christemmbassey:
'in the ORDER of .....'' is the problem here, pls lets study this expression carefully. God bless.

I know the meaning. Almost enough to write a book (joking). The point is this; if Eleazer was a priest according to the order of Aaron what else could it mean but that his priesthood began from Aaron? Same way with Jesus and Melchizedek. Melchizedek was the first form that God by the Holy Spirit, used to put on flesh and come on earth. When he came he performed a king-priestly role to Abraham. Years later God's word (different from his Spirit) put on flesh and was called Jesus. Jesus performed the sacrificial role. When he was done the bible says the father bestowed on him the High priestly role the same way that Melchizedek was. That's why Jesus was referred to as a priest According to Melchizedek's order. This means Melchizedek was the first in the line of this type of priests. What type?

1. They have no mother or father.
2. They have no beginning.
3. They have no ending.
4. They are king-priests
5. They are the authors of Righteousness and Peace. Etc.

Why is Jesus so similar to Melchizedek? Because Jesus is the word of God made flesh while Melchizedek (to me) was the Holy Spirit that put on flesh. They are both God and Jesus said so when he called the Holy Spirit "Allos Parakletos" which means one of EXACTLY the SAME KIND. In other words, the Holy Spirit is EXACTLY like Jesus in everything and administration. The only difference is that in performing their roles Jesus was first a physical man( we could touch, see, feel him) while now, the holy spirit is an invisible person whom the world cannot see.

If you research well you would see that this Holy Spirit made a couple of appearances in the OT as a man. So it is not hard to see why I believe what I believe.

christemmbassey:
Melkizedek is NOT a high priest. He has no priests under him, Jesus is and we, christians are priests under Jesus priesthood.

Yes in a sense because there was no one under him at the time.

This is no different form telling me that Mary was not Jesus' mother because he called him woman. Semantics really.
Care to explain how Jesus assumed e priesthood? Did Holy Spirit step down? Is Melchizedek priesthood some form of rotating office between members of the Godhead?

mbaemeka:


The flaw in this reasoning is that the bible didn't say "we have no records of his birth or death". That is what you have to make it say to take your position. The bible simply said "WITHOUT Father WITHOUT Mother. Neither HAVING beginning of days nor end of life". This is clear enough. Before we even add that the scriptures say their similarities as priests is in relation to their ENDLESS LIFE.

To make it clearer he concludes that God almighty declared that his son, Jesus would forever be a priest according to Melchizedek's order. If this doesn't say DEITY. Nothing else does.

Who told you she didn't touch/cling to him?

mbaemeka:


He didn't appear to her. Mary Magdalene went to his grave to embalm his body on the 3rd and was surprised by him. Then he said "don't touch me. Go and tell my brothers that I ascend to my father". The bible says she went to tell them. Later on the same day he came back and then appeared to them. This time he let them touch him. Why didn't he let her (Mary) touch him earlier on in the day?

This question is like finding the master key to open all things. There is no finding a master key with God. As you already know, God is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. All His creatures exist and operate within the beginning and the end. There is no escape within that sphere. It is like a ball inside of which you are and you don't have a master key to bust it open. The world is likewise and our Master Planner hovers around it with a master key to enter it anytime. God created the image of Himself manytimes manywhere in the Bible.1, He moulded Adam from the dusts of the earth as Mr. Multiplier of His humans on earth. 2, He designly, right before Adam, made Eve, from Adam's rib, as a vessel and store for Adam to work with. 3, All His Prophets from Enoch to Mohamad were specially made to serve Him. 4, Jesus Christ was born of the Holy Spirit. 5, God used His Holy Spirit to present Himself physically to deliver messages to His loved ones. Whatabout speaking through people? God is capable. So God is everything. For everything in Heaven and on earth is God's, all things belong to God and it is His own that we always give Him.......... Melchizedek was King of Peace(Salem means peace). Jesus is Prince of Peace and Heir to the Throne of Grace where THE ONE WHO ALWAYS SITS THERE IS GOD AND KING. Therefore, if, King of Peace is God, King of Grace is God, Melchizedek who has been amply described as King of Salem(Peace) and Christ's Order of Ministry is God.

mbaemeka:


I know the meaning. Almost enough to write a book (joking). The point is this; if Eleazer was a priest according to the order of Aaron what else could it mean but that his priesthood began from Aaron? Same way with Jesus and Melchizedek. Melchizedek was the first form that God by the Holy Spirit, used to put on flesh and come on earth. When he came he performed a king-priestly role to Abraham. Years later God's word (different from his Spirit) put on flesh and was called Jesus. Jesus performed the sacrificial role. When he was done the bible says the father bestowed on him the High priestly role the same way that Melchizedek was. That's why Jesus was referred to as a priest According to Melchizedek's order. This means Melchizedek was the first in the line of this type of priests. What type?

1. They have no mother or father.
2. They have no beginning.
3. They have no ending.
4. They are king-priests
5. They are the authors of Righteousness and Peace. Etc.

Why is Jesus so similar to Melchizedek? Because Jesus is the word of God made flesh while Melchizedek (to me) was the Holy Spirit that put on flesh. They are both God and Jesus said so when he called the Holy Spirit "Allos Parakletos" which means one of EXACTLY the SAME KIND. In other words, the Holy Spirit is EXACTLY like Jesus in everything and administration. The only difference is that in performing their roles Jesus was first a physical man( we could touch, see, feel him) while now, the holy spirit is an invisible person whom the world cannot see.

If you research well you would see that this Holy Spirit made a couple of appearances in the OT as a man. So it is not hard to see why I believe what I believe.

tnx bro, like I said, d problem is in word 'order'. I'ii expiain my own undastanding in a moment.

vooks:
1. Without father nor mother means we have no record of his family
2. Without genealogy means we have no record of his tribe
3. Having neither beginning of life nor end of life means we have no record of his birth or death

These three things can equally be said of MANY OT characters. Why the author of Hebrews dwells on the absence of records concerning Melchizedek is because he called a Priest and Psalms confirms that. When God gave the Levitical priesthood, those three records were of paramount importance lest a non-Levite undertakes priestly work. Recall service began at a specific age so DoB is concerned.

Hebrews is simply magnifying th fact that Melchizedek was the furthest from a Levite. In fact on this basis he concludes change of the Mosaic covenant whose hallmark was the Levitical Priesthood.

The absence of Melchizedek records don't make him supernatural any more than that of other characters without the same. This is a curiously beautiful argument from silence

i agree with this.... Plus

vooks:
This is no different form telling me that Mary was not Jesus' mother because he called him woman. Semantics really.
Care to explain how Jesus assumed e priesthood? Did Holy Spirit step down? Is Melchizedek priesthood some form of rotating office between members of the Godhead?

Jesus calling his mum "woman" actually shows her to be his mum. A research on that term reveals that it used to portray endearment.

As per Jesus' priesthood, you have to realise that Jesus didn't pre-exist himself (contrary to the general consensus). Jesus existed as the inseparable word of the father not as a man. And the bible says no one has ever seen God the father in his glory, so whenever God made an appearance in the OT he did so by the messenger of his presence (the Holy spirit) who took the form of a man who at times (like in the case of Melchizedek) appeared as a king-priest.

Now when the time was right God sent his word to come on earth and become flesh. That flesh was called Jesus. We know the story. That Jesus (the word made flesh) now died and resurrected and completed the will of the father concerning our salvation and when he ascended the first time. Hebrews says that is when he offered his blood in heaven, and was conferred with the role of High priest. This was the time the prophecy of Psalms about the savior becoming a priest according to the order of Melchizedek was fulfilled. Then he came back down on earth, met with his disciples, taught them some of these things, gave them gifts, and then ascended the second time (10 days away from pentecost)

vooks:

Who told you she didn't touch/cling to him?

She didn't. The High priest (when he was about to offer the blood of bulls or a lamb) in the most holy place for the sins of the nation always wore white apparel and was NEVER touched. The reason being that if he was touched by anyone or thing, he would be rendered unclean and the sacrifice would be disallowed.

So Jesus was on his way to playing the role of high priest. His body and blood were the sacrifice which he presented in the most Holy place in Heaven. That is why he told Mary not to touch him and why he had to ascend on that day. Of course, the spiritual world isn't timed like the physical so whatever he did in heaven he was able to accomplish it and still return in the evening of that same day (remember he met Mary very early in the morning). This time around he had done his role and was given all authority in heaven and earth (something he didn't have while on earth before his death). That is why he told his disciples to hail him and also why he could let them touch him.

christemmbassey:
i agree with this.... Plus

I disagree with almost everything therein because it is extrabiblical. The bible never said "we don't have a record of Melchizedeks birth". Thr bible said "neither HAVING Beginning of days". This simply means he didn't HAVE a beginning. Please let us stick to the scriptures.

In the OT all the priests must be traced to Aaron without which you couldn't be a priest. No matter how sinful someone was, as long as they were sons of priests they were destined to become priests because the Aaronic priesthood was succeeded by the death or old age of the predecessor. That is why those priests were said to be according to the order of Aaron.

Paul argues in Hebrews (because he knows the Jews deny any other priesthood bar Aarons) that Jesus is not only a priest but a far better priest than any levitical priest there ever was. Knowing they would want to trace Jesus' lineage to see if he hailed from Aaron, Paul argues that Jesus could not be according to the Aaronic priesthood for 3 reasons:

1. Jesus is God and should therefore pre-exist Aaron.
2. Aaronic priesthood was born by a temporary law.
3. Aaronic priesthood changed by death by Jesus was indestructible.

Now, the puzzle is, if the Hebrews writer had said Jesus was according to his own order there would be no argument for Melchizedek. Or even if it was the Hebrews writer that suggested that Jesus was according to the Melchizedekean order he too may have been wrong. But we have to take greater care because it is GOD ALMIGHTY that said Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. So why would he relate his eternal son to an ordinary man? That could never be.

The aaronic priests lived and died like Aaron and the scriptures told us when. But the scriptures never told us Melchi died and even more, the scriptures says Jesus is according to Melchizedek's order. It was NOT just a comparison for if it was there was NO NEED to still say Jesus hailed after Melchizedek's order. It is an insult to his deity that it would be compared to a mere man's.

The scriptures told us why Jesus was according to Melchizedek's order: Melchizedek was the first in this line of priests. The type of priests that unlike the Aaronic ones, DID NOT DIE or better still have an ENDLESS and INDESTRUCTIBLE LIFE. Same way Jesus defeated death and proved his indestructibility. Without doubt read the book of Hebrews and see all these things. The bible said (comparing the levitical priesthood and the Melchizedek one) that on earth men that die receive tithes (referring to fallible mortals) while there [men that do not die] (emphasis mine) showing that Melchizedek was in that DEATHLESS camp like Jesus. You cannot miss it.

Show me where it is written she didn't. You may also want to direct me to the relevant shadow of this in the Torah.

Thanks bro

mbaemeka:


She didn't. The High priest (when he was about to offer the blood of bulls or a lamb) in the most holy place for the sins of the nation always wore white apparel and was NEVER touched. The reason being that if he was touched by anyone or thing, he would be rendered unclean and the sacrifice would be disallowed.

So Jesus was on his way to playing the role of high priest. His body and blood were the sacrifice which he presented in the most Holy place in Heaven. That is why he told Mary not to touch him and why he had to ascend on that day. Of course, the spiritual world isn't timed like the physical so whatever he did in heaven he was able to accomplish it and still return in the evening of that same day (remember he met Mary very early in the morning). This time around he had done his role and was given all authority in heaven and earth (something he didn't have while on earth before his death). That is why he told his disciples to hail him and also why he could let them touch him.

You are yet to explain to me at what point Melchizedek the Holy Spirit stepped down and Melchizedek the Son took on the office. Who was the Melchizedek order priest BEFORE Christ shed his blood say when he was born? It was eternal,wasn't it?

mbaemeka:


Jesus calling his mum "woman" actually shows her to be his mum. A research on that term reveals that it used to portray endearment.

As per Jesus' priesthood, you have to realise that Jesus didn't pre-exist himself (contrary to the general consensus). Jesus existed as the inseparable word of the father not as a man. And the bible says no one has ever seen God the father in his glory, so whenever God made an appearance in the OT he did so by the messenger of his presence (the Holy spirit) who took the form of a man who at times (like in the case of Melchizedek) appeared as a king-priest.

Now when the time was right God sent his word to come on earth and become flesh. That flesh was called Jesus. We know the story. That Jesus (the word made flesh) now died and resurrected and completed the will of the father concerning our salvation and when he ascended the first time. Hebrews says that is when he offered his blood in heaven, and was conferred with the role of High priest. This was the time the prophecy of Psalms about the savior becoming a priest according to the order of Melchizedek was fulfilled. Then he came back down on earth, met with his disciples, taught them some of these things, gave them gifts, and then ascended the second time (10 days away from pentecost)

John 20:16-17 KJV

Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

She turned and SAID. . .then Jesus immediately said "don't touch me". This shows she couldn't have or did she disobey him?

As per the Torah, reading Exodus 28:42 or so and Leviticus 16 mentions the requirements. It can be simplified by doing a research on the day of atonement.

vooks:
Show me where it is written she didn't. You may also want to direct me to the relevant shadow of this in the Torah.
Thanks bro

vooks:

You are yet to explain to me at what point Melchizedek the Holy Spirit stepped down and Melchizedek the Son took on the office. Who was the Melchizedek order priest BEFORE Christ shed his blood say when he was born? It was eternal,wasn't it?

I didn't say the Holy Spirits name is Melchizedek. The Holy spirit answers to being called Jesus.

I said when the Holy Spirit put on flesh the name of that flesh was Melchizedek. Jesus became our high priest when he died on the cross and resurrected. Then he took his blood to Heaven (Hebrews 9). The death and resurrection transferred the main priestly role to Jesus. That's what the bible says. The priest before Jesus was Melchizedek. That is why Jesus is according to his order same way Eleazer is according to the order of Aaron. The first person in the line begins the order.

Where is it written she didn't touch him?

She could have touched him or she may have attempted to and was stopped. Once again where is it written she didn't touch him?
IMMEDIATELY is your interpolation

The portions of Torah you mentioned, they specifically or clearly state that a High Priest should not be touched around atonement?

Did Jesus bear our sins at the cross?
1Peter 2:24 (KJV)
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

mbaemeka:
John 20:16-17 KJV

Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

She turned and SAID. . .then Jesus immediately said "don't touch me". This shows she couldn't have or did she disobey him?

As per the Torah, reading Exodus 28:42 or so and Leviticus 16 mentions the requirements. It can be simplified by doing a research on the day of atonement.

When the Son put on flesh, we say the Word became flesh. When Holy Spirit put on flesh, He is not Melchizedek? Interesting
So Melchizedek was around when Jesus was born?

When your doctrine/belief leads you to absurd conclusions, you need to recheck it. That's why I won't have nothing to do with cessationism among others.

mbaemeka:


I didn't say the Holy Spirits name is Melchizedek. The Holy spirit answers to being called Jesus.

I said when the Holy Spirit put on flesh the name of that flesh was Melchizedek. Jesus became our high priest when he died on the cross and resurrected. Then he took his blood to Heaven (Hebrews 9). The death and resurrection transferred the main priestly role to Jesus. That's what the bible says. The priest before Jesus was Melchizedek. That is why Jesus is according to his order same way Eleazer is according to the order of Aaron. The first person in the line begins the order.

@op

He was a human royal priest that lived in the past. A type of Christ.

mbaemeka:
John 20:16-17 KJV

Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

She turned and SAID. . .then Jesus immediately said "don't touch me". This shows she couldn't have or did she disobey him?

As per the Torah, reading Exodus 28:42 or so and Leviticus 16 mentions the requirements. It can be simplified by doing a research on the day of atonement.

Kjv can be misleading. It does not bring out the meaning of that word. Robertson's Word Picture comments:

mee-mou-haptou. Present middle imperative in prohibition with genitive case, meaning "cease clinging to me" rather than "Do not touch me."

mbaemeka:

Christ is the SERVING HIGH priest for the WORLD while the Holy Spirit is a HIGH priest to ONLY Christians. They are high priests because the church now represents a nation of Kings and priests just like Jesus and Melchizedek are. In other words we are priests and they are high priests.

@bolded, i don't understand. Are you saying.........

1. Christ is serving as High Priest to unbelievers while Holy Spirit serves as High Priest to Christians...or....

2. Both Christ and Holy Spirit serves as High Priest to Christians while Christ priestly office has an expanded scope to include unbelievers? What do you mean by the world?

If you say Christ and Holy Spirit serves as High Priest to Christians, that will amount to saying there are two priests presently in office interceding for us. Do you have scriptures to support this?

1 Timothy 2:5 (NIV)
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

Goshen360:
Hebrews 7:3, Expanded Bible (EXB)
No one knows who Melchizedek’s father or mother was [ …without father, without mother], ·where he came from [L without genealogy], when he was born, or when he died [ having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;  something unstated was assumed not to exist]. Melchizedek is like the Son of God; he continues being a priest forever [ Melchizedek’s unmentioned genealogy in Genesis is, by analogy, like Jesus’ eternal Sonship and priesthood].

When KJV said, "neither having beginning of days nor end of life", its a phrase referring to "when he was born and when he died". The question I have asked people who teach Melchizedek is Christ is, if he was a man LIKE Christ, did he fall from heaven when scripture says, ONLY Adam was created BUT every OTHER MAN ON EARTH WAS BORN BY A WOMAN, EVEN CHRIST WAS BORN OF A WOMAN AS A MAN.

Another question we can ask the advocate of "Melchizedek is Christ" is, does it mean that Christ was here on earth before his virgin birth? Many things or object appeared as a foreshadow of Christ in the OT but those where not exact Christ. Think about this scripture,

Galatians 4:4, Amplified Bible (AMP)
But when the proper time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born subject to [the regulations of] the Law,

We can understand from this scripture that, there was a "proper time" Christ came. So, he could not have come "before" the proper time in person of Melchizedek until he was born of a woman BUT that Hebrew scriptures says, Melchizedek didn't have mother. Offcourse he had a mother, the name of his mother and father wasn't recorded nor exactly known and was missing in the genealogy so he (Melchi) can be preserved to fit the "description and comparison" of Christ when he said "MADE LIKE" the Son of God.

I believe Melchizedek is an Angel

An angelic king of Salem?

Legacy44:


I believe Melchizedek is an Angel

mbaemeka:

I said when the Holy Spirit put on flesh the name of that flesh was Melchizedek. Jesus became our high priest when he died on the cross and resurrected. Then he took his blood to Heaven (Hebrews 9). The death and resurrection transferred the main priestly role to Jesus. That's what the bible says. The priest before Jesus was Melchizedek. That is why Jesus is according to his order same way Eleazer is according to the order of Aaron. The first person in the line begins the order.

@bolded, you succeeded in telling us that Jesus replaced Melchizedek as priest. My brother this amounts to succession. How is this different from the order of Aaron where the priesthood is sustained by succession? It is not possible for Jesus to replace Melchizedek otherwise it is no longer different from the Levi priesthood.

The bible says that Jesus priesthood is of the type where the priest is the first and only priest in that office. i.e. The priest presently in office did not succeed anybody and he remains a priest forever. Jesus is the first and only priest in his priestly office just as Melchizedek is first and only priest in his office.

mbaemeka:

Jesus performed the sacrificial role. When he was done the bible says the father bestowed on him the High priestly role the same way that Melchizedek was. That's why Jesus was referred to as a priest According to Melchizedek's order.

..."the father bestowed on him the High priestly role the same way that Melchizedek was"....

Are you now saying that Melchizedek sprinkled his blood on the altar to cover for Abraham's sins? are you also saying that Melchizedek was mediator between God and Abraham? Na wa oh

saintopus:
He was a spiritual being at that time. They usually come teach and inspire their devotees, raising their consciousness in the process. In the time of Christ there was Zadok. This ancient ones are the spiritual masters who teach these people about their mission on earth.

This was not ministered to you by mere mortal

vooks:
Where is it written she didn't touch him?
She could have touched him or she may have attempted to and was stopped. Once again where is it written she didn't touch him?
IMMEDIATELY is your interpolation
The portions of Torah you mentioned, they specifically or clearly state that a High Priest should not be touched around atonement?
Did Jesus bear our sins at the cross?
1Peter 2:24 (KJV)
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

The bible said she first of SAW who it was and yelled "Master". Then he said "Don't touch me". This simply means she wanted to touch him to probably feel that he was real and not an apparition. To solidify this claim he met his disciples later and almost begged them to touch and feel him. Hope you know Jesus let women even kiss his feet. So he had no qualms with the opposite sex FYI.

As per the books I gave you, really the notion is scattered around scriptures even in Haggai and Numbers as well as in Exodus 30. The notion was that no unclean thing should touch the priest. If in doubt, we can readily Google Judaism in relation to the day of atonement and see it expressly stated by those who mastered the law. So we can put it to bed.

Yes he bore our sins at the cross but that is NOT where all he did started or ended. We would need to compare scriptures with scriptures to have real time display of how things panned out. For example, he told John in Revelations 1:17-18 that he took the keys of hell and death from satan. Did this also happen at the cross?

vooks:
When the Son put on flesh, we say the Word became flesh. When Holy Spirit put on flesh, He is not Melchizedek? Interesting
So Melchizedek was around when Jesus was born?

When your doctrine/belief leads you to absurd conclusions, you need to recheck it. That's why I won't have nothing to do with cessationism among others.

LOL, read my posts well. When the son put on flesh he was called JESUS. When the Spirit put on flesh he was called Melchizedek. Mechizedek will ALWAYS exist in so far as the spirit decides to put on flesh. That shouldn't be hard to understand. He made several appearances in the OT and you and I can agree that it wasn't Jesus. For example, the one who led the Jews out of Israel wasn't Jesus.

Zikkyy:


@bolded, i don't understand. Are you saying.........

1. Christ is serving as High Priest to unbelievers while Holy Spirit serves as High Priest to Christians...or....

2. Both Christ and Holy Spirit serves as High Priest to Christians while Christ priestly office has an expanded scope to include unbelievers? What do you mean by the world?

If you say Christ and Holy Spirit serves as High Priest to Christians, that will amount to saying there are two priests presently in office interceding for us. Do you have scriptures to support this?

1 Timothy 2:5 (NIV)
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

I am using my phone now so won't post many scriptures. But for starters, the verse above states clearly that JESUS is the mediator between GOD (the father) and MANKIND (not Christians). Mankind includes Sinners and Saints. For sinners he is there to ensure that they can be saved if they come to him. For saints he is there to ensure they remain eternally saved as they abide in him. (1 John 2:1-2).

But when it comes to the Holy Spirit is role is EXCLUSIVLEY to only Christians. His intercessory, mediatory, advocatory, priestly role is for those in whom he lives in. And that means ONLY Christians. In John 15 & 16 when Jesus explained the coming of the Holy Spirit he said God would send Allos Parakletos. He didn't say Heteros Parakletos. Heteros would have meant another one but a different kind but Allos means another one but EXACTLY of the same kind. If you use the AMP they would give 7 meanings of that phrase Allos Parakletos and it meant; Teacher, Helper, INTERCESSOR, ADVOCATE, comforter, STANDBY etc. This shows he has some priestly roles as I had earlier said.

There is no record of Mary not touching, the are continuous present tense in those words equally suggesting she was ask to cease. Geek aside, she never touched him is at best imagined

Matthew 28 is very clear women fell at his feet and kissed him. Luke 7:38 has Mary kissing his feet and wiping them with her hair. So your FYI is mighty welcome but you can do better than preach to the choir

There are NO notions nowhere of a High Priest avoiding contact with nobody. They were supposed to avoid things that made everyone unclean like corpses not living primates

So Jesus bore our sins at the TREE, a curious rendering of the cross. Am glad we agree. We are bros . What happened after bearing them? He ascended to Holy of Holies 36 hours later to atone for them?

PS:Can we drop digression? Let's stick to Jesus blood in heaven. We have enough time to crack Revelation. Thanks

mbaemeka:


The bible said she first of SAW who it was and yelled "Master". Then he said "Don't touch me". This simply means she wanted to touch him to probably feel that he was real and not an apparition. To solidify this claim he met his disciples later and almost begged them to touch and feel him. Hope you know Jesus let women even kiss his feet. So he had no qualms with the opposite sex FYI.

As per the books I gave you, really the notion is scattered around scriptures even in Haggai and Numbers as well as in Exodus 30. The notion was that no unclean thing should touch the priest. If in doubt, we can readily Google Judaism in relation to the day of atonement and see it expressly stated by those who mastered the law. So we can put it to bed.

Yes he bore our sins at the cross but that is NOT where all he did started or ended. We would need to compare scriptures with scriptures to have real time display of how things panned out. For example, he told John in Revelations 1:17-18 that he took the keys of hell and death from satan. Did this also happen at the cross?

There is nothing to understand in what you are saying that I don't understand.
You reckon Melchizedek aka Holy Spirit was on earth during the life of Christ?

Jews were led out of Egypt by an angel. Can we please stop digressing? Stick to Melchizedek. Thanks

mbaemeka:


LOL, read my posts well. When the son put on flesh he was called JESUS. When the Spirit put on flesh he was called Melchizedek. Mechizedek will ALWAYS exist in so far as the spirit decides to put on flesh. That shouldn't be hard to understand. He made several appearances in the OT and you and I can agree that it wasn't Jesus. For example, the one who led the Jews out of Israel wasn't Jesus.

Zikkyy:


@bolded, you succeeded in telling us that Jesus replaced Melchizedek as priest. My brother this amounts to succession. How is this different from the order of Aaron where the priesthood is sustained by succession? It is not possible for Jesus to replace Melchizedek otherwise it is no longer different from the Levi priesthood.

The bible says that Jesus priesthood is of the type where the priest is the first and only priest in that office. i.e. The priest presently in office did not succeed anybody and he remains a priest forever. Jesus is the first and only priest in his priestly office just as Melchizedek is first and only priest in his office.

Wrong. I asked you a question which you failed to respond to. When the bible says Eleazer, Eli were priests according to Aarons order what did it mean? Is it that they merely shared the type of priesthood? The answer is No. Aaron was the FIRST priest of this order and as such everyone that came from him became a priest according to his order.

If the bible was just saying Jesus is the FIRST priest in his order the way Melchizedek was the first THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG TO SAY JESUS IS A PRIEST ACCORDING TO MELCHIZEDEKS ORDER. The bible or Hebrews writer would have just said Jesus is a priest like Melchizedek. Guess what makes it even more interesting? It was GOD the father, that said the son, Jesus, would forever be a priest ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.

Also, you are wrong in saying the similarities between Jesus and Melchizedek was in being the first priest. That is extrabiblical. What the bible made us know as their similarity is THEIR INDESTRUCTIBLE LIFE.

vooks:
There is no record of Mary not touching, the are continuous present tense in those words equally suggesting she was ask to cease. Geek aside, she never touched him is at best imagined

Matthew 28 is very clear women fell at his feet and kissed him. Luke 7:38 has Mary kissing his feet and wiping them with her hair. So your FYI is mighty welcome but you can do better than preach to the choir

There are NO notions nowhere of a High Priest avoiding contact with nobody. They were supposed to avoid things that made everyone unclean like corpses not living primates

So Jesus bore our sins at the TREE, a curious rendering of the cross. Am glad we agree. We are bros . What happened after bearing them? He ascended to Holy of Holies 36 hours later to atone for them?

PS:Can we drop digression? Let's stick to Jesus blood in heaven. We have enough time to crack Revelation. Thanks

The FYI was to preempt the lame excuse that he was averse to women touching him. Glad we can put that out of the way. I am puzzled that you can see clear scriptures saying she saw someone and said something and was told not to touch and yet I am being asked to prove that she didn't.

As per unclean thing in relation to dead things that was one aspect. A woman in her P was also unclean, a leper was unclean etc. Let us not reduce it to absurdities. Every evidence (both scriptural and otherwise) states that the Priests weren't touched when entering the Holy of Holies. For you to prove that assertion wrong, it is incumbent upon you to show us any verse to the contrary.

When Jesus bore the sins of the world, he did so on his body. Which is similar to the slaughter lamb on whom the sins of the nation is confessed upon. Then the lamb is slain like Jesus was crucified. After that the blood of the slain lamb is taken into the Tabernacle (the Most holy place) where it is then sprinkled there. So Jesus had to take his blood into the Most Holy place in heaven to do so. He did this after he resurrected. I know what happened for 3 days while he was in a tomb but it is surfeit to the discussion.

As per his blood in Heaven, Hebrews 9.

vooks:
There is nothing to understand in what you are saying that I don't understand.
You reckon Melchizedek aka Holy Spirit was on earth during the life of Christ?

Jews were led out of Egypt by an angel. Can we please stop digressing? Stick to Melchizedek. Thanks

The holy spirit always came in and out as he was sent by the father UNTIL Jesus came. When Jesus came, he dwelled in Jesus permanently helping him to carry out his mission. So the question is amiss because the Holy Spirit whenever he came on earth during the OT did so usually as a Man. It is like asking me where the men that met Abraham in his house are now.

As per Jews being led out by An angel, I can see why you still don't understand me. The so-called Angel that led the Jews out of Egypt was THE HOLY SPIRIT. Isaiah 63:9-10.