mbaemeka:

Paul argues that that Man- Melchizedek was the first in the line of a type of priests that Jesus came after. These priests have an endless life.

The Hebrews writer focus was on the priesthood (as defined by the character/nature of the priest). Jesus did not come 'after' Melchizedek, his priesthood resembles that of Melchizedek.

mbaemeka:

Paul argues that that Man- Melchizedek was the first in the line of a type of priests that Jesus came after. These priests have an endless life. It is very lucidly put that even though that Melchizedek wasn't Christ himself. He was SIMILAR to Christ and we know why: CHRIST WAS REFERRED TO AS THE CHILD OF THE HOLY GHOST, while to me Melchizedek was a manly form that the HOLY GHOST took after while he visited earth. That is why he can be regarded as KING OF PEACE whereas Jesus was referred to as PRINCE OF PEACE.

in arguing your case for theophany, you deliberately ignore the fact that Melchizedek was also a priest. Can you please tell us if the Holy Ghost is also a priest of the most high God. or maybe you are saying Melchizedek was never a priest?

mbaemeka:

2. How can Jesus come after the order of an ordinary man? It is actually Heretical to suggest so.

That's the point. Jesus did not come after the order of anybody ( i don't even understand what you mean by 'order'). The reference to Melchizedek is to show resemblance (based on perception).

mbaemeka:

There were MANY things to say about Melchizedek and Jesus but the Jews were too spiritually dull to understand it. Trust me, if Paul was referring to history from a 'historic city' called Salem his fellow Jews would have known it.

The knowledge Paul was trying to communicate was spiritual.

@bolded, there was many things to say about Jesus. Melchizedek was not in the equation.

vooks:
The big picture is, Hebrews extensively applies arguments from silence to draw parallels between Melchizedek and Christ.
1. Abraham gave a tithe of the spoils to King Melchizedek
2. Jesus is made a priest after the order of Melchizedek

Hebrews is just connecting these two not making a case for the mystical aspect of Melchizedek. Guy was just another king.

"you are a priest forever.........."......This is the 'koko' of the message from God. Christ is a priest forever because he lives forever (due to his divine nature). But the Jews will not understand how one can be a priest forever (based on their understanding of the Levi priesthood). To clarify the nature/type of Christ priesthood, the reference to Melchizedek type priesthood was required....."after the order of Melchizedek" i.e. similar to Melchizedek type of priesthood. This is because the Jews see Melchizedek as still occupying his office (due to lack of info).

mbaemeka:

You my friend, are not seeing the big picture.

Hebrews 7:15-16 KJV

And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

In the SIMILITUDE of Melchizedek there arose another Priest who is made after the power of an endless life- Jesus Christ.

"after the power of an endless life" has nothing to do with Melchizedek, it refers to Christ divine nature.

mbaemeka:

That word 'salem' is English rendering for 'Shalom'. Melchizedek was King of Absolute peace and also King of righteousness. There is nothing to suggest that Salem was a real city. Also, Abraham never felt any King was greater than him enough for him to receive a blessing from such a king.

Melchizedek did not bless as King, Abraham received blessing from a priest (of the most high God).

OLAADEGBU:

If you understood what a pre-incarnate theophany is you wouldn't be asking these questions.

How did a priest end up a theophany

You cannot even defend your own post. This is one of the hazard of posting other peeps opinion.

OLAADEGBU:

What do you know about a pre-incarnate theophany? Study the Scriptures and you will discover that this was not the only time Abraham experienced a theophany.

am not arguing theophany. i just want you to reconcile what you said with the fact that melchizedek was a priest. If Melchi was God, are you saying God is a priest of the most high God? if you say he is Jesus, are you saying Jesus was already functioning in his priestly office even before Abraham and prior to crucifixion? If Jesus was already priest, what necessitated the emergence of/switch to the Levi priesthood? these are my questions. If you are sure of what you saying about melchi's appearance being a theophany am sure you have answers to my questions. Thanks.

Goshen360:

I see my brother, Zikky, destroying these folks with questions they can't answer and they trying to spin around ...

Don't mind them jare

MostHigh:

When you now say things like the priesthood of Melchizedek and Christ are different you only exhibit your lack of understanding

Same priestly type (to the extent the priests don't die and remains in office forever) but Melchi did not handover to Jesus.

MostHigh:

Zikky There are only 2 Orders ordained by the most high God in all of Scripture. The order of Aaron and the order of Melchizedek.
When you now say things like the priesthood of Melchizedek and Christ are different you only exhibit your lack of understanding
Can you tell me what Order Christ belonged to and what are the ordinances of this order or simply put put what are the ordinances of his priesthood.

'Order' refers to type or nature of priesthood. If you read the strong's Concordance i posted, you will observe that it is the character/nature of the priest that defines the type (order) of priesthood. The order of Aaron is a priesthood sustained by succession (since death prevented the priests from continuing in office). Melchi type priesthood is one where the priest remains in office continually.

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[j] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

This is not to say Melchi and Jesus operates at the same level. Jesus offered himself as sacrifice to become high priest and continues to act as mediator. What was Melchi's job function? I know Abraham offered sacrifice without going through Melchi.

MostHigh:

And hey thanks for comparing me to a mad man. My master was called the same.

My apologies.

OLAADEGBU:


I know you don't like it when I arm myself with biblical references and what biblical scholars have to say about it but you got no choice in this matter. You cannot make me drop my weapon so that you can bring me down to your level and then beat me with experience.

This is what the Scripture says and how it can be properly interpreted:

"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" (Hebrew 7:3).

Post by OLAADEGBU: 7:3 end of life. This unique description surely implies far more than a mere failure to mention Melchizedec’s genealogy, as the standard naturalistic explanation of this passage has it. The only one of whom these statements could actually be true is God Himself, appearing to Abraham in a pre-incarnate theophany. God appeared to Abraham on other later occasions (e.g., Genesis 17:1; 18:1), but on this occasion, almost overwhelmed by the hostile, ungodly world around him, Abraham needed special comfort and encouragement from God. Thus the Lord (actually God the Son), appearing as the King of Righteousness (Revelation 19:11,16), the King of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), and the Mediator between God and Man (I Timothy 2:5), came to give Abraham His blessing (Genesis 14:19).

Ola, are you saying Christ was already serving as priest of the most high God before Abraham and prior to crucifixion? So why the need for the Levi priesthood? Are you also saying that Christ shut down his priestly office during the time Levites performed the role of high priest?

mbaemeka:

He can be Deity without being Jesus himself. The Holy Spirit appeared as a man a couple of times in the OT. That's what people call a theophany. I am tilting towards that.

...and he was also a priest of the most high God. If truly he remains a priest forever, who is in currently serving as the high priest? Christ or Melchizedek?

mbaemeka:
Hebrews 7:3, 15-16 KJV
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. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

The bit in blue and red font is proof that the Hebrew writer did not consider Christ and Melchizedek to be one and the same person.

mbaemeka:

Meaning: he wasn't born and he didn't die. Period.

vooks:
Was Melchizedek Jesus?

mbaemeka:

To me, No.

If Melchizedek is not Jesus, then the belief/view that Melchi did not die cannot be correct. Hebrews 7 says Melchi remains a priest forever and we know there is only one High priest (Christ).

MostHigh:


So tell me who is higher than Melchizedek in the order of melchizedek.

Ignorance no excuse either.

You must be inspired.

Before you start posting like a mad-man, you need to first understand what was meant by the "order". Am helping you out with an extract from Strong's Concordance.....

4. the post, rank, or position which one holds in civil or other affairs; and since this position generally depends on one's talents, experience, resources, τάξις becomes equivalent to character, fashion, quality, style, (2 Macc. 9:18 2Macc. 1:19; οὐ γάρ ἱστορίας, ἀλλά κουρεακης λαλιᾶς ἐμοί δοκοῦσι τάξιν ἔχειν, Polybius 3, 20, 5): κατά τήν τάξιν (for which in Hebrews 7:15 we have κατά τήν ὁμοιότητα) Μελχισέδεκ, after the manner of the priesthood (A. V. order) of Melchizedek (according to the Sept. of Psalm 109:5 () עַל־דִּבְרָתִי), Hebrews 5:6, 10; Hebrews 6:20; Hebrews 7:11, 17, 21

Christ priesthood resembles that of Melchi, the priesthood are not the same. The nature of resemblance clearly stated in Hebrews 7.

Image123:

BTW, tithes talked about in that passage is of course on increase for that year. It wasn't a tithe of every property in Israel. Tithe is 10% of INCOME or INCREASE.bring forth all the tithe of thine increase. Emphasis on increase.

"bring forth all the tithe of thine increase. Emphasis on increase"....image123

The nature of the increase was clearly stated in Deut. 14:22....

.."Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year."

emphasis on the bit in blue...and we find that the "increase" in Deut 14:28 refers to food if we read verse 29......

28 At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: 29 And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied;....."

....emphasis on the bit in blue font colour

BTW, there is nothing like "tithe is 10% of income" in the bible. You are strictly on ya own.

Not sure image123 read this bit posted by ooks, so i am posting it again.....

vooks:

2 Chr 31:6... Who asked for your fantasies in interpretation? how does 'the tithe of holy things' or 'a tenth of anything they had dedicated to the LORD' mean non-Agricultural?
Quit circular reasoning. If the tithe belongs to God, it automatically becomes holy thing,dedicated to God.
If I dedicate to God silver, I can't give Him 10% of it because ALL of it belongs to Him. So there is nothing like dedicating things and then giving to God a fraction of these. You give EVERYTHING you dedicate. The point is a tithe becomes holy things or dedicated things but holy things or dedicated things are not necessarily tithes

...image123, please give special attention to the bolded.

Image123:

Luk 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

That scripture is a valid history evidence that shows jews tithed of more than just agric produce.

It is not about what the jews did but about what they were instructed to do. Did God command the Jews to fast twice a week? the answer is NO! Did God command the Jews to tithe of all they possess? the answer is No! The pharisee went beyond the command of the Lord to tithe agric produce by tithing all his possession just to show he is better (holier) than others. read him in 18:11.....

11[b]The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. [/b]12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

Working hard to impress the Lord ehn? am happy to read that Jesus was not impressed..... and to think that the pharisee is ya role model?

Image123:

Luk 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

..and the Pharisee in Luke 18 is ya role model? Lol!

trustman:
[size=6pt][/size]
So because we do not have copies of ALL the sermon outlines of John & Thomas you can begin to fabricate a theory that they taught tithing?
So because, like you said, "That Jerome or Luke does not write about it doesn't mean it DID NOT happen." then you can invent the theory that the early Christians paid tithe?
It is clear that the revealed Word doesn't mean much to you. This is truly unfortunate. 

Image123 is using version of the bible written by his pastor with input from image123 himself. This version contains evidence Jerome & Luke taught tithe.

PastorKun:

I strongly disagree with you, the only right way to pay tithes is to do it as instructed in scriptures which means tithes can only be paid to levites priest and it must strictly be based on agric produce in the promised land (Israel) any other definition is adding to sacred scriptures.

It depends. If you are paying the tithe commanded by God or tithe based on pastor's commandment.

jdilight:

I don't tithe because Abraham did, neither do I urge people to tithe because Abraham tithed. I tithe so that there will be food in the house of God and that the gospel of Christ will spread to all. It is my love for God that make me tithe.

If this is true. You don't need Malachi or Genesis to justify your tithe practice, all you need is the bit in blue font. You run to Malachi and Abraham cos you know what you posted above is false.

jdilight:

If the tithe changed from war spoil to agricultural goods while can't it can to money now taking into consideration what made it change. Now did Jacob promise to tithe to God war spoil or agricultural goods?

Tithe changed from war boot.y to agricultural goods because God himself made the change. Who gave the instruction that money should be given as tithe? Pastor?

jdilight:

God said the tithe was His even though it was meant to keep food in the house of God.

God defined the tithe. He did not say "the tithe" was his, he said the tithe of "Agric produce" was his. If you don't specify the nature of "the tithe", any tenth will qualify as tithe (belonging to God) including a tithe of human head, or tithe from robbery proceeds, prostitution e.t.c. God's tithe was clearly defined for the Israelite, so they had no problem knowing what to bring to God. For the Israelite you don't see questions like...is tithe based on gross or net income?......is it right for children to tithe their allowance (pocket money)?......Is it right to tithe gift?.....should politicians tithe? e.t.c

jdilight:

THE BENEFITS OF TITHING

It is erroneous to believe that giving your tithe will bring you blessing. No! Tithe is meant.

1. To bring increase from that where the tithe came from.
The pocket from where your tithe comes from is meant never to get dry as a tithe giver, because it is from that pocket that the house of God (where the priest that receive your tithe dwell) is meant to be sustained. By the tithe Abraham paid, he was immune from being defeated in any war he will go into.

This is new. am sure pro-tithers will not agree with this.

jdilight:

If you don't have increase, your not expected to tithe.

Your tithe is a tenth of your increase (profit) not of all you have.

Says who? BTW, increase is not the same thing as profit. The Israelite did not tithe profit. Abraham did not tithe profit.

jdilight:

Abraham did not give a tithe of his capital but of his increase. :20, "And blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand. And he gave him a tithe of all." Abraham gave the priest a tithe of all the spoil he got from the war not of all the goods he had in his house.

Abraham did not give a tithe of his increase cos he did not see accept that the loot was his. besides, Abraham gave a tithe of the loot before it was shared; i.e. before the Amorite took their share.

jdilight:

Tithe are not meant to be given to the poor,

Tithe are not meant for the poor? What about Deuteronomy 14:28-29? You think God lied when he said the tithe should be shared with the poor?

Deuteronomy 14:28-29(KJV)
28 At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
29 And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.

Bidam:

Stop reading into the text. The bible says "lend" in that verse and not "give".. There is a clear diff between verse 35 and Luke 6 verse 38. Lend is not the same as give..this is simple english na haba!

What's the difference?

"34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full."

What do you call lending without expecting repayment? is that not giving?

Bidam:

Ok, lets take the widow of zarephat as an example..Did Elijah not make her anticipate a "reward" even before she ministered to him?

I don't want to consider this cos it's OT.

Bidam:

Haba! Zikkyy why are you this mishievious. Paul actually made them anticipate a "reward" for their gifts.

He made them anticipate a "reward" long after the act of giving was concluded. I don't see how this impact on their decision to send the gift (probably packaged and delivered like a month or two before they got Paul's letter). This cannot be Paul's intention.

Oga Bidam, if you love me so much and decides to give me an Helicopter, and in showing my appreciation tell you that God will reward you for ya gift. Are you really going to interpret that as making you to anticipate a "reward" for ya gift?

gebest:
i dont want to use dis word but let me use it since u started it, i was following u b4 thinking u are responsible now dat i kn u ar nt, let me leave u alone.

Okay.

Bidam:

Did i manufacture Luke 6:38 in my imagination. A farmer that sows expect a harvest ofcos..same principle applies and still Paul butressed this truth in 2 cor9:6..abeg i don tire with repititions..am done with you on this one except you can provide a valid counter argument.

My question was.....do you give because of expected returns or you give because of love?......and you are asking if you are the one that manufactured Luke 6:38

My interpretation of your response is that you have been influenced by what you read in Luke 6:18 to give only when there is expected returns. This is so un-Christ like. Ya pastor get work.

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you"

The fact that you will be rewarded should not be the basis for the giving.

verse 35..

"But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High"

which is easier? giving with expectation or giving without expecting to get anything back?

Bidam:

WRONG.in the aspect of givings a condition is attached for the christian.

What do you mean by "Wrong"? are you saying the Philipians were not blessed in the area of giving?

Bidam:

You did imply peeps sourcing their wealth from satan. Abi no be money again them dey take by food? Haba!

You are not reading my posts o! see the post below. Please take time to read again. Thank you.

Zikkyy:

Maybe you don't understand that God already blessed them even before they gave. You think the gift given to Paul was sourced from blessings received from satan?

Bidam:

A touch of eyesalve is all you need. Paul says they are blessed by God supplying all their needs in this present life and even in the one hereafter BECAUSE they ministered to his needs.

He assured them that God will meet all their needs for their generosity. He did not say they should give for the purpose of receiving God's blessing.

"And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus."

The Philippians gave out of love for Paul, not because they wanted God to bless them. Love does not come with conditions.

I rejoiced greatly in the Lord that at last you renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you were concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it.