Who is Melchizedek?

[Chemnitz]

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)

Quite the double standard you have going there, considering you are making a big deal out of the meaning of Melchizedek's name. Which is it going to be? You can't have it both ways. Continuing with the name thing Joshua (Yeshua in Hebrew & iesus in Latin) means "God Saves" but that does not mean that He is Jesus. Therefore just because Melchizedek's name means "king of righteousness" or "My king is righteous" does not mean that he is he is God in anyway.

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 ?

Again it is stupidity to compare grammatical usage between two different styles of writing. If you comparing between two samples of similar style then it would be a valid comparison, but your comparison is like trying to say a maple leaf is maple syrup because they both come from a maple tree.

 

[Chemnitz]

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

Well now that you ask, yes I have studied Greek. In fact, I read the Greek as part of my daily devotions.

Hey, doubt all you want but you still can't get around the simple word meaning "like/resemble."

Btw

απατωπρ gen. oroj strictly without father, as fatherless; in the NT, as denoting one who holds an office independently of ancestral line or paternal descent without record of a father (Friberg)

αγενεαλογητοσ, literally without genealogy or ancestral record; in the NT of holding an office independently of natural descent without (relying on) ancestral line, without (record of) descent (HE 7.3)
(Friberg)

The question of εχων is one of what word is it modifying. This question must be asked as it is a predicate participle in the neuter gender, which word it is modifying. As there are no other neuter nouns in the immediate context it is likely modifying the grouping of απατωπρ etc. informing us that nothing is recorded concerning his birth or death.

That said the fact remains that αφωμοιωμενος means resembles and not is

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Again it is stupidity to compare grammatical usage between two different styles of writing. If you comparing between two samples of similar style then it would be a valid comparison, but your comparison is like trying to say a maple leaf is maple syrup because they both come from a maple tree. [/QB]

You have denied ansering Yes or No.
Try to answer by Yes or No again, instead of blaming others as Stupidity, because you have to:

first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Mt 7:5)

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Have you ever studied Greek ? I really doubt about your Greek Grammar!

Well now that you ask, yes I have studied Greek. In fact, I read the Greek as part of my daily devotions.

Hey, doubt all you want but you still can't get around the simple word meaning "like/resemble."

Btw

απατωπρ gen. oroj strictly without father, as fatherless; in the NT, as denoting one who holds an office independently of ancestral line or paternal descent without record of a father (Friberg)

αγενεαλογητοσ, literally without genealogy or ancestral record; in the NT of holding an office independently of natural descent without (relying on) ancestral line, without (record of) descent (HE 7.3)
(Friberg)

The question of εχων is one of what word is it modifying. This question must be asked as it is a predicate participle in the neuter gender, which word it is modifying. As there are no other neuter nouns in the immediate context it is likely modifying the grouping of απατωπρ etc. informing us that nothing is recorded concerning his birth or death.

That said the fact remains that αφωμοιωμενος means resembles and not is </font>[/QUOTE]I explained you enough about the usage of Resemblance to identify the same person. If you need more answer, please try to answer my questions above by Yes or No.

You have demonstrated the technique of modifying Bible quite a lot. Why don't you re-write a new Bible?
Have no Father, no Mother is the same as having no record of father and mother?
Exw is very simple to translate, "Have"

Does God have the end of the life?
How would you express your answer in Greek?

Now you are applying " the Similar" interpretation as " the Same" interpretation.

 

[Chemnitz]

I will not answer yes or no until you can give answer the original question, "If Melchizedek is the Son of God, why didn't the author of the book of Hebrews say so instead of stating he resembles the Son of God?"

first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Don't think I have to worry about that since I am not comparing apples and oranges and calling the same.

You have demonstrated the technique of modifying Bible quite a lot. Why don't you re-write a new Bible?
Have no Father, no Mother is the same as having no record of father and mother?
Exw is very simple to translate, "Have"

Ask anybody who knows Greek and they will tell you a participle in Greek isn't that easy. Second, I am not the one denying the lexical meanings of the words. I have provided lexical evidence for the translation and meanings of the words, what have you provided? Nothing but empty assertions that I am trying to rewrite the Bible.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
I will not answer yes or no until you can give answer the original question, "If Melchizedek is the Son of God, why didn't the author of the book of Hebrews say so instead of stating he resembles the Son of God?"

Repeatedly I answered you that it is the way of identifying the same person by starting the resemblance each other, by mentioning the common points each other as proofs that both are the same.

What you never anwsered me are:
1) Where is Melchizedek gone now?
2) What does it mean by King of Salem? Where is Salem?
3) the questions that I asked you to reply by yes or no. You don't answer them because your answers will reveal your ignorance and your paradox if you answer them.

You are continuously declaring that you do not understand Heb 7:3 which says " without father, without mother, having neither beginning of the days, nor end of life".

How do you interpret "abides a priest continually" ?

 

[Chemnitz]

Repeatedly I answered you that it is the way of identifying the same person by starting the resemblance each other, by mentioning the common points each other as proofs that both are the same.

That is pure unadulterated baloney. If you are going to identify somebody you say that they are not that they resemble.

 

[Eliyahu]

You never read the Bible Rev 1:13, Dan 3:25, Rev 14:14, Rev 5:6, did you ?


Are the following the summary of your points?

1. Bible says Melchizedek has no father, Chemnitz insists Melchizedek had a father

2. Bible says Melchizedfek has no mother, Chemnitz says He has mother

3. Bible says Melchizedek has no end of life, Chemnitz says he had the end of life

4. Bible says Melchizedek has no beginning of the days, Chemnitz says he had the beginning.

5. Bible says Melchizedek remained Continual Priest for God, Chemnitz says he didn't remain Continual Priest.

6. Bibls says Melchizdek had no genealogy, Chemnitz says he had genealogy.

7. Bible says Melchizdek was interpreted as King of Righteous, Chemnitz says name means nothing.

Is it the summary of your points?


You can imagine someone among the descendants of Noah, was he among the descendants of Japheth? of Ham?, among Elamites out of Shem?

 

[Eliyahu]

As for "Like unto" Son of God,

Chemnitz says "Resemblance means Difference and cannot include the Same and there is no chance of the Same identity"

Eliyahu says " Resemblance can include both Different Person and/or the Same Identity" as illustrated in Rev 1:13, 14:14, Dan 3:25

 

[Chemnitz]

Eliyahu, I am begining to wonder about your grasp of grammar and literature. Since when did resemblance = exact same? I resemble my father but I am not my father. Second, you can not compare grammatical usage of a word using to divergent styles of writing, so your examples from prophetic and apocalyptic literature are pointless.

I am still waiting for a satisfactory answer concerning the question of why resembles instead of is and your stock answer resemble = same isn't going to cut it because any body who knows and understands language can see the error in that statement.

 

[Eliyahu]

I wonder whether you can read English or not because I answered you about it many times already:

Repeatedly I answered you that it is the way of identifying the same person by starting the resemblance each other, by mentioning the common points each other as proofs that both are the same .

You must note that Heb writer is comparing both of the same identity, between Pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ and Post-Incarnate Jesus Christ , saying : "made like unto" each other. If you want to insist on different identities, yes, you can say both are different in terms of Pre-Incarnate and Post Incarnate Jesus Christ.

Do you have no end of life? You are comparing yourself to Messiah and therefore you cannot understand the way of Bible explanation.
How many people on this earth have no end of life? You never answered my questions because you cannot.

You don't believe Bible as it says:

Melchizedek has no end of life, no beginning of days, remain Continual Priest.

Moreover, you must think about Melchizedek once again,
after he met Abraham in Gen 14, did he die and disappear?
Then who was the priest after that until Jesus took the office of the High Priest? How can Bible say God made an oath that Jesus become the eternal priest in succession to Melchizedek?

How could he be called King of Salem where the Tabernacle of God is located? Are you confused between Salem and Jerusalem?

You mentioned David's righteousness mentioned numerous times, but never presented even single illustration from the Bible. Have you ever heard about these confessions?


Isaiah 61:10
10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness,

Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags .

Dan 9:7
O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee.

Who can be King of Salem? Do you know Salem means Peace? Have you ever read Isaiah 9:6 which says "The Prince of Peace" ?

 

[Chemnitz]

You must note that Heb writer is comparing both of the same identity, between Pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ and Post-Incarnate Jesus Christ , saying : "made like unto" each other. If you want to insist on different identities, yes, you can say both are different in terms of Pre-Incarnate and Post Incarnate Jesus Christ.

Still not good enough. Because the Logos doesnot resemble Christ, He is Christ.

You still need to provide an adequate answer as to why it says very simple resembles. Until you can you might as well give up, in fact do yourself a favor and admit you are wrong on this point. I think the only reason you persist is because you don't to allow the slightest chance the ECF's were right about the theotokos.

 

[Eliyahu]

Chemnitz,

Do you believe that Bible is written by the Inspiration of Holy Spirit?

If so, do you claim that Holy Spirit didn't know who was the father of Melchizedek, when he had the end of life? or Does holy Spirit deny that Melchizedek had the end of life while he actually had the end of life?
You are claiming that Holy Spirit is telling lies and ask more evidence for the resemblance and so on. Or you believe that Holy Spirit doesn't know about the Genealogy of the people.

You are somehow similar to Philip or Thomas.
JOhn 14:
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father.

Is Theotokos more important and truer than the Bible?

[ March 19, 2006, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

[Eliyahu]

Chemnitz,

Is the photo of your childhood like unto the photo of yours now?
Is Chemnitz of childhood another person different from Chemnitz of adulthood?
Are both like unto each other but different persons?

 

[Eliyahu]

FYI, Dead Sea Scrolls interpretted Melchizedek as the Anointed, Messiah, Judge coming soon, in the Coming of Melchizedek.(11 Q13)

 

[Chemnitz]

FYI, Dead Sea Scrolls interpretted Melchizedek as the Anointed, Messiah, Judge coming soon, in the Coming of Melchizede

So what? That doesn't make you right.

If so, do you claim that Holy Spirit didn't know who was the father of Melchizedek, when he had the end of life? or Does holy Spirit deny that Melchizedek had the end of life while he actually had the end of life?
You are claiming that Holy Spirit is telling lies and ask more evidence for the resemblance and so on. Or you believe that Holy Spirit doesn't know about the Genealogy of the people.

A pointless argument as there is much the Holy Spirit didn't see fit to record such as the exact means of the formation of the Universe or exactly how the conception of Christ occured. So just because it isn't recorded doesn't mean that He does not know.

I have never onced said the Holy Spirit lies, and how dare you accuse me of such. Taking such a low tactic merely demonstrates the weakness of your case. At all times I have questioned your interpretation in particular your grasp of grammar and word meanings.

 

[Eliyahu]

If the readers read the past discussions, they can judge enough. Poepl can discern what is right and what is wrong.
If you insist on your own claim, it is fine. I believe my posts explained the truth about Melchizedek enough.

 

[Chemnitz]

I believe my posts explained the truth about Melchizedek enough.

What truth? After reviewing your posts I find a distinct lack of truth, because you still haven't adequately explained why the author Hebrews used "resembles," the most I have seen are lame excuses that wouldn't hold water for anybody who understands the definition of "resembles."

 

[Eliyahu]

I explained you so many times, and you don't unbderstand it. I have no other way to explain you more. If you don't understand it yet, it is fine, and it is up to you.

You never answered my questions, is Chemnitz of Childhood like unto Chemnitz of adulthood? both may be like unto each other, does it mean both are different persons?

I don't need your answer. Just think about it.
I don't find any need to respond to you any more.

 

[Chemnitz]

You never answered my questions, is Chemnitz of Childhood like unto Chemnitz of adulthood? both may be like unto each other, does it mean both are different persons?

Now this is just stupidity, and you should know that. A person at any age is still the same person not a mere resemblance of that person at a different age.

You have not explained with any satisfactory answer concerning why "resembles" (1 : to be like or similar to
2 archaic : to represent as like Meriam-Webster) instead of "is." You have continually beat around the bush ignoring Lexical evidence and persued a faulty logic, and not once have you ever dealt honestly with the evidence.