is the only logic for them.

There are hundreds of websites proclaiming Islam is the one true religion, but does that make them right? Hardly, using numbers of articles to prove something is a waste of time because it is meaningless. Only somebody with a preconcieved agenda would say simple grammatical rules and dictionary meanings is weak logic. Admit it, the language of Hebrews betrays your idea as false. If the author of the letter to the Hebrews had wanted to say Melchizedek is the Son of God he would have said so, but he didn't he said he "resembles."

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Pointless as Melchizedek is never called "King of Righteousness." [/QB]

You don't know the meaning of Melchizedek in Hebrew, do you?

In Genesis 14:18-20, it is stated as Melechi-Zedek, which means My King of Righteousness.

Read Hebrews 7:2-3 again:
1) King of Righteousness
2) King of Peace
3) Has no father ( who can have no father among human beings?)
4) has no mother
5) has no genealogy
6) has no beginning of days
7) has no end of life ( who can have no end of life?)
8) continual Priest for God
9) Fore-runner before Jesus Christ
10) God's oath connnected both Melchizedek and Jesus Christ
11) still liveth without dying (v 8)

Throughout the world history, can any human being be like this man ?

Am I illustrating someone like a Muslim?

Nevertheless, can you not believe that both are the same? It is up to you then.

 

[Chemnitz]

You don't know the meaning of Melchizedek in Hebrew, do you?

In Genesis 14:18-20, it is stated as Melechi-Zedek, which means My King of Righteousness.

That is a name but nowhere is he called the King of Righteousness. Besides, many men are named Jesus but that doesn't make them The Jesus.

3) Has no father ( who can have no father among human beings?)
4) has no mother
5) has no genealogy
6) has no beginning of days
7) has no end of life ( who can have no end of life?)

The author of the Letter was only illustrating the fact there is no record of Melchizedek's birth or lineage, nor is there any record of his death. He is not saying he has lived forever on this earth. Neither is he saying that Melchizedek is the pre-incarnate Son of God. If he were saying that he would have said "is" not "resembles." One little word is all it takes to show your fallacy, so why do you keep insisting on this fallacy?

Am I illustrating someone like a Muslim?

No, you seemed to missunderstand my point. Sheer glut of articles saying the same thing does not make it truth. So your little bit about how you have found lots of articles on the internet defending the idea of Melchizedek as Son of God means nothing, outside of the fact there appears to be many mislead individuals.

Nevertheless, can you not believe that both are the same? It is up to you then.

No, I can't because that would mean believing a lie.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Nevertheless, can you not believe that both are the same? It is up to you then.

No, I can't because that would mean believing a lie. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]If you disbelieve the Bible, you may be believing something wrong.

Would you translate " King of Righteousness" from English into Hebrew ?

 

[Chemnitz]

f you disbelieve the Bible, you may be believing something wrong.

Would you translate " King of Righteousness" from English into Hebrew ?

Pointless, as I wrote earlier, there are lots of guys named Jesus but that doesn't make them Jesus Christ.

Again if the Son of God and Melchizedek are one in the same why doesn't the author of Hebrews say so, instead of writing "resembles."

Also, why didn't Abraham demonstrate recognition just as he did when he was approached by God in the form of three men?

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
One little word is all it takes to show your fallacy, so why do you keep insisting on this fallacy ?
__________________________________________________

Resemblance means Difference is the only logic which the people disbelieving Melchizedek as PreIncarnate Jesus Christ rely on. They used to downgrade Having No Father, No Mother as to Having No Record of Father but having Father actually, having the end of Life actully and so on. This is exact manipulation of the Bible.

Does Bible have a fallacy when it says One like Son of Man in Rev 1:13, One sat like unto the Son of Man (Rev 14:14)

"Stood a Lamb as it had been slain" Rev 5:6

Was the Lamb not slain before?

One like the Son of Man (Dan 7:13) was not Son of Man ?

Who can live continually and still liveth at the time of Abraham and at the time of hebrew Writer?

 

[Chemnitz]

Does Bible have a fallacy when it says One like Son of Man in Rev 1:13, One sat like unto the Son of Man (Rev 14:14)

Apples and oranges you can't compare language usage between to completely different styles of writing. You cannot compare a non figurative piece of work, such as the excercise in logic that is Hebrews, with a picturesque work such as apocalyptic literature, language usage is too far different between the two to make an accurate comparison.


Resemblance means similarities, they are similar but not exactly the same. Again, if Melchizedek is the Son of God please explain why the author of Hebrews wrote "resembles" and not "is."

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Resemblance means similarities, they are similar but not exactly the same. Again, if Melchizedek is the Son of God please explain why the author of Hebrews wrote "resembles" and not "is." [/QB]

I explained you that it is the way of approaching and explaining the same identity starting from the similarity, the final conclusion was not mentioned because:


Heb 5:11
Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

 

[Eliyahu]

Jeremiah 23:5

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous(Zedek) Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS ( Yehowah Zedkenu)


Do you know how many times Bible relates Righteousness with Messiah, The Anointed?

 

[Chemnitz]

I explained you that it is the way of approaching and explaining the same identity starting from the similarity, the final conclusion was not mentioned because:


Heb 5:11
Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

The final conclusion is mentioned, he is only similar. Your conclusion is not mentioned because it is false.
Similar does not equal exact match. It does not mean that they are one in the same completely. An orange is similar to an apple because it has seeds, comes from a tree, and is fruit but that does not mean it is an apple.

Jeremiah 23:5

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous(Zedek) Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS ( Yehowah Zedkenu)

Your point? There is a distinct lack of Melchizedek in this passage.

Do you know how many times Bible relates Righteousness with Messiah, The Anointed?

Lots of times but that still doesn't mean anything concerning Melchizedek. I mean David was called righteous numerous times also, but that doesn't mean he is the Messiah.

 

[Eliyahu]

Chemnitz,

If you had lived the era when Apostle Paul wrote the epistles, could you believe that the following is true?

1 Cor 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.


Where is David mentioned King of Righteousness? Has he ever or once been mentioned King of Righteousness?

You said David was called righteous numerous times, would you mention at least once for it?

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
The final conclusion is mentioned, he is only similar. Your conclusion is not mentioned because it is false.
[/QB]

You are modifying the Bible from " Having No Father, No Mother " to " having no record of Father, no record of Mother" which is false.

One question:

1) Throughout the world history, was there anyone who had no father, no mother, no beginning, no end of life?

2) If such person had existed actually, would he be God or any deity or any human being?

 

[Chemnitz]

Where is David mentioned King of Righteousness? Has he ever or once been mentioned King of Righteousness?

You said David was called righteous numerous times, would you mention at least once for it?

Not the best of examples using David, it is not exact words but it still applies Acts 7:45-46 David, 46 who found favor in the sight of God, but the same thought does apply more explicitly to Abraham who is also called righteous.

You are modifying the Bible from " Having No Father, No Mother " to " having no record of Father, no record of Mother" which is false.

I am not modifying the Bible, I just happen to be able to read with understanding both in English and Greek. You cannot read words in isolation as you are trying to do. Grouping no father and no mother with no generations (which means no records) means there are no records of his parentage.

Chemnitz,

If you had lived the era when Apostle Paul wrote the epistles, could you believe that the following is true?

1 Cor 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.

When people start asking such non sequitors, I start to think they are realizing their case is weak and are trying to divert the argument in order to cover up fallacy of their position.

Again, I will ask, why does the author say "like" if he was as you say really meaning "is"? Until you can answer that question with out jumping to a different literary style you have no case.

 

[Chemnitz]

Going back to the meaning of the name, technically Melchizedek means "My king is righteous." not King of Righteousness (Hebrew English Lexicon; Brown, Driver, Briggs; p575)

Secondly I noticed some other names that will give you trouble if you want to claim the meaning of Melchizedek's name means he is the Logos. For example the son of Beriah is named Melchiel (My King is God), if you apply your name based logic consistantly that means the son of Beriah is God.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
I mean David was called righteous numerous times also, but that doesn't mean he is the Messiah. [/QB]

Chemnitz, Now you say:

Not the best of examples using David, it is not exact words but it still applies Acts 7:45-46 David, 46 who found favor in the sight of God, but the same thought does apply more explicitly to Abraham who is also called righteous

Is this your evidence for the above statements?
Could you notice how poor your logic is?

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Again, I will ask, why does the author say "like" if he was as you say really meaning "is"? Until you can answer that question with out jumping to a different literary style you have no case. [/QB]

I said to you that it is the way of verifying the same identity of two kinds of descriptions by starting from the similarity first, then the final conclusion is not mentioned because it is so apparent from the analogy explained and is left to the readers. Now I will show you again and please answer the followings:

1. Rev 1:13 "One like unto the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the foot."

Is that "one" Son of Man or not? Please answer Yes or No.

2. Rev 5:6 " a Lamb as it had been slain"
Was the Lamb slain or not ?

Please answer Yes or No.

3. Daniel 3:25
"the form of the fourth is like Son of God"
Was the fourth Son of God or not ?

Please answer Yes or No.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Going back to the meaning of the name, technically Melchizedek means "My king is righteous." not King of Righteousness (Hebrew English Lexicon; Brown, Driver, Briggs; p575)
______________________________________________

It is good that you refer to the Dictionary which I have and often refer to.

But please read Heb 7:2
"First being by interpretation King of Righteousness"
Was Hebrew writer wrong? The Patach between Malachi and (-) Zedek (Tsedek)can mean adjective relationship, do you know this Hebrew grammar?
We do not know exactly who called him such name, but the Bible Hebrew tells us that the name is interpretted as King of Righteousness. My King is Righteous or Righteousness can be a kind of interpretation but it is not all. sometimes it can have deeper meaning. Eliyahu means God is Great! But it doesn't mean that I am God and I am great because I use such ID. When there is the Interpretation in the Bible, we should pay priority to the Bible Interpretation first. Moreover, one professor at Notre Dam Univ interpreted Melchi-zedek as My King of Righteousness, which makes a good sense, IMO. But Bible clearly explains " Βασιλευσ δικαιοσυνησ" Heb 7:3
If he was called " My King of Righteousness" it is quite likely that Abraham called him such way and knew him before they met each other in Gen 14:18.


--__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Secondly I noticed some other names that will give you trouble if you want to claim the meaning of Melchizedek's name means he is the Logos. For example the son of Beriah is named Melchiel (My King is God), if you apply your name based logic consistantly that means the son of Beriah is God.

This is irrelevant comparision which doesn't make sense at all. It seems that you are looking at the same page of the lexicon (575 page)

Elijah means " Jehovah is God or God is Jehovah" then, did Elijah claim himself to be God?

Often such person ( Malack or Pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ) denied to inform the name to the askers:

Gen 32:29 and Judge 13:18 show this example.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You are modifying the Bible from " Having No Father, No Mother " to " having no record of Father, no record of Mother" which is false.

I am not modifying the Bible, I just happen to be able to read with understanding both in English and Greek. You cannot read words in isolation as you are trying to do. Grouping no father and no mother with no generations (which means no records) means there are no records of his parentage.
[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Would you check with your Lexicon the followings"

απτωρ, αμητωρ, μητε αρχην ημερων μητε ζωησ Τελοσ εχων .


Please read once again, μητε αρχην ημερων μητε ζωησ Τελοσ εχων

Do you understand meaning of εχων ?

"Having neither beginning of the days nor End of life"

Does this sound " having no record of beginning of the days nor end of life"
or "Beginning of the days and end of the life are unknown" ?

Have you ever studied Greek ? I really doubt about your Greek Grammar!