Melchizedek

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

MeB4:
> << Melchizedek was not JESUS Christ but a manifestation of ***CHRIST***
(the Spirit of God/God) in human form. >>

Bro. Mike:
> Hmmm. Here is a new twist on a couple of old scriptures:
>   To wit, that God was in Christ and Melchizedek...
Me:
...and the burning bush, and the pillar of fire, and the cloud before the
Israelites, and between the angels on the ark of the covenant....  Your
point?

Also consider that if Jacob was named Israel (one who wrestled God ;-) just
what FORM was the theophany in that he wrestled?

When Abraham spoke to the three angels that were on there way to destroy
Sodom and the One stayed behind and answered the questions that he put God
in the first person singular, what FORM was this 'manifestation' in?

You:
>   or (I like this one) For in them (Melchizedek and Christ) dwelleth all
the fullness of the Godhead bodily.....

Me:
Hmmm...  If you have a manifestaion of God and it is in human FORM, it MUST
of a necessity have all the same characteristics of Christ?  Where does
that comes from?

You:
or (probably my favorite)
>   And the word was made flesh a couple of times, and dwelt among
us.....and
> then there is....

Me:
Where does it say that this happened only once?  Again, why does the
manifestation of Mel HAVE to be the complete manifestation/Word?  Jesus is
the EXPRESS IMAGE of God, does this preclude ANY OTHER, 'less full'
manifestation?  The EXAMPLES above say "nope".

You:
>   And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was
again
> manifest in the flesh....

Me:
mystery of godliness....  Could it be that in Mel you didn't have the
"mystery/password" of Godliness, but a theophany that proclaimed in a
LIMITED fashion the One Truly Ultimate Thoephany: the EXPRESS IMAGE of God;
Jesus Christ?

You:
>   Don't you see, it is a square peg in a round hole. You couldn't make
this
> one fit with a sledge hammer.

Me:
Something doesn't fit.
 
You:
>   I can't figure out for the life of me why God would manifest himself in
the
> flesh as Melchizedek. Do you claim it was to establish a precedent for
> tithing? If so why do we pay tithes to the ministry and not directly to
Jesus
> Christ. 

Me:
We are the body of Christ...

You:
If God came in the flesh twice, once as Melchizedek and once as
> Christ, does that mean that Christ is a reincarnation of Melchizedek? 

Me:
Is this meant to be answered?  God manifested Himself in many "human"
forms, why the "gagging" about Mel?

You:
Jesus
> came to fulfill the law, how could he offer himself up without being of
the
> tribe of Levi? Would your answer be "because he made sacrifices before as
> Melchizedek"? 

Me:
Huh?  Were the sacrifices Levites?

You:
The point here is that there is a greater priesthood, one that
> goes way beyond the priesthood of Aaron. 

Me:
Umm... The point that is made in Hebrews is that the priesthood of Aaron
and the Levites was imperfect because DEATH interupted there ministery, and
that the minstery of Jesus WAS AFTER THE PATTERN OF MELCHIZEDEK'S in that
death would not interupt His ministry EITHER!

You:
You could be a high priest by just
> being born in the right family, there is no merit there. But the
Melchizedek
> priesthood is a priesthood of merit. And that priesthood still lives, as
you
> read this e-mail, the lamb is continually before the throne of God making
> intercession for us.  

Me:
Ummm.... Amen...

You can DANCE around the wording all you want but there is NO PRECEDENCE to
'assume' they were refering to the fact that Mel was a gentile.  Add to
this that the writer of Hebrews says that the Levitical preisthood was
incomplete because the preist kept dying and that the priesthood of this
man WITHOUT BEGINNING OR ENDING (alpha and omega) was the 'pattern' by
which Jesus' priesthood operates, and that they (Mel's and Jesus') are
superior BECAUSE THEIR PRIEST DON'T DIE, and I think it should be simple.

I'm not absolutely sure here but Jesus had Levites as relatives (on his
mother's side since ALL were decendants of His Father's first son, Adam
;-), and it only takes one male Levite in your history to be eligible for
pristly duties, if I am not mistaken (it's happened before ;-) which would
make him elegible for the priesthood, but was "officially" from the 'house'
of Judah.  <as an aside, this is why David could eat the shew bread, it
would have been "COOL" if he had one Levite ancestor>  You could be from
more that one 'house' y'know...

Where else in the Bible does it refer to gentiles as "having no beginning
or ending" and as having "no mother or father" (would better mean 'orphan'
BTW)?  Upon what basis are we to establish these phrases as slang for
"gentile"?  What other reason, than it seems to make some uncomfortable,
and why I don't know, are we to give to those who ask why we must accept
these interpretations?

Timothy Litteral
brotim@gte.net Luke 6:26
I have chat by appointment only
http://members.tripod.com/~trlitteral/