|
Backslider (m)
|
@topic
This is a false doctrine
Melchisedec was never God in any any form
He was the perfect Levitical priest without the Lineage of Levi and he was King of righteousness without any lineage to Judah.
Jesus was from the Tribe of Judah but was not from Levite
He had to hold the Scepter (which he did because he was by blood an heir to the Jewish throne ) and wear the priestly robe( he worked for this and still works) .
In Spiritual interpretation King is Less stronger than Prince but at times they could be used interchangeably
Prince is Higher Than King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
donnie (m)
|
@Backslider
So is the explanation u gave strong enough to qualify mine as 'false'? From where did u get that theology that prince is greater than king?
Jesus wasnt a Levi but ws John d baptist?
Do u remember the baptism of Jesus. Who laid hands on who?
God is a God of order and Jesus had to fulfil all righteousness by allowing John to lay hands on Him thereby tranfering the levetical priesthood.
What gave him the priesthood wasnt the robe he put on. He qualified to be a priest and our high priest through obedience and is functioning as such today. He is not still 'working for' the priesthood but is 'funtioning as' a priest for us today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kuns
|
The teacher of all teachers.
The master teacher.
Supreme being son of the supreme being, prince of Salem (peace).
All saluations and gratitude is due to the master teacher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
loisamy
|
@peter
Having studied the man Melchisedec, you will see that he has virtually all the attributes of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I believe he's no other person than the Prince of Peace Himslf.
You could recall, that Jesus said, Before Abraham was I was.
I luv your post but jst to correct u dat Jesus said before Abraham was, I am. Jesus did use past tense. Bible scholars have more to say about this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kuns
|
Malachizodok, is the ancient of days.
This is a seat, as in prime minister, director. That' s why the bible says he has no mother or father.
Malachi mean Angel, Zodok means rightousness. Malachizodok (in Hebrew) or Melchisedec (in the Greek).
When they were re-translating the Bible they left the name in Greek, hence you find in Genesis 14: 18 the Malachizodok, mentioned and refered to as the priest of the Most High God, not to be confused with God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kuns
|
Malachizodoq is Angel Michael in the flesh as the Priest of the Most High God. see Genesis 14:18 and I quote in Part "and he was the priest of the most high God" Malachizodoq is also a title, a seat of the priest of the most high God. Hebrew 7 : 21 says Yashua was a priest in this order, the order of Melchezedek (Malachizodoq in Hebrew) and I quote " The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec " |
|
|
|
|
|
donnie (m)
|
Thank you loisamy, @Lia @peter
Having studied the man Melchisedec, you will see that he has virtually all the attributes of Our Lord Jesus Christ . That is because he has the same attributes of that 'Angel of His presence', the Holy Ghost, who manifests God's presence wherever that presence is needed. Remember Jesus said he will send Another comforter (Gk., meaning one of the same kind). They (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) are one remember?[ You could recall, that Jesus said, Before Abraham was I was. That is not what he said. He actually said, before Abraham was, I AM. He used the same Name that God (That same Angel of His presence) used when he spoke to Moses from the burning bush. That is why they picked up stones to kill him bc he equated himself with God. If what he meant was that he was alive on earth before Abraham, they could have just laughed it away calling him a mad man. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kuns
|
@Ndipe
That's link you posted was mere religious propoganda.
There is no where in the bible where it states that Jesus is Melchisedec, nowhere.
You show me one place in the bible where it state that Jesus was Melchisedec?
Don't start to argue now, because our souls are searching for the truth.
And stay on point.
Where does it say in the bible the Jesus was Melchisedec?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kuns
|
@Lia
Quote from: loisamy on December 23, 2008, 03:37 PM
@peter
Having studied the man Melchisedec, you will see that he has virtually all the attributes of Our Lord Jesus Christ
.
That is because he has the same attributes of that 'Angel of His presence', the Holy Ghost, who manifests God's presence wherever that presence is needed. Remember Jesus said he will send Another comforter (Gk., meaning one of the same kind). They (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) are one remember?[
Quote from: loisamy on December 23, 2008, 03:37 PM
You could recall, that Jesus said, Before Abraham was I was.
That is not what he said. He actually said, before Abraham was, I AM. He used the same Name that God (That same Angel of His presence) used when he spoke to Moses from the burning bush. That is why they picked up stones to kill him bc he equated himself with God. If what he meant was that he was alive on earth before Abraham, they could have just laughed it away calling him a mad man. This is pure nonsence. Where does it say in the bible (buy-bill) that Melchisedec was the Holy Ghost? This statement by Jesus "before Abraham was, I AM." was reference to the fact that Jesus was the reincarnation of Tammuz. Ezekiel 8: 14 and I quote "Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz." Now why were woman weeping for Tammuz? Who was Tammuz you may wonder? Tammuz was the Messiah of the Sumeria era, which predates christianity by over 50,000 thousand years. And this was real life, there is evidence of this in more than one place, concrete evidence, not be lieve? Jesus was the reincarnation of Tammuz, and was not Melchisedec. This is not what the book of Hebrews in the New Testament of the bible says. Try and be coherent, please apply sound reasoning, not be lief. Don't believe me, check it up for yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
brian60
|
melchedsec was shem,a very righteous man of God,and a Biblical "Type" of Christ.There are many extrabiblical works including the book of jasher,and from the jewish historian Flavious Josephus to name just a couple.There are also other ways to do a study on who this person was.It is well known in the scriptures and secular history that when a person in ages past would take his family,household,servants,flocks,etc.to another place or land,he would either name the place after his own name,his son's name,or after an event he or a family member experienced.when we look at the name "Jerusalem" which means :city of peace"/Heb: "yarushaliym",we see something. just follow the sound of the name,"shem","salem" or more pronounced "sha'lem" and the hebrew word for "peace","shalom"!,arabic "salam".Its really easy once you know what to do by God's leading.The reason melchesedic is not recorded in the bible as having a recorded family and such is because before the Aaronic Priesthood was established,there were no records of High Priests recorded.This is fact!.You must understand,righteous people all over the bible were in the position of High Priest,Adam in the garden was such,Abel was such,Seth another,and down the line it goes,however there was a special order of priesthood that would point to the prophecied messiah to come who would fulfill the "Type"that righteous Shem was and that was Jesus Himself.so,in a nutshel,there it is.all it takes is a true desire to know God and the various ways He has given us clues and do research."faith without action,is dead",nothing just falls into our laps,God expects us to seek,seek,and keep seeking for the information we are looking for with an honest heart for the knowledge he has placed in the bible,nature,hebrew traditions,extrabiblical works,both biblical and secular history,the bible code,hebrew names,biblical numbers,etc.Even the constallations(before man corrupted it into the zodiac)tell the story of man's salvation through Christ.again folks,God reveals His truth through many ways,its up to us to decide just how bad we want it.ask the Lord with hunger in your heart and a true desire and He will honor your request-"seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all this will be given to you". Just pray and ask.Hope this helped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
viaro
|
melchedsec was shem,a very righteous man of God,and a Biblical "Type" of Christ.There are many extrabiblical works including the book of jasher,and from the jewish historian Flavious Josephus to name just a couple.There are also other ways to do a study on who this person was.It is well known in the scriptures and secular history that when a person in ages past would take his family,household,servants,flocks,etc.to another place or land,he would either name the place after his own name,his son's name,or after an event he or a family member experienced.when we look at the name "Jerusalem" which means :city of peace"/Heb: "yarushaliym",we see something. just follow the sound of the name,"shem","salem" or more pronounced "sha'lem" and the hebrew word for "peace","shalom"!,arabic "salam".Its really easy once you know what to do by God's leading.The reason melchesedic is not recorded in the bible as having a recorded family and such is because before the Aaronic Priesthood was established,there were no records of High Priests recorded.This is fact!. Quite interesting. Another interpretation is that Melchizedek is Shem because he "outlives all of the generations of his own son” (read it at BibleTruthOnline.com). However, that theory of making Melchizedek into the same person as Shem is froth with problems. The theory cannot be established by similarities in pronunciation of names (shem, shalem, shalom, salam) - No. Waht about the similarity in the pronunciation of the name 'Shelah' (1 Chronicles 1:18)? We know that 'shelah' means 'a sprout' rather than assuming the meaning of 'peace' for shem. A few questions need to be asked: The reason melchesedic is not recorded in the bible as having a recorded family and such is because before the Aaronic Priesthood was established,there were no records of High Priests recorded.This is fact! (a) In the first place, Hebrews 7:3 says that Melchizedek is without descent; but we know that the generation of Shem is recorded in the Bible. The first mention priesthood is not with Aaron, but with Melchizedek; so if anything at all, then certainly Aaron's priesthood would have been foreshadowed by such priesthoods as preceded his. Hebrews 9:9 makes clear that the Aaronic priesthood was a figure for the time then present; and as such, it cannot be used as the prism for all other concepts of priesthoods, priests, or high priests. (b) Secondly, in the OT, Shem’s descent, genealogy or ancestry is recorded in several places, including Genesis 11:10ff; 1 Chron. 1:4, & 17; and Luke 3:36. Shem’s father is Noah (Gen. 5:32 & 6:10). But all these details clearly do not align with what is said regarding Melchizedek’s, who is said to have been without father or mother or descent in Heb. 7:3. The reason is not because of Aaron's high priesthood; rather, it was because Melchizedek enters the scene without a pedigree and also vanishes without anything being said about him for centuries until the Psalms. If we're looking at the same individual named Shem, then we would have to first answer the question of how he managed to have lived up until the generation of Abraham where Melchizedek appears to him as the priest of the most high God (Genesis 14). One cannot make such huge leaps to cover the wide gaps between these generations. No, Shem is not Melchizedek. To make the connection between both individuals leaves a lot of unanswered questions. |
|
|
|
|
|
wirinet
|
Christianity and its glaring contractions; Hebrews 7:1-4
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; 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; 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. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
Abraham (a nomadic tribal king) went into war and slaughtered other kings, and then went to get blessings from the high priest of God (the king of Salem), and in appreciation Abraham gave a tenth of his spoils of war. Then in the same breath they would label the priest that blessed a slaughterer , a king of peace and elevate such a person to be Jesus Christ. No wonder Christian Pastors collect tithes from armed robbers, corrupt govt. officials, Prostitutes, Yahoo yahoo boys, etc and bless them, and the pastors would be called righteous me. It is a pity non Christians without the holy spirit in them cannot understand such contradictions. |
|
|
|
|
|
viaro
|
I don't know if you do this as a special talent; but I'm beginning to wonder that you have a penchant for drawing hasty and often vacant conclusions upon your own misgivings. This is not a healthy way to discuss with anyone. But let me highlight a small problem with your assertion: Christianity and its glaring contractions;
Abraham (a nomadic tribal king) went into war and slaughtered other kings, and then went to get blessings from the high priest of God (the king of Salem), and in appreciation Abraham gave a tenth of his spoils of war. Then in the same breath they would label the priest that blessed a slaughterer , a king of peace and elevate such a person to be Jesus Christ. It seems the only part that you could have seen in your quoting Hebrews 7 is that part highlight earlier in your post - "slaughter of the kings". And without even giving considerations to anything at all, you jumped quickly to assert that Abraham "then went to get blessings". Dear wirinet, just incase you're calling for attention, please observe - Abraham did not "went to"! You're reading a deliberate falsehood into the text. Rather, it is clear that it was Melchizedek who went out to meet Abraham! Here's the quote again - " this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings," It was Melchizedek who met Abraham returning, not the other way round. It's quite a sad event for people to chance upon just about anything in other people's beliefs and call unnecessary attention here and there when there is absolutely no need for such over-reactive dramas. In your case, you were declaring a "contradiction" when clearly it was you who had misread and contradicted the text. It is a pity non Christians without the holy spirit in them cannot understand such contradictions. Well, if those 'non Christians' have not been too busy deliberately contradicting themselves as you certainly did. One does not need an anointing or anything to see what you've done; then what was the substance in your attempts? |
|
|
|
|
|
wirinet
|
@ Viaro, Your accusations about drawing hasty conclusions is clearly unfounded. I base my conclusions on information provided. I don't know if you do this as a special talent; but I'm beginning to wonder that you have a penchant for drawing hasty and often vacant conclusions upon your own misgivings. This is not a healthy way to discuss with anyone. But let me highlight a small problem with your assertion:
It seems the only part that you could have seen in your quoting Hebrews 7 is that part highlight earlier in your post - "slaughter of the kings". And without even giving considerations to anything at all, you jumped quickly to assert that Abraham "then went to get blessings".
Dear wirinet, just incase you're calling for attention, please observe - Abraham did not "went to"! You're reading a deliberate falsehood into the text. Rather, it is clear that it was Melchizedek who went out to meet Abraham! Here's the quote again -
"this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God,
who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings,"
It was Melchizedek who met Abraham returning, not the other way round. It's quite a sad event for people to chance upon just about anything in other people's beliefs and call unnecessary attention here and there when there is absolutely no need for such over-reactive dramas. In your case, you were declaring a "contradiction" when clearly it was you who had misread and contradicted the text.
Well, if those 'non Christians' have not been too busy deliberately contradicting themselves as you certainly did. One does not need an anointing or anything to see what you've done; then what was the substance in your attempts?
i honestly do not understand your complaint, when you discuss with anyone you should understand the subject matter, that is the important points in the argument. The part you bolded is highly irrelevant to the discussion. You are upset because i said Abraham went to get blessings from high priest of God. I just do not want to be dragged into the argument of who went to meet who, it is completely irrelevant. but the passage says "who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings" So it shows both met on the way. but if it upsets you that i said Abraham went to meet Melchizedek, then i can accommodate Melchizedek traveling to Abraham's village to pay homage, it does not matter to me. my grouse against the passage is the glorification of war, slaughter and plundering(spoils of war). I will forever never support such an action, whether by Jews, Christians or Muslims. I can never find justification for going to war against others just to kill their kings and plunder their belongings, not even if they are worshiping foreign gods. This was the same thing criminals like Alexander the Great, Hitler and Napoleon did to others, and we all condemn them. Correct me if you did not call Melchizedek prince of peace and at the same time you said he blessed Abraham who was returning from slaughtering kings, and collected his own tithes from the spoils. Why do you not correct my hasty conclusions instead of bringing out irrelevant issues of who met who. |
|
|
|
|
|
viaro
|
@ Viaro,
Your accusations about drawing hasty conclusions is clearly unfounded. I base my conclusions on information provided. I did not accuse you, so please stop being unnecessarily reactive. The points I made are clear enough for anyone to read. i honestly do not understand your complaint, when you discuss with anyone you should understand the subject matter, that is the important points in the argument. Just what is your subject matter - the glorification of your own importance about a passage you wrongly interpreted? Please. The part you bolded is highly irrelevant to the discussion. You are upset because i said Abraham went to get blessings from high priest of God. I just do not want to be dragged into the argument of who went to meet who, it is completely irrelevant. but the passage says "who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings" So it shows both met on the way. but if it upsets you that i said Abraham went to meet Melchizedek, then i can accommodate Melchizedek traveling to Abraham's village to pay homage, it does not matter to me. Lol, sorry I'm not upset about anything. It matters absolutely nothing to me whatever your change of figuration, having first twisted the passage that Abraham then 'went to get blessings' as if that was predicted upon the slaughtering of kings. my grouse against the passage is the glorification of war, slaughter and plundering(spoils of war). I will forever never support such an action, whether by Jews, Christians or Muslims. I can never find justification for going to war against others just to kill their kings and plunder their belongings, not even if they are worshiping foreign gods. This was the same thing criminals like Alexander the Great, Hitler and Napoleon did to others, and we all condemn them. Yea, you can yap all day long about non-essentials. The passage does not glorify war, you rather twisted it to mean it that way. Did you take the time to read the background of what had happened that led Abraham to that war? I guess not. While I would not glorify war, I would most certainly not apologise if I had to go to war to recover my own relatives. You can shout to the roof if it please you and then come back and yap to twist that to mean I would glorify war. If you never wanted to be dragged into a useless discussion, you didn't need to twist the passage to mean what it does not mean so that you can hoot about non-essentials. Correct me if you did not call Melchizedek prince of peace and at the same time you said he blessed Abraham who was returning from slaughtering kings, and collected his own tithes from the spoils. Why do you not correct my hasty conclusions instead of bringing out irrelevant issues of who met who. I pointed out what you had misinterpreted - because your hasty conclusions were based on that. If that does not go down well with you, my apologies - and you're most certainly welcome to yap till break of day. |
|
|
|
|
|
Krayola (m)
|
@Viaro. In your opinion should everything in the Bible be taken literally?
|
|
|
|
|
|
viaro
|
@Viaro. In your opinion should everything in the Bible be taken literally? In my opinion, No. I'm not a literalist - but then, nobody's faith stands or falls with what I believe or how I personally interpret anything from the Bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
olabowale (m)
|
It simply means Viaro does not know. The only sensible post I have seen from him. You see the benefit of not being so overtly emotional? You may actually be correct if you apply rationality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
viaro
|
It simply means Viaro does not know. The only sensible post I have seen from him. Lol, rather, you don't know what I have stated - which means your remarks are not sensible, sorry!  You see the benefit of not being so overtly emotional? You may actually be correct if you apply rationality. If you first apply that inward to yourself, maybe you'd come off understanding others before drawing conclusions on their behalf. |
|
|
|
|
|
Abuzola (m)
|
 |
No subject
« #117 on: November 01, 2009, 03:24 PM » |
|
'remember when God will say (on day of resurrection,'O jesus , son of mary ! Remember my favour to you and your mother when I supported you with Ruhul Qudus (Gabriel), so that you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity and when i taught you writing , Al hikmah, the torah and the Gospel
and when you made out of the clay a figure like that of a bird, by My permission and you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission and you healed those born blind, and the lepers by My permission and when you brought forth the dead by My permission and when i restrained the children of Israel from you (when they resolved to kill you) as you came to them with clear proofs and the disbelievers amongst them said,'this is nothing but evident magic' Quran 5:110
|
|
|
|
|
|
the_seeker
|
poor xtians! Always in a pepetual state of confusion. As if father, son and holy ghost was not enough. Now we have melchisedec. Some say he is christ, some say he is the holyspirit, other say he is the father himslelf. I think he was actually christ on a reconassiance vist before the main mission.  Or maybe u should just add him up to the triune and we have a 'quadnity'. Afterall number doesnt matter as long as they serve same purpose. I pity u guys!  |
|
|
|
|
|
viaro
|
@the_seeker,
But does Islam teach you anything about Melchizedek? If the best you can do is make silly comments, it would be most pitiful indeed to wonder what your belief is doing to your system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
@the _seeker; I think mohammed did not plagiarise the Melchizedec priesthood so you will not be familiar with it. May be he was dumbfunded with this man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
viaro
|
^^^ you have a way of making me laugh! Good crack! |
|
|
|
|
|
Abuzola (m)
|
|
No subject
« #122 on: November 02, 2009, 07:01 PM » |
|
@nezan, You can say that again
|
|
|
|
|
|
the_seeker
|
Nezan you are right. He actually 'plagarized' the good stuff and left out the crap.
First of all you have a suicidal god who is ever afraid to declare his divinity. Then we hear of another who is busy collecting tithe up and down, calling himself a high priest.
I dont know whether to call this delusion of sheer idiocity
|
|
|
|
|
|
alex0026
|
 You need to understand the word 'GOD'. There's a language misunderstanding here coupled with wrong teaching.The word GOD IS AN ENCOMPASSING WORD which you can give any meaning because a human being like you coined the word. To me it represent everything you can percieve with the aid of the senses.You coexist with him and in him------both of you are inseparable,that's all.To you i don't know but you can equally give it an interpretation. If you're thinking of a BEING(GOD) somewhere who is watching the human race and his responsible for your actions that is you own ketchup,my brother.If you go on your knees all the time expecting what you want to happen without a corresponding and equal action ,well see for yourself. Your mind and what you think with an equal activity by you along the line of your thinking will definitely produce result for you. You have everything around you to achieve whatever you want or any goal you may wish to attain.Your mind have the power to convert it just like machines convert raw materials in the production factory into useful products. Wake up and live,move your mind power towards your goal and it will produce result for you.Your mind is the only thing in your world that can never decieve or fail you. You must recognise the fact that there is an intention for everything that happens before your eyes----your neighbour actions,yours,the society in general,what you see on TV,listen to on the radio,read in magazines and newspaper,etc but don't be fooled by all these because they are contraptions and sources of information and entertainment by default.If you were in the Devils shoes what would you do,disobey(language teaser for you-interprete the devil yourself) The world inside you is your real world which you must actualise.It is forever yearning for recognition and expression so long as you live. Because you coexist with other people in the society ,you have to take into consideration the wellbeing of your fellow human being (that's my opinion).more, http://www.mutualinterestsforum.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
viaro
|
You need to understand the word 'GOD'.
. . . The word GOD IS AN ENCOMPASSING WORD which you can give any meaning because a human being like you coined the word.
To me it represent everything you can percieve with the aid of the senses.
No, I don't think so; but if that is 'god' for you, I have no problem with allowing you think that way. Yet, I don't agree at all with your statement that defines 'God' as representing "everything you can perceive with the aid of the senses". Application to test your theory: There are different senses - touch, smell, taste, hearing, sight, etc. Take an example from these - * mr A smells gas in his room and feels that a pipe is leaking * mr B spilt his cup of tea on his trousers and felt the hot drink burn his skin * mr C sees a shadow of a cat in the corridor as he came from his room Now, could we say these are all the same things as 'God' for you, especially going by your definition? Was the gas in mr A's sense of smelling supposed to be his own 'god' as much as the shadow in mr C's case which he perceived with the sense of sight? |
|
|
|
|
|
alex0026
|
Hello viaro, I would appreciate if you can be my guest on my forum at http://www.mutualinterestsforum.com/ for more discussion. Your impression about GOD is what you think as a sensible human being.Secondly i want you to recognise the fact that the 'senses' i am referring to is a collective word and is more than the ordinary five biological senses you are made to believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
viaro
|
Hello viaro, I would appreciate if you can be my guest on my forum at http://www.mutualinterestsforum.com/ for more discussion. Your impression about GOD is what you think as a sensible human being.Secondly i want you to recognise the fact that the 'senses' i am referring to is a collective word and is more than the ordinary five biological senses you are made to believe. Hi alex0026 (I should've greeted you earlier),Thank you for the invitation. . i'll save your link and leg over sometime.  Second, thank you for clarifying what you meant by 'senses'. Someday, I hope to dig up this topic again and present to your consideration. Cheers. Edit
@alex0026, I just registered. . just to let you know I'm serious about joining you someday! Cheers. |
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
