Melchizedek, a theophany?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

City Barber Shop - Eddie Lunsford wrote:
(snip)
> My intent being to share some articles and not particuarly the endorsing of any of them , or in creating a doctrine.

I reply:
One of the things we have to be very carefule about is promoting any
idea without considering how it does affect  doctrine.

(snip)

> I am not now and never do promote any doctrine that would endorse a three
> person trinity belief.

I reply:
If you give Jesus Christ a BODY before Bethlehem you do in fact do just
that.

(snip)
> Yes, Jesus had a mother, But I will not argue  with you wether Melchizidek
> had a mother or not (since I was not there to know personally) and since
> the bible says he didnt have mother or father  and I am not going to argue
> against the bible and say this is what it says but it means .."Not  a
> mother or father in the priesthood". (Seems like this would be to important
> a point for the scholars to have left out in the translating process dont
> you think?) 

I reply:
I did not say the Bible was mistranslated or that something was left
out.  I'm just asking that you look at the entire context of Hebrews 7
and you will see that the writer of Hebrews is not talking about lineage
in the Human race but lineage in the priesthood.

With that in mind, consider these scriptures in Hebrews 7.


Hebrews 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; 
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; 
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. 

Again I have to state, if you are going to argue that this verse states
that Melchizedek does not have a mother or father, you have to make the
same statement concerning Christ.

But look at the next 2 verses, particularly Hebrews 7:6

Hebrews 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive
the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the
people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they
come out of the loins of Abraham: 
Hebrews 7:6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received
tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. 


"He whose descent is not counted from them."  Again, he is establishing
that Melchizedek was a priest BEFORE the Levitical priesthood.  Why is
that important? Glad you asked. :-)

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? 


God refuses to break His own Word, therefore Jesus had to be properly
established as a priest.  In other words, God refused to just to decide
to be priest, He Himself insisted on establishing precedent.

Hebrews 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to
another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 
Hebrews 7:14 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of
which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 

Again, all of this is being written to establish that the priesthood of
Jesus was "after the order of Melchizedek."  A priesthood that did not
need earthly lineage to back it up. :-)  And in fact, the priesthood of
Melchizedek not only preceded the Levitical priesthood, but was superior
to it.

Thanks for the opportunity to share this with this list.  :-)  

Andy (Melchizedek, you still da Man) Gossett