₦airaland Forum

Candour: Gombs, pls go ahead and ask me directly. I won't be struggling to pick questions from a quote to someone else. I'm on a phone.

Pls just type them out clearly and directly.

Thanks

Answer the last two questions

Q: What law was changed?
A: The law that said only Levites could be priests.
Q: Which law said that?
A: The old covenant.
Q: Do we follow the new Priest?
A: Yes
Q: of which order is he?
A: Melchizedek
Q: Did the order of Melchizedek receive tithe and
blessed the tither?
A: yes
Q: Why then do people say malachi 3v8 was written
to
the those under the levitical priesthood even tho the
speaker talked about blessing u after u bring the
tithes?
A:
Q: did levital priests bless the tithers?
A:

Candour: I can see Gombs is in high spirits today [s] you've gone to brush up on scriptures and believe you can succeed with the tithe for Christians scam. [/s]

Pls go ahead with your questions. I have some time to learn something new

Welcome sir
Please I'd ask you a series of SHORT and PRECISE questions, PLEASE answer in like manner. Try not to be insulting, and attack the massage not the messenger!
There are two unanswered questions below pls engage them with short and precise sentences.
Your time starts now!

Gombs: [s] Where is Kunle, Christembassey and Candour

Someone should call them, let's not go further into Melchizedek. [/s] We talking tithing and I related Mechizedek to tithing with pertinent questions no one answered. I await answers pls

The descendants of Aaron would be replaced by a
better priesthood, a better priest—and that has
enormous consequences:
"For when there is a change of the priesthood, there
must also be a change of the law" (v. 12).

Q: What law was changed?
A: The law that said only Levites could be priests.

Q: Which law said that?
A: The old covenant.

Q: Do we follow the new Priest?
A: Yes

Q: of which order is he?
A: Melchizedek

Q: Did the order of Melchizedek receive tithe and
blessed the tither?
A: yes

Q: Why then do people say malachi 3v8 was written to
the those under the levitical priesthood even tho the
speaker talked about blessing u after u bring the
tithes?
A:

Q: did levital priests bless the tithers?
A:

Pastor Kun: You go wait tire

Haba my friend

Attempt the questions, now is not the time to cower

Zikkyy: am not through with your case yet. I still don't agree with you in some areas.

for example you cannot be saying Jesus is a diiferent 'kind' and say at the same time they are of the same order.

Heb 7v 11 AMP
11 Now if perfection (a perfect fellowship between God and the worshiper) had been attainable by the Levitical priesthood—for under it the people were given the Law—why was it further necessary that there should [size=16pt] arise another and different kind of Priest, one after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one appointed after the order and rank of Aaron? [/size]



Need I say more?

Zikkyy: @ayoku777, the problem we have is our interpretation of the "order of Melchizedek". Did the scripture described order as structure in Psalms and Hebrews?



You are correct here Melchizedek is a type of Christ based on similarities mentioned above (i.e. king/priest and genealogy), and that is what is meant by Jesus being a priest after the order of melchizedek. Order as used in Hebrews refers to type not organization

Zikky!
Thank God you got it!


Now...I await Candour and Christembassey and Kunle

ayoku777: Jesus is referred to as David few times in scripture na
Jer 30v8-9, Eze 34v23-24.

Sorry I couldn't type them out.

Jer 30v8-9
8 For it will come to pass in that day, says the Lord of
hosts, that I will break [the oppressor’s] yoke from your neck, and I will burst your bonds; and strangers will no more make slaves of [the people of Israel].
9 But they will serve the Lord their God and David’s
[descendant] their King, Whom I will raise up for them.

And the other Ezekiel verse. I think they were talking about Jesus being David's descendant.

Anyways, let's stick to the topic, I asked some questions directed to anti tithers, don't know if you are one, if you are, pls attempt the questions

ayoku777: Yeah, I get what he's saying, I do. It means, Melchizedek is a type of Jesus as a priest just as David is a type of Jesus as a king.

But if Melchizedek is not Jesus, but another individual with no beginning like the Father and Jesus, that would be an extra-biblical revelation.

I think our argument is more of 'Who is Melchizedek?' than it is about 'the order of Melchizedek.'

I humbly and honestly admit both of us are yet to see this revelation in full, that's why I'm not laughing at his views as he is doing.

Thanks bro. Hope you're good.

Sorry I laffed at your view.
But they were laughable na!

Anyways, how is David a type of Jesus as a King?

Alwaystrue: The gospel preached was meant to bring life but it brought death to those who had no faith, so we get to have God's Spirit now to help us see and do as God had proposed from the beginning....that is why God says He Changes Not in Malachi 3;....I had often pondered that in Hebrews 11:10 but your explanations seem to make lots of sense.

Very true!

David sought such too, he wanted to preach the gospel, he wanted to experience the Kingdom of God, he wanted the God life!

Psalm 67:2 TLB
Send us around the world with the news of your saving power and your eternal plan for all mankind.


They all did seek that Kingdom, but they didn't have the Holyspirit in them. they were short circuited!
Glory to God we have that Spirit!

ayoku777: This is my last post on this thread unless its not related to this topic.

Jesus is the FIRST and the LAST King and High priest of the Kingdom of God. He is the beginning and the perfection of the royal priesthood. Jesus is the first immortal man. So if he is not Melchizedek, then the other alternative is a greater heresis. There is another self-existent deity.

Now, that's on what I WILL PASS!

Was Mechizedek a priest of Most High God before Jesus was, Yes OR NO!

The answer is yes, Jesus was certainly not a priest on earth, but Melchizedek was/is! Meaning that Jesus wasn't the First High priest of God!

Melchizedek was the First royal priest (king-priest)

Jesus was not the first immortal man, Enoch was/is!

Jesus is Not Melchizedek

Where is Kunle, Christembassey and Candour

Someone should call them, let's not go further into Melchizedek. We talking tithing and I related Mechizedek to tithing with pertinent questions no one answered. I await answers pls

The descendants of Aaron would be replaced by a
better priesthood, a better priest—and that has
enormous consequences:
"For when there is a change of the priesthood, there
must also be a change of the law" (v. 12).

Q: What law was changed?
A: The law that said only Levites could be priests.

Q: Which law said that?
A: The old covenant.

Q: Do we follow the new Priest?
A: Yes

Q: of which order is he?
A: Melchizedek

Q: Did the order of Melchizedek receive tithe and
blessed the tither?
A: yes

Q: Why then do people say malachi 3v8 was written to
the those under the levitical priesthood even tho the
speaker talked about blessing u after u bring the
tithes?
A:

Q: did levital priests bless the tithers?
A:



Let me shock you all!

We (born again/new creations) are King-Priests same as Jesus is!

We are priests and kings by Christ Jesus! We are in Him and He in us! Hallelujah...my bible tells me so!

Open another thread if you wanna see it.

ayoku777: And I think this city that Abraham sought for is the kingdom that we are also to seek and preach. I think this is related to the 'eternal gospel' drift you were talking about on one of those threads few days back. That it was also preached to Abraham.

Its still an unfolding revelation to me sha, so I won't be dogmatic.

Hmmmmmm
This is another days topic

Alwaystrue: @Gombs and Bidam,
Rather than laugh take time to study what Ayoku is saying. I am telling you that once you spot it, you will be shocked you never saw it before.

That Jesus is born of Melchizedek?

Or Jesus is Melchizedek

Or that Melchizedek was not a Priest on earth?


No, thank you, I'd pass

ayoku777: I said either it is the individual or the individual is born of the person. That's the meaning of priesthood in the order of anyone, in scripture. So jesus being high priest in the order of Melchizedek means either Jesus is him or Jesus is born of him and since Jesus can't succeed someone that can't die, then Jesus is that Melchizedek. That's why I said it is Jesus. Simple

Can't keep typing the same things again. This is the merry-go round that makes threads LONG.

Jesus is not Melchizedek from the below scriptures

That Melchizedek was not the same person as Jesus is
evident in that he is said to be “like unto” the Son of
God (Heb. 7:3c)

In the Bible there are only five passages that speak
of Melchizedek, these are: Gen 14: 18-20; psalm 110: 1-7; Heb 5: 5-11; Heb 6: 19-20; and Heb 7: 1-28. From none of these passages can you derive that Jesus was
Melchizedek. Let us see.

"18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought
forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the Most High God. 19 And he blessed him, and said: Blessed be Abram of the Most High God,
possessor of heaven and earth;

In the passage we have just read we see nothing that can be construed as saying that Jesus is Melchizedek. Just because he was a priest of God does not mean that he was Jesus Christ. There were many priests of God who were not Christ. On the contrary, it says that at that time Melchizedek already was a priest, while Jesus became a priest after the crucifixion.

Pleeeeeeease, Jesus was NOT a priest on Earth

In the moment that Melchizedek appears, Jesus still
was not a priest. We know this because it is in a psalm
of David that for the first time a prophecy tells us
that the Messiah was to become a priest. In psalm 110
we see that the Messiah was going to be appointed
priest after the order of Melchizedek. Therefore, it
means that Melchizedek was priest before Jesus was.
Therefore, they cannot be the same person.

If I say: " 'B' is going to be priest just as 'A' was", logically, "A" acceded to priesthood before "B" . Therefore, if Melchizedek was a priest before Jesus was, they are not the same person.


Now, an argument of utmost importance. The only
time Jesus was in flesh was when he was born from
Virgin Mary.
In the following passage we will see that Melchizedek had flesh, therefore, he was a human being but immortal. If Melchizedek had flesh before Jesus was
born, evidently he could not be Jesus.


I could go on and on

Bidam: Ok..Where is father melchi now?

Good questions

ayoku777: Order of Melchizedek or of anyone else for that matter, simply means either that is the person or the individual is born of the person. Interprete scripture with simplicity.

Are you serious?



Evn after the bible explains that the order of melchizedek is not of genealogy and it is forever?

The order of Aaron was of genealogy and death was an ending to it!

Get the meaning of order from the bible na

ayoku777: Nice, was trying not to go here before.

Was there ever a proof that that city called Salem, that Melchizedek was a king of, was an earthly city? It might as well have been the city that Abraham sought for till he died. Heb 11v10 -For he looked for a city which had foundation, whose builder and maker is God.

I'm sure if it was the earthly Jerusalem, Abraham would have found it and gone there, coz that one was in the same middle eastern region of Palestine and canaan.

It is the heavenly Jerusalem. That's the Salem he is king of.

I yaf die with laff o!

^^
Spot on!

Some propose that Melchizedek was actually a pre-
incarnate appearance of Jesus Christ. While possible,
this view is unlikely. Melchizedek was the king of Salem. Would Jesus Christ have come to earth and ruled as an earthly king over a city?

Melchizedek is similar to Christ in that they are both priests and kings, of no genealogy, and a priesthood for eternity; therefore, Melchizedek could be called a “type” of Christ, but they are not the same person.

ayoku777: That's why I said a lot still remains to be revealed to us about that priesthood. But going by your explanation only leaves us with a greater heresis than the one we are trying to unfold - that there is someone else in the Godhead, besides the Father and Jesus, who has no beginning and is self-existent.

Bro, that's frying pan to fire revelation.

You can't say that a lot need be revealed about the priesthood if you go through your bible fine! Laffing at your conclusion tho

ayoku777: More humility is needed in understanding scripture than dogma. The Melchizedek priesthood is something that still remains to a large extent a mystery. But it seems the early church had other scriptural texts about him that we are not privileged to have around anymore.

Be that as it may from the little account that we have of him in Genesis, Psalms and Hebrew, these are what we can deduce.

That the Melchizedek priesthood is a forever priesthood, there is no succession in it because those in it have eternal life and can't die.

That since it is called 'the order of Melchizedek' by God, it means the first priest in that order is Melchizedek himself. Coz every priesthood order (including the ones that have succession - order of Aaron and Zadok) is named after the first priest in that order.

That since it is a forever priesthood, it means Melchizedek is the first priest and eternal high priest of that order. And subsequent priests must be born of him. Coz you must be born of the high priest to be a priest in an order.

Now, from the book of Hebrew description of Melchizedek, it said he has 'no beginning'. Beginning means before creation. There are only two people in the universe that pre-existed the beginning, and that is YHWH and the Word. 'In the beginning God' and 'In the beginning was the Word'.

So this is what I deduced. If Jesus is now the High priest in the order of Melchizedek, it means he succeeded Melchizedek. Which is not possible coz a high priest must die to be succeeded; and Melchizedek can not die.

If Melchizedek can not die, then it means he ALONE remains the high priest of the order named after him. But Christ was called the High priest in the order of Melchizedek

Melchizedek was not called a High priest throughout the old testament, until we got to the New. And that's coz he was the only one priest in his order. You need to have more than one priest to have a high priest in an order. Meaning no one was born of melchizedek until the new testament.

[s] I think all this point keeps narrowing this down to one possible outcome - Jesus is Melchizedek. [/s] Jesus like the Father has no beginning. He was the priest (mediator) between the father and the universe he (the word) created. And he was the only one in that capacity until he rose from the dead and gave birth to every other believer who is now a priest in the same order. That was when he became the high priest.

Jesus is NOT Melchizedek.

If he were then explain this

Hebrews 7v 11AMP:
Now if perfection (a perfect fellowship between God
and the worshiper) had been attainable by the
Levitical priesthood—for under it the people were
given the Law—why was it further necessary that
there should arise another and different kind of
Priest, one after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one appointed after the order and rank of Aaron?

Or explain this

Hebrews 1v1-2
In many separate revelations [[a]each of which set
forth a portion of the Truth] and in different ways God spoke of old to [our] forefathers in and by the
prophets,
2 [But] in the last of these days He has spoken to us
in [the person of a] Son, Whom He appointed Heir and lawful Owner of all things, also by and through Whom He created the worlds and the reaches of space and the ages of time [He made, produced, built, operated, and arranged them in order].

The above did not say God spoke to our fore fathers in the Person of the son! Why?
Because Jesus NEVER existed as a person in heaven before he was Born on earth. He existed as the Word of God, then John 1 tells us the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us...so then how then could Melchizedek be Jesus, if God didn't speak to our forefathers in the Person of the Son esp when the Son (Jesus) didn't exist as a person either in Heaven or earth at the time?

You’re Blessed! · Friday, October 4th ·

Pastor Anita

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ (Ephesians 1:3).


Abraham, the Bible says, was blessed in all things, and so are you, because Galatians 3:29 says, "And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." You didn’t have to struggle for the blessing; it was bequeathed to you as an inheritance; you’re an heir of God, and a joint heir with Christ (Romans 8:17).

Someone might ask, "If truly I’m so blessed, how come I don’t have a car, or a house or enough money to live by?" Understand this: the car, house, money, etc. aren’t the blessing but the results of the blessing. The blessing of God upon your life is an unseen power or force that causes good things to happen with you, to you and through you.

Not only are you blessed, God has also made you a blessing. In Genesis 12:2 He said, "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing." We read in Galatians 3:29 that "…If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Being born again, you’re in Christ; therefore, all the blessings God endowed to Abraham are now your present-hour possessions. You’ve become the symbol of God’s blessings wherever you are!

2 Peter 1:3 says, "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue." What you need is to know what God has made available to you in Christ through the Word and walk in this light.

Prayer  

Dear heavenly Father, I thank you for the manifestations of your goodness and kindness to me! Thank you for the Holy Spirit, who lives in me: the greatest blessing of all! I walk in righteousness, victory, health and dominion today, conscious that I’m blessed to be a blessing, in Jesus’ Name. Amen.

f u r t h e r s t u d y: 1 Corinthians 3:21; Galatians 3:8-9

Daily Scripture Reading

1 Year Reading Plan : Philippians 2:19-3:1-11 Isaiah 15-18

2 Year Reading Plan : John 3:22-36 1 Kings 9

Zikkyy: He is assumed to be a priest forever. am sure you don't have issue with ya sight.

My problem is the word ASSUME

so then, what does it mean to be of the same order? we need to understand this bit very well. I believe it is the source of the disagreement. Kindly explain, please.

Refer to my above post

So Melchizedek is still existing? where is he now? Where is his temple?

Oh dear God!

He's in hell with Osama and Hitler playing Russian roulette

His temple?

Somewhere between earth and mars

^^
Redudndant questions

Zikkyy: As stated in the previous post, the continuity of the priesthood is based on the qualities or nature of the priest occupying that office. Jesus is a priest forever because Christ lives forever. Christ's nature defines his office. If Melchizedek priesthood continues forever, where is Melchizedek now? am sure you have no clue. you only know how to quote what you don't understand.

Did you seriously ask me where Melchizedek is now?

The bible tells us there is only one priest, one mediator between man and the Almighty. If Melchizedek is a priest forever, he is mediating on whose behalf? is he mediating for Gombs?

Refer to my post where I said Jesus was a priest of a diff kind, but of same order with melchizedek..he gave his blood as a sacrifice for remission of sin, Melchizedek was not a man (mortal) o! How could he have mediated for man?


When I say he wasn't a man, I mean he is immortal

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

If you listen to ya self you will see that you are making any sense. If according to hebrews 7:3 Melchizedek is truly a priest forever, it would mean there are currently two high priest in office before God! is it not obvious you don't understand the message in Hebrews 7?

Look at it from another perspective, if Melchizedek handed over to Christ, is that not telling you that the Melchizedek priesthood is one of succession? how is that different from the levitical priesthood which is also one of succession? except that the levitical priests dies? even when the bible tells us that Christ is a priest forever, how can his office be one of succession?















so if he was not a man, what was he? an angel? are you telling us there is another angel of God sharing the priestly office of Christ? are you listening to ya self at all? [/s]

Refer to my earlier posts about melchizedek not handing a baton to Jesus. It is either you can't read or you chose to argue or you chose to be ignorant.

When you have something smart to say, quote a scripture refuting my posts, else keep mute. I'm done with you sir!

Zikkyy: You have told us here that because Melchizedek received tithe and it is therefore the requirement of any priest occupying an 'under' the order of melchizedek (i.e. Jesus is required to collect tithe as well). The nature of a priesthood can be seen in the qualities of the priest occupying the office. Following your logic that Jesus carry out every act performed by Melchi we can say that if Jesus had to sacrifice himself to take up an office 'under' the order of melchizedek, it therefore mean Melchizedek already sacrificed himself in the course of taking up his priestly office. If Melchi already died for our sins of what use is Christ coming to die for all over again?

Na wa for you..I said he was of same order an order which is not of genealogy and is eternal. I explained above that Jesus was a priest of a kind but under same order..



In fact go and read my above post again...this time slowly

Who was the speaker and Who is doing the blessing in Malachi 3:8? are you now comparing Melchizedek to God?

Refer to my earlier post of who is blessing, and which priesthood blesses a tither

Zikkyy: The problem is due to what you understand by Jesus priesthood being "after the order of Melchizedek". First i will refer you to a post by bernimoore explaining Psalm 110:4....



Same thing for the Hebrews passage, "after the order of" is for the audience (Jews) to understand the nature of Christ's priesthood, it's superiority over that of Aaron. In fact Hebrews 7:15 says it clearly when he says Christ priesthood is "similar" to that of Melchizedek. He did not say it was the same priesthood...


And it is yet far more evident: for that after the[b] similitude[/b] of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest (KJV),

And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, (NIV)

Not much documentation of melchi's priesthood other than his name and his status as king of Salem. His ancestry, birth and death were not recorded, [size=32pt]he is assume to exist (as priest) [/size] forever (just like Christ). Melchizedek priesthood is a representation of Christ's priesthood with the following similarities:

1. Melchizedek was a priest upon his throne, just like Christ
2. Melchizedek has no successor just like Christ (if melchi has no successor, Christ cannot be sharing same priesthood with him). To say Christ succeeded Melchi is to say the melchizedekian priesthood is one of succession. I believe you understand the it's implication if you were to assume Christ officiates under this priesthood? the scriptures says Christ is a priest forever (did not succeed and cannot be succeeded by anybody otherwise it becomes one of succession like levitical priesthood).

Did you just write that the bible assumed Melchizedek existed as a priest? I have corrected you before, that he doesnt have beginning of day nor end of life is not the same as it was not recorded.

I told you Christ did not succeed (pass baton) Melchizedek....Na wa for u o. Of same priesthood is not same as passing baton.Christ did not succeed him, if Christ did then it means Melchizedek is no longer existing. Christ brought us salvation, he is a priest of his own kind, but of d same order o! Of his own kind was because he brought us salvation with his blood, Melchizedek didnt....but all of them are of same ORDER!

Hebrews 7v 11AMP:
Now if perfection (a perfect fellowship between God and the worshiper) had been attainable by the Levitical priesthood—for under it the people were given the Law—why was it further necessary that there should arise another and different kind of Priest, [size=32pt]one after the order of Melchizedek, [/size] rather than one appointed after the order and rank of Aaron?

Zikkyy: Marriam webster definition of prototype:
an original model on which something is patterned
an individual that exhibits the essential features of a later type
a standard or typical example
a first full-scale and usually functional form of a new type or design of a construction (as an airplane)

So what you meant when you said "Isn't Jesus of same priesthood as Melchizedek?" was that Melchi was the original version and Jesus is patterned after him.

Ur definitions above are very correct, but your application is offensive to common sense....a standard or typical example...this was one of your definitions of prototype, now lets apply it...Melchizedek was a prototype of Jesus means Melchizedek is a standard or typical example of Jesus. Simple, now apply same to the rest definitions.

Marriam Webster definition of Dynasty:
a succession of rulers of the same line of descent
a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time

Okay, i get you now. You are saying Melchi did create a succession plan. Meaning Christ is currently in charge. The only difference is that Melchi was and is still alive after handing over the baton to Christ. So the only difference is that under the Levitical priesthood, a priest must die before he is succeeded by another. But if Christ is currently in office (being a prototype), how do we reconcile this with scriptures that say Melchi remains a priest forever? (i.e. he is still officiating as high priest)

Is it that you just want to argue or you want to learn? From your definition of dynasty it is a succesion of rulers of SAME decent. You read in the bible where it said Melchizedek resembled Jesus (patterned after Jesus but he is not Jesus), now Jesus' priesthood wrought us salvation, the levitical priestthood couldnt.

Jesus did not succeed melchizedek, in your definition, succesion means following in same pattern/order and not dying and passing power to the other or giving way to the other. It means following the same pattern and in this case, the pattern of the melchizedek priesthood is that it is not of genealogy, and it is forever.

Bible said they are of same order na! Where did u get he (JESUS) is in office from? They are of same order, Christ is the High priest which wrought us salvation, but he is from same order of priesthood as melchizedek. There was no changing of baton, if u say so, then that means melchizedek died or ceased to exist. Samuel was of the Aaronic order of priesthood, does it mean that Aaron gave the baton to him? Of same order means he followed the same pattern as Aaron, if Jesus had followed the same pattern, he would have been a priest of the order of Aaron, it doesnt necessarily mean Aaron passed the baton to Jesus.

Ut thank God Jesus ressurected and is alive forever more, hence of the order of Those whose priesthood is eternal (Melchizedek). You remember in the bible there were multiple priests at a time, not that one has to pass the baton tomthe other, but they all functioned under the Levitical priesthood which Aaron pioneered.

So this is a priesthood where the serving priests don't die even though it is one of succession contrary to scriptures which did not define Christ priesthood as one of succession. am sure you know what it means when you said Melchi "started a dynasty of priest(s) that were/are NOT dying and passing the priesthood to their sons". Anyway i will come back to this, time is scarce. It may take a full day to respond to your post.

Dont understand the above..can you kindly paraphrase?

Zikkyy: We really need to be careful how we interpret what we read. @bolded, if Melchi was no man, then what was he? it's either he was an angel or he Melchi was God himself. You already agreed in ya response to Joagbaje that Melchi was not Jesus, so who is Melchi?

Hebrews 7v3 AMP:Without [record of] father or mother or ancestral line, neither with beginning of days nor ending of life, but, resembling the Son of God, he continues to be a priest without interruption and without successor.

If u think he was a man, which man has the character of the bold above? [size=64pt] He is not a man, and certainly not Jesus ....dint you see in the above scripture, that he resembles the Son of God? [/size] if someone resembles me does that mean he is me?
If you wanna discuss who he is, open a thread and invite me. And if u say he is Jesus, then that means Abraham paid tithes to Jesus, why then do you say paying tithe is done away with?

Why was melchi considered to be without parents? That the scripture did not record Melchi's genealogy does not mean he was a ghost. even the Hebrew writer did not conclude that Melchi was an angel......

The scripture said he hasnt any genealogy nor parents nor beginning of day nor end of life...this sentence is different from THE SCRIPTURE DID NOT RECORD HIS GENEALOGY

[s] Hebrews 7:1 (NIV)
7 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him,

......and Abraham received him like he knew Melchi prior to the in Genesis 17 meeting. Abraham met Melchi with the King of Sodom nearby and there were no indication that they were seeing/knowing Melchi for the first time.....

Genesis 14:15-24 (NIV)
17 After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). 18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.
20 And praise be to God Most High,
who delivered your enemies into your hand.”
Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
21 The king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the people and keep the goods for yourself.”

Consider Abbie's reaction when he saw God's messengers in Gen. 18:1-4

Genesis 18:1-4 (NIV)
18 The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. 3 He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord,[a] do not pass your servant by. 4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. [/s]

I cancelled the above because its not related to the topic nor my post.....Open a thread if you want to discuss Melchizedek at lenght......

Cheers

[size=64pt]He did not create a dynasty of priests, each dying and passing the priesthood to a son .[/size]

Ok son!
Look up at that sentence very carefully.
Notice the punctuations

Have you don the above? Now, quick quiz

1. "He did not create a dynasty of priests, each dying and passing the priesthood to a son." Did you notice the first comma there? If you did, it must mean he(melchizedek) started a dynasty of priest(s) that were/are NOT dying and passing the priesthood to their sons! No?

That said

2. Is Jesus Alive today?

3. Is Melchizedek alive today?

4. Can you name any other priest that WAS NOT from the Levitical priesthood except the above two?

5. Did you see in that my post that Mechizedek is a Prototype of Jesus? If you did and don't understand, compare it with the example below

"A Robin is a prototype of a bird, but a Penguin is not"

From the above sentence substitute Robin, Bird and penguin with Mechizedek, Jesus and Levites respectively.

Submit this assignment 1st thing tomorrow morning.

Joagbaje: Well actually there are different schools of thoughts about this . Some see Melchizedek as one of the christophanies of the Old Testament .

Scripture does not say that Melchizedek was the Son of God—just that he was "like" the Son. Hebrews 1:1-2 implies that the Son of God did not at anytime speak to the patriarchs. He (God) spoke in time past to the people of old by the prophets (v1) (or by himself) and in the last days spoke to us by his Son (v2)

So it would be wrong for any sch of thought to believe Melchizedek was one of the christophanies of the Old Testament

christemmbassey: may be we should do a teaching on this, sm ppl think Jesus is Melchizedeck or shares d same rank. God bless u bro.

Nobody said Jesus is same as Melchizedek

But Jesus is of SAME PRIESTHOOD as Melchizedek

Zikkyy: No he is not. The few similarities are actually due to perception. Christ cannot be functioning under the priesthood of a man.

Let me school you a bit

It begins with a quick summary of the story in Genesis
14:
"This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything" ( Heb. 7:1-2 ).

First, the unusual name is explained. The Hebrew word melek means king, and tsedek means righteousness, so his name is explained as meaning "king of righteousness."
And since shalom means peace, he was also the "king of peace" (v. 2).
These titles are significant because Melchizedek prefigures Jesus Christ. Then we are told that Melchizedek was "without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever" (v. 3).

However, Melchizedek had no parents that are mentioned in Scripture. His position as priest did not depend on his parents or his genealogy (unlike the Levitical priests). His priesthood was a different kind, a different order. Similarly, Scripture says nothing about his birth or death (unlike the patriarchs, who are carefully chronicled). He did not create a dynasty of priests, each dying and passing the priesthood to a son.


Now from the above we can see that the Levite's priesthood aint same as Melchizedek's. But the bible said he had no Parents..how then did you conclude he was a man? Bible also said he like the Son of God will be a priest forever! Hence making tithing a eternal principle.

To go further

We might say today that he came out of nowhere, and then disappeared. Nevertheless, he remains known as a priest even today. "He remains a priest forever ... is declared to be living" v 3 & 8. (A similar thought may be in Luke 20:37-38 —the patriarchs are among "the living." This mysterious Melchizedek is the prototype of Jesus Christ.

Psalm 110 predicted that the Lord would be a priest in the same way: not according to genealogy, but by special appointment. This order of priests was significant in several ways:

1) it was more important than the Levitical priesthood,
2) it implied that the Levitical priesthood was temporary and
3) the new order was permanent. Greater than Levi

Although little is known about Melchizedek, we can discern that he was very important. Abraham gave him 10 percent of the spoils of war (v. 4 of Heb 7). The old covenant required the Israelites to give 10 percent to the Levites, but Abraham gave 10 percent to Melchizedek even though Melchizedek was not a Levite (vs. 5-6).

Heb 7v5-6 AMP
5  And it is true that those descendants of Levi who are charged with the priestly office are commanded in the Law to take tithes from the people--which means, from their brethren--though these have descended from Abraham. 6  But this person (melchizedek) who has not their Levitical ancestry received tithes from Abraham [himself] and blessed him who possessed the promises [of God].

The man was getting priestly honors before Levi was even born.From this, I constructs a hypothetical argument: "One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor" (vs. 9-10).

We all know that Levi didn't actually pay tithes to Melchizedek, but in a figure of speech he did. The point is that Abraham is greater than Levi, since Abraham is Levi's ancestor, and Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, since Abraham paid tithes to him, so Melchizedek is greater than Levi.

Verses 6-7 emphasize Melchizedek's greatness: He not only received a tithe, he also blessed Abraham.

"And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater." NIV

Abraham is the lesser person—but the real point of comparison being made is with Levi. Since Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, he is also greater than Levi, and—most important for the book of Hebrews—his priesthood is more important than the Levitical priesthood. The Levitical priests die, but Jesus has been made a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, a priesthood that is more important for
our salvation.
Now let's see how a new priesthood implies a new law

Now I observe that "if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?" (v.11). I await your answer o!

Note in the middle of verse 11 that the law was given on the basis of the priesthood. The law was designed with the Levitical priesthood in mind—the law and the
priesthood went together. But neither the law nor the priests could bring people to perfection. That is why
Psalm 110 spoke of another priesthood.

The descendants of Aaron would be replaced by a better priesthood, a better priest—and that has enormous consequences:

"For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law" (v. 12).

Q: What law was changed?
A: The law that said only
Levites could be priests.

Q: Which law said that?
A: The old
covenant.

Q: Do we follow the new Priest?
A: Yes

Q: of which order is he?
A: Melchizedek

Q: Did the order of Melchizedek receive tithe and blessed?
A: yes

Q: Why then do people say malachi 3v8 was written to the those under the levitical priesthood even tho the speaker talked about blessing u after u bring the tithes?
A:

Q: did levital priests bless the tithers?
A:

But first, let me make certain basic facts clear.

"He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar" (v. 13).

We are speaking about Jesus, of
whom it is said that he is a priest after the order of
Melchizedek—but Jesus was not a Levite. He belonged
to the tribe of Judah, and no one from that tribe was
ever a priest, and Moses did not authorize anyone from
Judah to be a priest (v. 14).

"And what we have said"—that is, that the law has been
changed—"is even more clear if another priest like
Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not
on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the
basis of the power of an indestructible life" (vs. 15-16).

Jesus was appointed as priest not by a law that focused on genealogy, but because he lives forever at God's right hand. From this fact alone, we can see that the
Law of Moses is no longer in force (levitical priesthood and their law of tithing).

"The former regulation is set aside because it was weak
and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a
better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to
God" (vs. 18-19).

Why then Melchizedek? Why do we tithe in the faith of Abraham to Mechizedek?

Because his priesthood continues forever
Because Jesus is of same priesthood
Because Jesus and Melchizedek are priests with no genealogy
Because Melchizedek is not a levite whose priesthood were truncated
Because though Levi was from Abraham's loin folks still thought he paid to Mechizedek (Heb 7v9-10 AMP), hence reference was still made to Melchizedek, Why? Cos he has no roots, no genealogy, he was immortal


Don't come here and lie that he was a man!

Kunle I see you