- This topic is empty.
- Posts
By definition God has no mother or father (or genealogy), or beginning of days nor end of life; so by definition this “person” must be God.
Jesus has a Father and cannot be God. But Melchizedek who has neither has the characteristics of God.
If you answered “No” then who else could this person be? Don't say Jesus, please because you see his genealogy quite clearly in the Bible (Son of God; Son of (Mary) Man)
David
Melchizedek was a king “AND” priest to the most High God, in Abraham's time. No other records are known of him; who his parents were; when he was born, or when he died.
The only reason Paul is mentioning him in the book of Hebrews was, the Jewish converts had problems excepting the fact that Jesus was “both”, King and High Priest; it was against their law.hi
God does not collect is own wealth,he is a giver not a taker,if God take is from our hearts not our wallet.
so Melchizedek could not be God.Pierre
Hebrews 7 explains who Melchisedec is.
No father, no mother. Was never born, and will never die.
Is the first priest before priests were even evented.
Abraham paid tithes to him.
He is the king of peace and righteousness.
Made unto the likeness of The Son of God.
——If he was a real walking talking person, then he too is a manifestation of God.
In the same likeness of The Angel of The Lord, or Jesus Christ.
One God many manifestations, this is why I don't believe in a trinity.
If Melchisedec had no father or mother to name him, but was named truthfully in that he is The King of Righteous, and also being the king of Jerusalem (Shalem at the time)
Then he undoubtedly is a manifestation of God himself.
——–
We know Jesus is the likeness of YHVH, and Melchisedec was “made” in the likeness of Jesus.So we know he isn't equivelant to YHVH or Jesus but a lesser manifestation that served the purpose of establishing “The Real” priesthood, and God blessing Abraham and his service to God.
Why would God need to manifest as a human and do so?
The same reason he prepared the way for Jesus to be born through the lineage of David…the lineage had to be blessed by God himself.
The effects and enormity of the situation could be the same reason why Jesus had to physically die for our sins, maybe Melchisedec had to physically bless abraham and his lineage to also physically prepare the way.
I'm not sure, it's all speculation, I could be wrong, but here's my input.
Quote (RokkaMan @ July 08 2010,06:57) Hebrews 7 explains who Melchisedec is. No father, no mother. Was never born, and will never die.
Is the first priest before priests were even evented.
Abraham paid tithes to him.
He is the king of peace and righteousness.
Made unto the likeness of The Son of God.
——If he was a real walking talking person, then he too is a manifestation of God.
In the same likeness of The Angel of The Lord, or Jesus Christ.
One God many manifestations, this is why I don't believe in a trinity.
If Melchisedec had no father or mother to name him, but was named truthfully in that he is The King of Righteous, and also being the king of Jerusalem (Shalem at the time)
Then he undoubtedly is a manifestation of God himself.
——–
We know Jesus is the likeness of YHVH, and Melchisedec was “made” in the likeness of Jesus.So we know he isn't equivelant to YHVH or Jesus but a lesser manifestation that served the purpose of establishing “The Real” priesthood, and God blessing Abraham and his service to God.
Why would God need to manifest as a human and do so?
The same reason he prepared the way for Jesus to be born through the lineage of David…the lineage had to be blessed by God himself.
The effects and enormity of the situation could be the same reason why Jesus had to physically die for our sins, maybe Melchisedec had to physically bless abraham and his lineage to also physically prepare the way.
I'm not sure, it's all speculation, I could be wrong, but here's my input.
Nice post and I love your ending about being “just speculation”. All of our writings and thoughts are just that, speculation, and we tend to forget that.I am writing a book and it is in the final draft stage and needs to be edited but I'll try to explain briefly about the concept of God and Melchizedek.
Elohim (God) exists! (Has no beginning)
Elohim (God) has two essences, male and female.
(Man was created in God's image, male and female.)
Elohim (God) is ONE!Elohim = Eloh (root of word; = goddess, noun, feminine) +
im (suffix, masc, plural) therefore Elohim shows that God is ONE being consisting of Female + Male.Elohim's first act was procreation of Their son, Jesus (firstborn of all creation), thereby becoming parents (Mother AND Father).
Elohim's next act was creation of the cosmos/universe THRU Their son., therefore Jesus is co-creator of all things along with God.
Elohim's two separate entities are:
Male: God, the Father
Female: God, the Holy Spirit (and obviously God, the Mother)Names/titles used:
Elohim = God Most High
Male = YHVH, LORD
Female = Helper, Comforter
Yahshua = God's Salvation (Salvation from God)
Christ = Messiah (God's Holy One; Salvation sent by God)(Mikeboll64 likes to say “YHVH = I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be”; probably from the verb HYH = to exist and derived from Ex 3:14 “I AM”)
REVIEW:
Elohim; two essences; spirit; one (God Most High)
YHVH; male; Father; Body
Holy Spirit; female, Mother; SpiritIf Melchizedek is God, the Father as I think then YHVH is correctly translated as LORD because Melchizedek is King and therefore holds the “Title” LORD and is emphasized when the Bible says YHVH Elohim (LORD God) identifying Him and His position. Mikeboll64 is correct with his translation as it goes along with God's characteristic of always “Existing” (HYH).
It has always been confusing when the Bible says that no one has seen God (Elohim; Spirit/Invisible) at any time. This is correct but people have seen God, the Father (Melchizedek). Who else walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden? Who PHYSICALLY formed Adam out of dust and breathed into his nostrils? Who did Cain and Abel talk to as God (not to mention David, Noah and many others)?
If Melchizedek extracted Himself from his position or “person” within Elohim and decided to clothe himself in a like manner of His creation (prior to the creation of the cosmos) to be physically present (and not invisible) with His son who else would he look like but His son (son of God/man)? How would we describe the “appearance” of Melchizedek other than that of a man as He is clothed in Human form?
Jesus is God's first creation, had a physical body and then invisible God (the Father) clothed himself in physical form to be with His son…specualtion but logical.
Then Jesus said that he vacated (emptied) himself from his body (angelic) so that the Holy Spirit could implant him into Mary so that he could become “man”; thereby the son of God becoming son of Man and became a little lower than the angels until he ascended on high, from whence he came, and sat down at the right hand of God (physical body). Now he is a priest forever according to the Order of Melchizedek and since we know that Jesus would not follow any “man” this “man” Melchizedek has to be God his Father and Jesus returned to the glory he once had with his Father before the world began.
For you Nick:
Dictionary: spec·u·la·tion
1-Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.
2-A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
3-Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.Since we are not God all thoughts that we have are our opinions and conjectures.
For the most part we accept the Bible as “Fact” until we deny or negate the translation as being incorrect.
We put forward other's ideas as “Fact” whereas they are only their opinion from research done.
If I were to say that the sun is “green” and someone quotes me doesn't make it a fact.I try to provide my conclusions (and opinions) from information gathered in the Bible. My native language is English and thus must rely on other sources like blb.org (blue letter bible) and other internet sources when I research Hebrew words.
If a part of my work is incorrect feel free to address the issues. I thought that the purpose of this forum was to interchange ideas and grow in our love for God, His son and the Bible; and not put down others (especially without basis) or be sarcastic. If this site is for you and others to give snide (Derogatory in a malicious, superior way) remarks, be sarcastic and negative then it is a site to be avoided. However, if you have constructive ideas and make purposeful statements then they would be warmly welcomed!
Hi DF,
1 Tim 1.4
2 Tim2.16Test all things and hold fast to what is good.
The test is scripture not our thoughtsIf Melchizedek is not Elohim (God (united)with two essences; female and male) but has no mother or father then He would fall under the individual male essence (YHVH) of Elohim. If YHVH (God, the Father) has a physical body how would you describe him other that as a “man” especially since Abraham physically gave him a tithe? (Who could have and be an Eternal Priest(hood)?)
However the stated qualities/characteristics of, “No mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning and no end” can only refer to one “person” and that is God. Notice how we call God a person when we communicate in writing and notice that we only address God as “He” even though there are two essences within God.
The author of “The Trinity” on this site even said that the word theiotes was feminine but then addressed the word with the pronoun “he”.
Throughout the “Christian” community there is a denial of the female essence of God. IF God the Father is the MALE essence THEN The Holy Spirit must be the FEMALE essence of Elohim (God). Likewise, IF Jesus' father was God, the Father then he must have been borne by God, the Mother. (Specualtion of FACT) Therefore, all theories and posts that eliminate Her have a faulty hypothesis and thus the conclusions would be incorrect as well.Many or most people in American churches have accepted the Doctrine of the Trinity (three persons in one God).
However, since Jesus is not God, but is the son of God, the true description of God should be the Biunity (Father and Holy Spirit).
“ONENESS” wouldn't work because it is another man-made doctrine that incorrectly depicts God and Jesus.
Great name for my book, “The Biunity Doctrine”.
Thanks, Nick. David
Hi DBF,
Binity came before trinity.
Would it not be best to find the truth before you expose your ideas in a book?Hi Nick, The truth is I couldn't find “binity” in any dictionary. I thought of “Binity” too but when I went to look it up it didn't exist however, biunity does. What prompted the search was the word triune so I sought “biune” and it did exist along with biunity.
Still attacking the person and not the ideas. Sad!
Funny,, all that I wrote was the “truth” and when I speculated I tried to point that out, too. And what I wrote is accord with the Bible and doesn't need other explanations. The studies that I did actually made me learn to read and do word studies in Hebrew and my writings are a result of that.
David
David
Quote (davidbfun @ July 06 2010,05:16) By definition God has no mother or father (or genealogy), or beginning of days nor end of life; so by definition this “person” must be God. Jesus has a Father and cannot be God. But Melchizedek who has neither has the characteristics of God.
If you answered “No” then who else could this person be? Don't say Jesus, please because you see his genealogy quite clearly in the Bible (Son of God; Son of (Mary) Man)
David
One of the things that we must endeavor to avoid when working on understanding scripture is spiritualizing things that are not spiritual.For instance, the brass serpent that Moses made that ended up becoming a stumbling block. Briefly, some one was bitten by a serpent. If a person bit by a serpent, looked at the brass serpent, that person would be healed. Why would God have this thing made? As a point of focus for the stricken individual.
When Peter and John, in Acts 3 were entering the temple and the lame man asked for help. They said to the lame man, “Look on us” to keep the attention on them, not the distractions around them. Once the lame man was focused on Peter and John, P and J could proceed with the healing process.
Why did the woman touch the hem of Jesus' garment? One reason is the culture, the cultural belief was that touching the hem of a man of God's garment was healing. Likewise, it was a point of focus, a goal line to aim for.
OK, with that said, back to the brass serpent, it became an idol to some and it was destroyed. They “spiritualized” it.
Like wise some of the statements about Mel. “Without father, without mother, without descent” simply indicate that, as pointed out by others, his mother nor father are not mentioned in scripture, nor is there a geneology or a listing of offspring. “Neither having beginning of days or end of life” simply refer to the fact that unlike so many other people in the scriptures, his birth is not mentioned, nor his death. His greatness was not in any of those things, but rather in his service to God as a priest and king.
Likewise, our greatness is not measured by our parents or geneology, or offspring, or when we were born or die, but rather by how well we serve God by our own decision in our own lifetime.
Hi Barley,
Usually I see people denying and negating a Bible verse by stating the verse was incorrectly translated and proceed to give the Greek or Hebrew word(s) and what it should mean. This is a first whereby I've seen the entire text negated by referring authoritatively to what “others point out” as “FACT”. “Others” have said that this Melchizedek is a theophany of Jesus BEFORE he was born as a man (does this mean what others say to be “true”?) Others have said that the information wasn't given was because the records were lost. Others even say that Melchizedek didn't even really exist and that this is only an office. So, let's go with what all of the others say and eliminate Melchizedek as a person, obscure his family life, and make a ballad for him as such a good soldier for God and then shout Hallelujah “Jesus” (sarcasm intended).
The author of Hebrews was quite articulate and verbose about the many subjects that he talks about but was quite succinct in defining Melchizedek, not allowing for opinions (or speculation).
God went to great lengths to give us explicit details of Melchizedek for a reason and you've just obliterated it by alluding to concepts (and individuals) that weren't even presented (i.e. good servant). It doesn't explicitly say that his mother and father aren't important so we won't talk about them; it says that he doesn't have a mother or father and to reiterate the point it says he has no genealogy (or descent); nor does it say to idolize him. Furthermore this “man” was so great that he didn't have a beginning or end and elsewhere it says that he is a priest perpetually meaning “forever” or in perpetuity. What “man”exists in perpetuity?
There was no reference on how well he served God or how he compared to others. It gives us his name, his kingdom, that he is a priest perpetually and the above mentioned “Facts” about him.
Again since Melchizedek doesn't die as explained in Hebrews (unlike the Levites) and that there is no need for another to serve in his place, and this person lives on in perpetuity….(again) what “MAN” is living forever?
Heb 5:10 and Heb 7:17 even states that Jesus is a priest forever according to the Order of Melchizedek. Therefore Jesus is following after a “man” who hasn't died and won't die (but has been spiritualized).
It seems that many read what is written and change it to mean whatever they want it to mean and by whatever means is available to them.
Please forgive me Barley as I believe my frustration came to a boiling point with this post. I have been reading so many things at this site that are quite disturbing such as the Greek word debate over whether Jesus was the “firstborn” or “begotten” son and how all words are not what they mean and try to back their opinion up with scripture. I am just a dumb blonde that would like to read the Bible at face value without having to doubt if anything is correct.
I picked this subject and verse because I thought it was quite clear and had a simple answer “Yes” Melchizedek is God because of the characteristics of God that were given (no mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning of days nor end of life). Now I see that people can rationalize away anything that is written with an analogy of their own devise.
DavidQuote (davidbfun @ July 08 2010,06:24) However, since Jesus is not God, but is the son of God, the true description of God should be the Biunity (Father and Holy Spirit).
Hello David,
I think you have comitted a fallacy of logic here, you've created a false dichotomy. Using this logic it could also be argued that Yeshua is not “man” because he is the “Son of man”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
