Melchizedek caution, way long!

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

 In a message dated 97-10-28 01:12:01 EST, you write:
 Me b4:
  Hmmm. Here is a new twist on a couple of old scriptures:
    To wit, that God was in Christ and Melchizedek...
 Bro Tim:
 ....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? 
 
 Me now:
  Sorry you didn't get my point. Let me try to break it down a little finer.
A burning bush is not a person, neither is a pillar of fire nor a cloud but
Melchizedek was a person and I contend a different person than Jesus Christ.
Maybe it is just me, but I have a little bit of trouble with more than one
person in the Godhead. 

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

  Me:
  Theophany? Is that in Genesis? I don't remember the Bible saying that Jacob
wrestled with a theophany. 
 BTW Strong's # 3478 "he will rule as God"
  
  Bro. Tim. 
 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?

 Me: 
If you will reread your question, will discover that it answers itself. This
has an angel and it looked like a man. Your point? 
 
 Bro. Tim:
  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? 
  
Me:
  It is in the form of a question, but is it a question?
  
Bro Tim:
  Where does it say that this happened only once?  
  
Me:
  Heb 9:26
26	For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world:
but now *once* in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by
the sacrifice of himself.

Bro Tim:
  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?
 
 Me: 
 Could it be?  No. The Bible says he was a man. Paul said he was a great man,
so great that Abraham paid tithes to him.
  
 Bro. Tim:
 Something doesn't fit.
 That is correct. Jn. 4:24 

  Meb4:
 If God came in the flesh twice, once as Melchizedek and once as Christ, does
that mean that Christ is a reincarnation of Melchizedek? 
 Bro Tim:
  Is this meant to be answered? 
  Me:
  It was. I reckon your answer is yes, you do believe in reincarnation.
 
  Bro Tim:
 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!
  Me:
 Brother, you should read it again. *The* point is not that the Aaronic
priesthood is inferior because of death (though that *is* A point) but rather
that Jesus Christ was able to enter thru the vail into the Holiest of Holies
and *not* be a son of Aaron. And without violation to the law. Heb.6:20
Heb.7:12-13  (Remember, the writer is talking to Jews here) The writer had to
dig way back to prove that Jesus could in fact be a High Priest. He used two
methods. First, he proclaimed what a great *man* Melchizedek was by the fact
that even Abraham (the Father of the faithful) paid tithes to this *man* and
that he not being of the tribe of Levi offered up a sacrifice unto God. So a
precedent was set and was validated by Abraham. (Heb.7:4) Secondly, The Lord
made an oath that his priesthood (Jesus Christ's) would continue forever
after the order of Melchizedek. (Heb. 7:17) 
 
 Bro Tim:
 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.

 Me:
  Evidently the writer of Hebrews thought so.
  Heb 7:12-15
12	For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also
of the law.
13	For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of
which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14	For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses
spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15	And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of
Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

Bro Tim:
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,
 Me:
 Again, Heb.7:14
 Mike Reed