mbaemeka:
Hebrews 9:12 KJV

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

That verse my friend tells me BY not WITH His own blood.
We too, can enter the Holy of Holies BY not WITH the blood

Hebrews 10:19-20 King James Version (KJV)
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

It means we access God through the sacrifice of Christ not carrying vials of his blood to heaven. Actually, it is interesting that we do that while still here on NL

There is a song I really love by Paul Wilbur from this verse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whEC7WjitGg

Please think through these things yourself too by praying about it. Will a glorified body have injuries? Why did Christs body maintain the injuries?

Thanks bro. Know that I take your calls to prayer very seriously because I perceive you are a man of faith. BTW, am still waiting for my Space Gray iPhone 6+ 64GB. keep praying with me
Jesus had NO injuries whatsoever upon resurrection.

^^^

So how did the priests of old go into the Tabernacle? That verse also say BY the blood of bulls and goats. Come on bro, you can do better. The verse said he didn't do it by the blood of Bulls and Goats, he did it BY his own blood. By in this context means WITH man.

As per injuries, John 20:27.

The IPhone? Whatsoever you desire, when you stand praying...you know the rest.

Hebrews 9:7 (KJV) But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us

Holy Spirit is very clear. High priests entered into the holy of holies NOT WITHOUT BLOOD or ALWAYS WITH BLOOD.
But Jesus Christ the head and the Body enter BY the blood.

The reason that verse does not say 'He did not enter WITH the blood of the Bulls and goats' but 'He did not enter BY the blood of the Bulls and goats' is because it is talking of heaven where even if Jesus was to offer Bulls and goats, blood would not be admitted.

Jesus ascended back to heaven a High Priest with the merits of his sacrifice. This is the meaning of entering by his own blood

We also don't approach God with vials of blood but by the merits of his sacrifice. There is an artificial dichotomy invented distinguishing Jesus blood from his sacrifice. His shed blood is his sacrificial death and vice versa.

I did a simple study of various translations of Heb 9:12. Here they are;
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%209:12
Note the many translations that talk of Jesus going in WITH the blood which appears to support your theory. But when the same phrase is employed in Hebrews 10:19, they all without exception beat a hasty retreat.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2010:19

Revised Standard Version is a good example of this inconsistency.

The key Greek word is dia which means BY
https://www.teknia.com/greek-dictionary/dia

διά (dia)
Strong: G1223
GK: G1328
(1) gen., through, used of place or medium, Mt. 7:13; Lk. 6:1; 2 Cor. 11:33; through, of time, during, in the course of, Heb. 2:15; Acts 5:19; through, of immediate agency, causation, instrumentality, by means of, by, Jn. 1:3; Acts 3:18; of means or manner, through, by, with, Lk. 8:4; 2 Cor. 5:7; 8:8; of state or condition, in a state of, Rom. 4:11; (2) acc., used of causation which is not direct and immediate in the production of a result, on account of, because of, for the sake of, with a view to, Mk. 2:27; Jn. 1:31; rarely, through, while subject to a state of untoward circumstances, Gal. 4:13

I have shared all there is on blood in heaven theories. It is based on a faulty understanding of atonement and an attempt to match Mosaic shadows with the realities 'verbatim'. The analogies break at some point. You have to question this dubious theory which hit Christianity for the FIRST time in the 1860s. You wonder where Holy Spirit was for all these 1800 years to hide such a doctrine from the church.

John 20:27 (KJV)
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing

Where are the injuries in this verse?

[b]1 Cor 15:35 (KJV)
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory[/b]

This is about the longest quotation I have made on NL. Jesus is the firstborn from among the dead in that he rose up in Incorruption ,Glory,Power, and Immortality unlike Lazarus. If in this state he can proceed to shed more blood in heaven, then he was just a revived corpse. Yes I know he ate fish and honey after resurrection, but this was a man they barely recognized.

He had the marks from the beating and crucifixion and piercing but don't you for a second imagine he had injuries. They pierced his side, his heart probably. Else you will say he rose up bleeding

PS: When you get time and energy, please go through this 15 pages article on atonement. It was an eye opener on atonement and propitiation;
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol04/atonement_connell.pdf

mbaemeka:
^^^

So how did the priests of old go into the Tabernacle? That verse also say BY the blood of bulls and goats. Come on bro, you can do better. The verse said he didn't do it by the blood of Bulls and Goats, he did it BY his own blood. By in this context means WITH man.

As per injuries, John 20:27.

The IPhone? Whatsoever you desire, when you stand praying...you know the rest.

vooks:
Hebrews 9:7 (KJV) But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us

Holy Spirit is very clear. High priests entered into the holy of holies NOT WITHOUT BLOOD or ALWAYS WITH BLOOD.
But Jesus Christ the head and the Body enter BY the blood.

The reason that verse does not say 'He did not enter WITH the blood of the Bulls and goats' but 'He did not enter BY the blood of the Bulls and goats' is because it is talking of heaven where even if Jesus was to offer Bulls and goats, blood would not be admitted.

Jesus ascended back to heaven a High Priest with the merits of his sacrifice. This is the meaning of entering by his own blood

We also don't approach God with vials of blood but by the merits of his sacrifice. There is an artificial dichotomy invented distinguishing Jesus blood from his sacrifice. His shed blood is his sacrificial death and vice versa.

I did a simple study of various translations of Heb 9:12. Here they are;
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%209:12
Note the many translations that talk of Jesus going in WITH the blood which appears to support your theory. But when the same phrase is employed in Hebrews 10:19, they all without exception beat a hasty retreat.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2010:19

Revised Standard Version is a good example of this inconsistency.

The key Greek word is dia which means BY
https://www.teknia.com/greek-dictionary/dia

διά (dia)
Strong: G1223
GK: G1328
(1) gen., through, used of place or medium, Mt. 7:13; Lk. 6:1; 2 Cor. 11:33; through, of time, during, in the course of, Heb. 2:15; Acts 5:19; through, of immediate agency, causation, instrumentality, by means of, by, Jn. 1:3; Acts 3:18; of means or manner, through, by, with, Lk. 8:4; 2 Cor. 5:7; 8:8; of state or condition, in a state of, Rom. 4:11; (2) acc., used of causation which is not direct and immediate in the production of a result, on account of, because of, for the sake of, with a view to, Mk. 2:27; Jn. 1:31; rarely, through, while subject to a state of untoward circumstances, Gal. 4:13

I have shared all there is on blood in heaven theories. It is based on a faulty understanding of atonement and an attempt to match Mosaic shadows with the realities 'verbatim'. The analogies break at some point. You have to question this dubious theory which hit Christianity for the FIRST time in the 1860s. You wonder where Holy Spirit was for all these 1800 years to hide such a doctrine from the church.

John 20:27 (KJV)
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing

Where are the injuries in this verse?

[b]1 Cor 15:35 (KJV)
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory[/b]

This is about the longest quotation I have made on NL. Jesus is the firstborn from among the dead in that he rose up in Incorruption ,Glory,Power, and Immortality unlike Lazarus. If in this state he can proceed to shed more blood in heaven, then he was just a revived corpse. Yes I know he ate fish and honey after resurrection, but this was a man they barely recognized.

He had the marks from the beating and crucifixion and piercing but don't you for a second imagine he had injuries. They pierced his side, his heart probably. Else you will say he rose up bleeding

PS: When you get time and energy, please go through this 15 pages article on atonement. It was an eye opener on atonement and propitiation;
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol04/atonement_connell.pdf

That verse also showed he was raised in a spirit body. The body you saw is thus materialized.

Moot point. Angels have spiritual bodies and some of records we have of them in the scriptures they have physical bodies. Spiritual is not necessarily synonymous with invisible/intangible. But most importantly,the resurrection body is Powerful,Glorious,Incorruptible,Immortal and Spiritual. In fact flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. So a bleeding resurrected body is a contradiction

JMAN05:


That verse also showed he was raised in a spirit body. The body you saw is thus materialized.

vooks:
Moot point. Angels have spiritual bodies and some of records we have of them in the scriptures they have physical bodies. Spiritual is not necessarily synonymous with invisible/intangible. But most importantly,the resurrection body is Powerful,Glorious,Incorruptible,Immortal and Spiritual. In fact flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. So a bleeding resurrected body is a contradiction

Any Angels you see humans saw in the scriptures, those Angels materialized human bodies.

Flesh and body does not inhabit heaven. The bodies you see in heaven are spirit bodies. This is invisible to humans.

, [AMP] 1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural (physical) body; it is raised a supernatural (a spiritual) body. [As surely as] there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

Note that physical is contrasted with spiritual. the two are of a different sort.

Thanks.
What is your point?

JMAN05:


Any Angels you see humans saw in the scriptures, those Angels materialized human bodies.

Flesh and body does not inhabit heaven. The bodies you see in heaven are spirit bodies. This is invisible to humans.

, [AMP] 1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural (physical) body; it is raised a supernatural (a spiritual) body. [As surely as] there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

Note that physical is contrasted with spiritual. the two are of a different sort.

Hebrews 9:21-23 KJV

Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

A very long pile of rubbish no offence. This is what happens when we push aside many scriptures to arrive at a convoluted understanding of Christ's sacrifice. I have told you one too many times to read the whole book of Hebrews 9 and not isolate verses that seem to confuse you further and further.

As per John 20:27 I don't think I have read a more illogical interpretation of that verse. Jesus told Thomas to put his hands into his piercings and you said those piercings were what? Don't be ridiculous. Why should an immortal, incorruption, incorruptible body maintain the piercings? BECAUSE THEY ARE MEMORABILIA FOR US WHEN WE GET TO HEAVEN HE WOULD SHOW THEM TO US. Don't jump from one point to another in quoting Paul in Corinthians. We are not Jesus. Jesus kept his marks and piercings for a purpose same way he took his blood to heaven to sprinkle on the mercy seat. Hebrews 9 said it, and you want us to delete it from the bible to take your position. A big No sir.

As per atonement and your link when I have the time. I am eager to see you explain away the verses I put before you in this post.

vooks:
Hebrews 9:7 (KJV) But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us

Holy Spirit is very clear. High priests entered into the holy of holies NOT WITHOUT BLOOD or ALWAYS WITH BLOOD.
But Jesus Christ the head and the Body enter BY the blood.
The reason that verse does not say 'He did not enter WITH the blood of the Bulls and goats' but 'He did not enter BY the blood of the Bulls and goats' is because it is talking of heaven where even if Jesus was to offer Bulls and goats, blood would not be admitted.
Jesus ascended back to heaven a High Priest with the merits of his sacrifice. This is the meaning of entering by his own blood
We also don't approach God with vials of blood but by the merits of his sacrifice. There is an artificial dichotomy invented distinguishing Jesus blood from his sacrifice. His shed blood is his sacrificial death and vice versa.
I did a simple study of various translations of Heb 9:12. Here they are;
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%209:12
Note the many translations that talk of Jesus going in WITH the blood which appears to support your theory. But when the same phrase is employed in Hebrews 10:19, they all without exception beat a hasty retreat.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2010:19
Revised Standard Version is a good example of this inconsistency.
The key Greek word is dia which means BY
https://www.teknia.com/greek-dictionary/dia
διά (dia)
Strong: G1223
GK: G1328
(1) gen., through, used of place or medium, Mt. 7:13; Lk. 6:1; 2 Cor. 11:33; through, of time, during, in the course of, Heb. 2:15; Acts 5:19; through, of immediate agency, causation, instrumentality, by means of, by, Jn. 1:3; Acts 3:18; of means or manner, through, by, with, Lk. 8:4; 2 Cor. 5:7; 8:8; of state or condition, in a state of, Rom. 4:11; (2) acc., used of causation which is not direct and immediate in the production of a result, on account of, because of, for the sake of, with a view to, Mk. 2:27; Jn. 1:31; rarely, through, while subject to a state of untoward circumstances, Gal. 4:13
I have shared all there is on blood in heaven theories. It is based on a faulty understanding of atonement and an attempt to match Mosaic shadows with the realities 'verbatim'. The analogies break at some point. You have to question this dubious theory which hit Christianity for the FIRST time in the 1860s. You wonder where Holy Spirit was for all these 1800 years to hide such a doctrine from the church.
John 20:27 (KJV)
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing
Where are the injuries in this verse?
[b]1 Cor 15:35 (KJV)
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory[/b]
This is about the longest quotation I have made on NL. Jesus is the firstborn from among the dead in that he rose up in Incorruption ,Glory,Power, and Immortality unlike Lazarus. If in this state he can proceed to shed more blood in heaven, then he was just a revived corpse. Yes I know he ate fish and honey after resurrection, but this was a man they barely recognized.
He had the marks from the beating and crucifixion and piercing but don't you for a second imagine he had injuries. They pierced his side, his heart probably. Else you will say he rose up bleeding
PS: When you get time and energy, please go through this 15 pages article on atonement. It was an eye opener on atonement and propitiation;
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol04/atonement_connell.pdf

vooks:
Thanks.
What is your point?

My point is clear - Jesus was raised in a spirit body. the body the disciples saw was a materialized fleshly body. He keep changing it in different occasions. The body he appeared with when Thomas was there was an injured body of flesh, but when he flew to heaven he changed to a spirit. He can not carry that injured flesh he appeared with to heaven. Besides, flesh doesnt inhabit heaven. You must be changed to a spirit.

I am not arguing the issue of "with" or "by" with you.

The fact is, you both are correct. You are correct as to the original language, but Mbaemeka is correct in relation to context.

I more agree to the contextual understanding than to its greek-english equivalent. The writer of that hebrew no doubt had the thought that Christ carried his blood as it were to the heavenly Most Holy.

From my understanding of that verse, I will say that Jesus carrying his blood to heaven is symbolic. The blood can represent "life". in other words, Christ carried to heaven the merit/value of his life sacrificed on earth to the heavenly Most Holy.

Since Paul was comparing the literal Most Holy to the heavenly one, Paul would have had "with" in mind.

Though "dia" basically means "through/by", the context can give a different meaning.

Legacy44:


I believe Melchizedek is an Angel

^ You try no be small.... . But why do you believe he's an angel?

Melchizedek king of Salem and priest of the Most high God is a MAN/HUMAN who lived in the time of Abraham. Read Hebrew 7:1-28

References to that Fact:

Melchizedek means "King of Righeousness" and he is the King of a place called "Salem" which means "Peace". This place was later named "Jerusalem".
Read Hebrew 7:2

Melchizedek is a Man: Hebrew 7:6 " THIS MAN who "has not their GENEALOGY receive tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises"

Jesus is the second Melchizedek just like he is the Second Adam--- Hebrew 7:15,28 " This becomes even more evident when ANOTHER PRIEST arises in the LIKENESS of Melchizedek....Indeed, the law appoints men of weakness as high priests, but the word of oath WHICH CAME LATER THAN THE LAW appoints A SON who has been made perfect forever"

Jesus was appointed a king and high priest after he was made perfect forever

Argument points:

Hebrew 7:3 "He is without Father and Mother"-
Since every "Man" after from Adam and Eve was given birth to (even Jesus was), Melchizedek had a Father and Mother who was NOT MENTIONED

"He is without genealogy"- His genealogy is not mention yet he remain a priest.

"He has neither beginning of days"- His day of birth is not known.

"He has neither end of life"- His date of death is not known.

"He continues a priest forever"--- He was not succeeded by his descendants (Hint: No mention if he continues as King forever since he is both King and Priest at the same time, So he can't remain a priest forever without still being a King forever).

^ Thank you. Some people want to make a doctrine for tithe with Melchizedek. Laughter in 3D!!!

RikoduoSennin:
Melchizedek king of Salem and priest of the Most high God is a MAN/HUMAN who lived in the time of Abraham. Read Hebrew 7:1-28

References to that Fact:

Melchizedek means "King of Righeousness" and he is the King of a place called "Salem" which means "Peace". This place was later named "Jerusalem".
Read Hebrew 7:2

Melchizedek is a Man: Hebrew 7:6 " THIS MAN who "has not their GENEALOGY receive tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises"

Jesus is the second Melchizedek just like he is the Second Adam--- Hebrew 7:15,28 " This becomes even more evident when ANOTHER PRIEST arises in the LIKENESS of Melchizedek....Indeed, the law appoints men of weakness as high priests, but the word of oath WHICH CAME LATER THAN THE LAW appoints A SON who has been made perfect forever"

Jesus was appointed a king and high priest after he was made perfect forever

Argument points:

Hebrew 7:3 "He is without Father and Mother"-
Since every "Man" after from Adam and Eve was given birth to (even Jesus was), Melchizedek had a Father and Mother who was NOT MENTIONED

"He is without genealogy"- His genealogy is not mention yet he remain a priest.

"He has neither beginning of days"- His day of birth is not known.

"He has neither end of life"- His date of death is not known.

"He continues a priest forever"--- He was not succeeded by his descendants (Hint: No mention if he continues as King forever since he is both King and Priest at the same time, So he can't remain a priest forever without still being a King forever).

I can see holes in your submission.

1. There are many people in the Bible whose parents are not mentioned. But Bible never describes them as without father or mother.

2. Similarly, Bible never describes any person other than Melchizedek as having no beginning of days, even when their birthdays are not mentioned.

3. Also, there are many people in the Bible whose days of death are not known or mentioned, yet they're never described as not having the end of life.

4. Saying that one continues a priest forever means he's not succeeded by his descendants seems to injure the meaning of that phrase. Besides, not all priests were succeeded by their descendants, .e.g. Eli's sons, and nobody says they continued a priest forever.

5. You quoted the verse that says that the Law appoints men of weakness as priests. But that's not said of Melchizedek or Jesus. Since, we know Jesus was not a man of weakness, it suggests that Melchizedek was in that category of being without weakness.

That said, some other points are also cogent in tending to point to Melchizedek as a man.

Perhaps, we'll never know for sure who Melchizedek was!

nlMediator:


I can see holes in your submission.

Before you say so, Read other translations and get the real meaning, English has been developing as well as understanding. Recents translators/translations give a more precise idea about things.

nlMediator:

1. There are many people in the Bible whose parents are not mentioned. But Bible never describes them as without father or mother.

Adam and Eve have a Father don't they? If every other man is born, why won't Melchizedek? Compare other translations and remember that the bible is sometimes figurative.

nlMediator:

2. Similarly, Bible never describes any person other than Melchizedek as having no beginning of days, even when their birthdays are not mentioned.

Only the Ancient of Days has no beginning of days, and no man has seen him. That is Fact, work from there. Compare other translations. Age is required for Aaronic priesthood.

nlMediator:

3. Also, there are many people in the Bible whose days of death are not known or mentioned, yet they're never described as not having the end of life.

Compare other translation. No man is immortal. Figurative terms fill the bible.

nlMediator:

4. Saying that one continues a priest forever means he's not succeeded by his descendants seems to injure the meaning of that phrase. Besides, not all priests were succeeded by their descendants, .e.g. Eli's sons, and nobody says they continued a priest forever.

To show you that sometimes in the bible-words are not literal, compare Philemon 1:15 " For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that you should receive him 'FOREVER' "

So tell me, did Philemon receive/have Onesimus as a Slave "Forever" . I think not! Explain the scripture above.

If Melchizedek continued as priest forever in the literal way, he had to be an immortal man, the facts prove otherwise. No man has lived up to 1000 years.

nlMediator:

5. You quoted the verse that says that the Law appoints men of weakness as priests. But that's not said of Melchizedek or Jesus. Since, we know Jesus was not a man of weakness, it suggests that Melchizedek was in that category of being without weakness.

Read carefully, that verse was not compare weakness and no-weakness but it was about those capitalized sections. Two type of Priesthood- Aaronic and Melchizedek's.
One by law the other by Oath/Promise, One as Priest only (requires age,genealogy etc) while the other both King and Priest (not requiring age or genealogy- Jesus was from Judah not Levi)

nlMediator:

That said, some other points are also cogent in tending to point to Melchizedek as a man.

At least your saw he was a Man. Did you think Paul was not sure in Hebrew 7:4 ? if Melchizedek was called a Man, then you will understand the above seemingly pot holes you mentioned clearly after READING/COMPARING BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

nlMediator:

Perhaps, we'll never know for sure who Melchizedek was!

His real identity is not important, the role he played- the position he held which foreshadowed Jesus new position, that is what is important.

Goshen360:
^ Thank you. Some people want to make a doctrine for tithe with Melchizedek. Laughter in 3D!!!

no 1 is talking bout tithe here bro.

vooks:
Thanks.
What is your point?

vooks, tnks 4 ur contributions. av heard mbaemeka's opinion. what's ur stand in all of these?

Ever since before Christ, many have ascribed divinity to Melchizedek. So am not surprised at mbaemeka's assertions. At least my good debater buddy does not believe it was Jesus.

Calling him Jesus lands you into trouble because Jesus became flesh when he was born/conceived of Mary and not before.

But calling him Holy Spirit is equally problematic. Melchizedek was a king of a literal city called Salem. Theophanies usually came and left. Holy Spirit would have to have be theophanic for extended time to function as Melchizedek. Besides,if his priesthood is eternal and that is taken to mean that there was always a priest in the office, then Melchizedek must have remained in office until Jesus ascended and assumed his high priestly role. He must have been a priest over Canaan while Israel was stuck in Egypt among the Perrizites and Jebusites.....Do you honestly see God making covenants after covenants with Israel and preserving a record of the same while there is total silence over this superior priesthood? Jesus is promising to send a helper to the church, the same helper who has been busy operating here in the office of Melchizedek!

Melchizedek was just another guy. The 'trouble' with regarding him as another guy is purely a matter of arguments about words in Hebrews, arguments which nobody can claim to be better at than the other. Semantics really.

I favor Shem, Noah's son for his identity. Shem outlived Abraham by 35 years or so. When you study Job which is dated around Genesis (Pre-Mosaic era), the head of the family was also the priest who offered sacrifices for the family. Either this or the oldest in the family. Shem was the OLDEST man around Abraham so he could have doubled as a priest.

lanxlot:
vooks, tnks 4 ur contributions. av heard mbaemeka's opinion. what's ur stand in all of these?

There has been a lot of confusion concerning the Person called Melchizedek and it is clear that we may never fully know who he really was on this side of the divide. But with the few available biblical references to him, I tend to believe that he is more deity than otherwise and if so, then he would have to be a Theophany.

Some of those proposing a non-deity position are doing so purely based on extrabiblical ideas. There is not a single scripture that says Salem was literal. For one, Abraham was said to be physically looking and searching for a city whose builder and maker was God, but he never did find the city. If the city in question, was an evolved Salem turned Jerusalem, then the Hebrew writer was giving unispired scripture and we shouldodo well to disregard the whole book. But the Hebrews writer, Paul, NEVER gave uninspired text.

For the records (and borrowing NLmediators excellent posers) we are faced to deal with the following scriptural facts: Melchizedek was described as NOT HAVING beginning of days and end of life;He was attributed as NOT HAVING mother or father;He was said to be made LIKE THE SON OF GOD. He was said to be a priest forever, made before the law was given yet similar to the son of God in having an endless life etc. Even most interesting of all (and often overlooked by the non-deity camp) is the fact that God the Father and Almighty one is said repeatedly to have made his son a priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

This is important to take into cognizance because priests were ONLY named after an order if they hailed from the order and could be traced to the lineage of the first priest in that order. Taking Aaron for example, the bible attributes all levitical priesthoods to be of the Aaronic order and we can relate with this because Aaron was the first priest in this order and all subsequent priests of the order were descendants of him. Now, juxtaposing this fact with the one that God named Jesus to come according to Melchizedek's order leaves us to have one conclusion: that Jesus hailed from Melchizedek and as such Melchizedek would be as much man as Jesus is and was.

The big error with the Shem attribution to Melchizedek is also clearly shown in the bible. Hebrews 7 argues that priests were ALWAYS designated according to the order of the one that they hailed from. In that sense the writer reasoned that if Jesus' priesthood was ordinary like normal fallible mortal men then he should have been named after Aaron's order. But that was not the case, instead Jesus was named after Melchizedek's order. Secondly, we know Shem's father, we know his mother. We know when he was born, and when he died. Shem had no similarieties with Christ and neither was he ever attributed with an endless life so he being the said Melchizedek is DOA.

In the OT we see that Joshua met a particular man shortly before he was to attack Jericho (Joshua 5 vs 13). The MAN in question was holding a sword and he looked very much like any other man so much so that Joshua had to question the man's loyalty: are you one of us or of the enemy. The MAN said to Joshua "I am the Captain of the Host of the Lord". As soon as Joshua heard this, scripture says he immediately bowed down to worship the MAN. The man in question asked him to take off his sandals because he was standing on holy ground. We know what the term "Captain of the Host of the Lord" means but just incase we are in doubt we have a few pointers to show us who that MAN was.

Joshua didn't recognise him but as soon as he introduced himself Joshua knew such a man was worthy of worship. Another interesting thing is that the MAN said "as the Captain of the Host of the Lord have I APPEARED unto you". The last point is that the MAN asked Joshua to take off his sandals- the same thing that the Holy spirit told Moses at the burning bush.

I submit it to you today, ladies and gentlemen, that this man was the HOLY SPIRIT IN FLESH. The same one that Abraham met in his house whom the bible said ATE food. He is also the same one that Genesis 32 says wrestled with Jacob and caused him to change his name. He is the same one who appeared at the fiery furnace with Shedrach, Meshach and Abednego. The one whom Nebudcadnezzar described as "LIKE THE SON OF GOD". He is the captain of the Host of the Lord, the ancient of days, and the angel of the Lord's presence. He is Allos Parakletos; the one Jesus described as exactly like himself. That is why his features and characteristics are very SIMILAR with Jesus'. He has neither beginning of days nor end of life. He has no mother or father, no genealogy or descent. He is the same one that appeared to Abraham as the king-priest and offered the communion (bread and wine) to the Patriarch. He is the one whom the bible described as the KING of PEACE and RIGHTEOUSNESS. The same to bless the Patriach (something no ordinary man could do).

It is a bit debatable since we have just a few things to say about him from the scriptures but Paul said there is more to know about him if only we could be more spiritually alert. I think I have an idea as to why Paul could say that and even more so why Jesus could be named after his order in line with a forever priesthood and after an endless life. It is because the Holy spirit, like Jesus, CANNOT DIE.

I rest my case.

I think you guys are making much issue out of this. Melchizedech is no mystery, and no argument here has been able to show he was nothing other than a man who lived in the past, whose genealogy was hidden so as to make a type of him.

Paul's words was to see that Melch was a type of christ. God do stage types or make an event that has a prophetic significance.

Melch can't continue to be a royal priest literally and then have a type - Christ.

Christ has no mother who brought him into existence. He has been existing before he came on earth. in that light, Paul was correct.

Jews were aware generally that Salem is Jerusalem.

If he was a manifestation of God, then he cant be a Priest of God.

If Salem was just "peace", then he isn't a literal king. the words "king of peace" would only be a title, not that he was a king. How then can Christ be a priest in his manner? Paul was only showing that all these things in this 'drama' was prophetic.

hmm,okay [img]http://www.hostsleek.com/clients/?aff=051[/img]
[img]http://clients.utiware.net/?aff=596[/img] [img]http://www.qservers.net/process/?aff=062[/img]

mbaemeka:
There has been a lot of confusion concerning the Person called Melchizedek and it is clear that we may never fully know who he really was on this side of the divide. But with the few available biblical references to him, I tend to believe that he is more deity than otherwise and if so, then he would have to be a Theophany.

Some of those proposing a non-deity position are doing so purely based on extrabiblical ideas. There is not a single scripture that says Salem was literal. For one, Abraham was said to be physically looking and searching for a city whose builder and maker was God, but he never did find the city. If the city in question, was an evolved Salem turned Jerusalem, then the Hebrew writer was giving unispired scripture and we shouldodo well to disregard the whole book. But the Hebrews writer, Paul, NEVER gave uninspired text.

For the records (and borrowing NLmediators excellent posers) we are faced to deal with the following scriptural facts: Melchizedek was described as NOT HAVING beginning of days and end of life;He was attributed as NOT HAVING mother or father;He was said to be made LIKE THE SON OF GOD. He was said to be a priest forever, made before the law was given yet similar to the son of God in having an endless life etc. Even most interesting of all (and often overlooked by the non-deity camp) is the fact that God the Father and Almighty one is said repeatedly to have made his son a priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

This is important to take into cognizance because priests were ONLY named after an order if they hailed from the order and could be traced to the lineage of the first priest in that order. Taking Aaron for example, the bible attributes all levitical priesthoods to be of the Aaronic order and we can relate with this because Aaron was the first priest in this order and all subsequent priests of the order were descendants of him. Now, juxtaposing this fact with the one that God named Jesus to come according to Melchizedek's order leaves us to have one conclusion: that Jesus hailed from Melchizedek and as such Melchizedek would be as much man as Jesus is and was.

The big error with the Shem attribution to Melchizedek is also clearly shown in the bible. Hebrews 7 argues that priests were ALWAYS designated according to the order of the one that they hailed from. In that sense the writer reasoned that if Jesus' priesthood was ordinary like normal fallible mortal men then he should have been named after Aaron's order. But that was not the case, instead Jesus was named after Melchizedek's order. Secondly, we know Shem's father, we know his mother. We know when he was born, and when he died. Shem had no similarieties with Christ and neither was he ever attributed with an endless life so he being the said Melchizedek is DOA.

In the OT we see that Joshua met a particular man shortly before he was to attack Jericho (Joshua 5 vs 13). The MAN in question was holding a sword and he looked very much like any other man so much so that Joshua had to question the man's loyalty: are you one of us or of the enemy. The MAN said to Joshua "I am the Captain of the Host of the Lord". As soon as Joshua heard this, scripture says he immediately bowed down to worship the MAN. The man in question asked him to take off his sandals because he was standing on holy ground. We know what the term "Captain of the Host of the Lord" means but just incase we are in doubt we have a few pointers to show us who that MAN was.

Joshua didn't recognise him but as soon as he introduced himself Joshua knew such a man was worthy of worship. Another interesting thing is that the MAN said "as the Captain of the Host of the Lord have I APPEARED unto you". The last point is that the MAN asked Joshua to take off his sandals- the same thing that the Holy spirit told Moses at the burning bush.

I submit it to you today, ladies and gentlemen, that this man was the HOLY SPIRIT IN FLESH. The same one that Abraham met in his house whom the bible said ATE food. He is also the same one that Genesis 32 says wrestled with Jacob and caused him to change his name. He is the same one who appeared at the fiery furnace with Shedrach, Meshach and Abednego. The one whom Nebudcadnezzar described as "LIKE THE SON OF GOD". He is the captain of the Host of the Lord, the ancient of days, and the angel of the Lord's presence. He is Allos Parakletos; the one Jesus described as exactly like himself. That is why his features and characteristics are very SIMILAR with Jesus'. He has neither beginning of days nor end of life. He has no mother or father, no genealogy or descent. He is the same one that appeared to Abraham as the king-priest and offered the communion (bread and wine) to the Patriarch. He is the one whom the bible described as the KING of PEACE and RIGHTEOUSNESS. The same to bless the Patriach (something no ordinary man could do).

It is a bit debatable since we have just a few things to say about him from the scriptures but Paul said there is more to know about him if only we could be more spiritually alert. I think I have an idea as to why Paul could say that and even more so why Jesus could be named after his order in line with a forever priesthood and after an endless life. It is because the Holy spirit, like Jesus, CANNOT DIE.

I rest my case.

You nailed it!!!!

C'est finis. Mods...come lock this thread oo.

lanxlot:
For this Melchizedek, king of salem, priest of the most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,
2, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated "king of righteousness," and then also king of salem, Meaning "king of peace,"
3, WITHOUT FATHER, WITHOUT MOTHER, WITHOUT GENEALOGY, HAVING NEITHER BEGINNING OF DAYS NOR END OF LIFE, BUT MADE LIKE THE SON OF GOD, REMAINS A PRIEST CONTINUALLY.

Some persons i discussed with said He is Jesus, but idontbilivit for the following:
1, without father; Jesus had a foster father.
2, without mother, I just cannot take away the position of mary.
3, without geneology; the geneology of Jesus Was recorded in the book of matthew chapter 1 vs 1-17.
4; having neither beginning of days nor end of life. ok, this may just be the reason why some say that this Melchizedek is Christ. for Christ had no beginning, neither will he have an end.
but made like the son of God, remains a priest continually. Jesus Is'nt LIKE, He is the son of God.
what if am wrong, and if the person as described is'nt Jesus, who is He?

Melchizedek was Jesus Christ in one of His pre-incarnate appearances.

Go to your village and ask your relatives there . He was part of your ancestors

lanxlot:
For who is He?

........ Bro's mi ....... He's an Angel na ..... Abi angel dey get papa??...abi angel get beginning??.....

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.

True,the expanded bible uses the right description. Melchizedek was a king and a priest. A position that has no predecessor or successor. That is no king was a priest and no priest a king. However, in the manner of Melchizedek is describing Jesus' role as a king and priest of God's kingdom.

melchizedek in hebrew
malik sidik in arabic
meaning the king of truth
that is the qualification of GOD in English in Arabic ALLAH there is no god but him and Jesus and Muhammad are is servant and prophet
they both teaches us how to worship GOD

What i don't believe this "premarital sex is not a sin". Tell me prostitution is not a sin cos its not mentioned in the Bible.Do you expect the Bible to specify every type and form of sex. Juses said if you concieve it in your mind, you have already commited the act. If premaretal sex is not sin then incest, prostitution and thier likes is permitted since it is not stated in the Bible.

FEW MYSTERIES of the Bible have attracted more interest than the mystery of the identity of Melchizedek. Who is he?
You will read in Hebrews 6:19-20that Jesus Christ, after His resurrection, is High Priest "after the order of Melchizedek." The plainer English of the Moffatt translation words it: ". . with the rank of" that is, equal status with "Melchizedek."
MelchizedekWas God's Priest
First, notice from both Old and New Testaments that the man of mystery, Melchizedek, was a priest of the Most High God. Turn 'low to the account in Genesis 14. During the war between a number of ancient city-states in Canaan and Mesopotamia, Abraham's nephew Lot had been captured. He and his family and goods were carted off.
One of their number escaped and brought the news to Abraham, who armed 318 of his own servants and pursued the invaders to what was later named Dan and beyond. Abraham rescued Lot and his family and returned them safely to the Canaanite cities.
On Abraham's return a man of mystery bursts upon the scene. Abraham was ministered to by Melchizedek.
Here is the account:
"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he [Melchizedek] blessed him [Abraham] and said, 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!' And Abram gave him [Melchizedek] a tenth of everything" that is, a tithe of all, for a tithe means a tenth ( Genesis 14:18-20, RSV).
Notice that Melchizedek was king of Salem. That is the city of Jerusalem. "Salem" comes from the Hebrew word meaning " peace." That would make Melchizedek the "King of Peace" ( Hebrews 7:2). The Hebrew name Melchizedek itself means "King of Righteousness" ( Hebrews 7:2). The same individual is mentioned in Psalm 110:4. Speaking prophetically of Christ, David stated: "The Eternal hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This verse is quoted again in Hebrews 5:6, 10.
Before we turn to Hebrews for the identification of Melchizedek, remember that this mystery figure is a mystery only to us. Abraham and the King of wicked Sodom knew exactly who he was. They must have seen him before. He could not have been a Canaanite, for they were steeped in pagan customs. And furthermore Canaan was a descendant of Ham, whereas God basically chose the descendants of Shem to accomplish His work.
Then who is the mystery man Melchizedek?
One other hint before we proceed. The land of Canaan from ancient time, before the days of Moses, was known among the Gentiles as "the divine land" the Holy land" the land of the place of worship!" Why? Was there someone in the Holy Land who was divine, holy, worthy of worship?
The Mystery Clears
Coming to Hebrews 7, we find Melchizedek identified:
"For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace" ( Hebrews 7:1-2).
Since God names individuals what they are, that, then is what this man is.. "King of Righteousness."
Think of it! King of Righteousness.
Jesus Himself said: "There is none good but one, that is, God" ( Matthew 19:17). Human self-righteousness is, before God, as filthy rags. None can be righteous but God—or one made righteous by God's power—Christ in a person! And certainly none but One of the Godhead the divine Kingdom of Godwould be King of Righteousness. Such an expression, applied to any but God, would be blasphemous. Why?
Righteousness is obedience to God's Law. Since God made all laws ( James 4:12), He is Supreme Ruler or King. He determines what righteousness is. "All thy commandments are righteousness" ( Psalm 119:172). When speaking of one of the points of that Law, Jesus placed Himself superior to it. He is Lord of the Sabbath( Mark 2:28). No man is Lord or King over God's Law. Only God could be! All human beings have sinned and broken that Law of righteousness ( Romans 3:23).
To continue with Hebrews 7. Note, too, that this man was King of peace. "Salem" from which Jerusalem was named means "peace." And remember, Jesus is called the Prince of peace! No human being could be King of Peace. Men know not the way of peace. Read Romans 3:10and 17: "There is none righteous, no, not one.... And the way of peace have they not known."
Observe further: Melchizedek was "without mother, without father, without descent," or as the Phillips translation renders it: "He had no father or mother and no family tree." He was not born as human beings are. He was without father and mother. This does not mean that Melchizedek's records of birth were lost. Without such records human priests could not serve ( Ezra 2:62). But here Melchizedek had no genealogy. He must not have been an ordinary mortal. He had no descent or pedigree from another, but was self-existent. Notice Paul's own inspired interpretation of this fact: "Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life" ( Hebrews 7:3). Therefore He has always existed from eternity! He was not even created, like angels. But He is now eternally self-existing. And that is true only of GODdeity, not humanity!
Not the Father Nor the Holy Spirit
Yet Melchizedek cannot be God the Father. He was the "priest of that Most High God." Scripture says no man has ever seen the Father ( John 1:18, 5:37), but Abraham saw Melchizedek. He cannot be God the Father, but rather, "made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually" ( Hebrews 7:3).
And there it is! In the days of Abraham, He was not the Son of God, for He had not yet been born of the virgin Mary but He was made like unto the Son of God in His manifestation to the ancients.
Notice again: Melchizedek, this scripture reveals, abides that is, remains permanently, continually, a priest. God the Father is not the Priest of God, but Christ the Son is! Yet, in the days when the Apostle Paul lived and wrote, shortly after Jesus ascended to heaven as High Priest, the scripture states that even then Melchizedek "abideth "—which means does now abide—"a priest continually." The Moffatt translation states it: "continues to be priest permanently" even while Jesus Christ is High Priest!
And notice that the order of Christ's Priesthoodis named after Melchizedek. It is the High Priest's name that is placed upon an order just as Aaron's name was upon the Aaronic priesthood. Thus Melchizedek was then High Priest, in Paul's day, and even now, and He will rule forever! And at the same time Christ was, is today, and shall be forever High Priest!
Are there two High Priests'? No! Impossible! The conclusion is inescapable. Contrary to many cherished man-thought-out ideas, Melchizedek and Christ are one and the same! Some people have stumbled on the statement that Melchizedek has no "end of life." They contend that since Christ died, He had an end of life! If that be true then Christ is still dead! But Christ is not dead. He is alive. It was not possible for Christ to be held by death ( Acts 2:24). Melchizedek would never have fulfilled His office of High Priest if He had not died for the sins of the people and risen again. It is the function of the High Priest to lead the way to salvation.
Indeed, Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our salvation ( Hebrews 5:9; 12:2). He is "called of God an high priest after the order of Melchizedek" ( Hebrews 5:10).
And no wonder. Melchizedek and Christ are one and the same Person!

MELCHIZEDEK


(Mel·chiz′e·dek) [King of Righteousness].


King of ancient Salem and “priest of the Most High God,” Jehovah. (Ge 14:18, 22) He is the first priest mentioned in the Scriptures; he occupied that position sometime prior to 1933 B.C.E. Being the king of Salem, which means “Peace,” Melchizedek is identified by the apostle Paul as “King of Peace” and, on the basis of his name, as “King of Righteousness.” (Heb 7:1, 2) Ancient Salem is understood to have been the nucleus of the later city of Jerusalem, and its name was incorporated in that of Jerusalem, which is sometimes referred to as “Salem.”—Ps 76:2.


After Abram (Abraham) defeated Chedorlaomer and his confederate kings, the patriarch came to the Low Plain of Shaveh or “the king’s Low Plain.” There Melchizedek “brought out bread and wine” and blessed Abraham, saying: “Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, Producer of heaven and earth; and blessed be the Most High God, who has delivered your oppressors into your hand!” At that Abraham gave the king-priest “a tenth of everything,” that is, of “the chief spoils” he had acquired in his successful warfare against the allied kings.—Ge 14:17-20; Heb 7:4.


Christ’s Priesthood Typified. In a notable Messianic prophecy the sworn oath of Jehovah to David’s “Lord” is: “You are a priest to time indefinite according to the manner of Melchizedek!” (Ps 110:1, 4) This inspired psalm gave the Hebrews reason to regard the promised Messiah as the one in whom the office of priest and king would be combined. The apostle Paul, in the letter to the Hebrews, removed any doubt about the identity of the one foretold, speaking of “Jesus, who has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.”—Heb 6:20; 5:10; see COVENANT.


Direct appointment. Jehovah evidently appointed Melchizedek to be a priest. In discussing Jesus’ status as the great High Priest, Paul showed that a man does not take the honor “of his own accord, but only when he is called by God, just as Aaron also was.” He also explained that “the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by him who spoke with reference to him: ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father,’” and the apostle next applies the prophetic words of Psalm 110:4 to Jesus Christ.—Heb 5:1, 4-6.


‘Received tithes from Levi.’ Melchizedek’s priestly status was not linked with the priesthood of Israel, and as the Scriptures point out, it was higher than the Aaronic priesthood. One factor indicating this is the deference accorded to Melchizedek by Abraham, the forefather of the entire nation of Israel, including the priestly tribe of Levi. Abraham, “Jehovah’s friend,” who became “the father of all those having faith” (Jas 2:23; Ro 4:11), gave a tenth, or a “tithe,” to this priest of the Most High God. Paul shows that the Levites collected tithes from their brothers, who also issued from the loins of Abraham. However, he points out that Melchizedek “who did not trace his genealogy from them took tithes from Abraham,” and “through Abraham even Levi who receives tithes has paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his forefather when Melchizedek met him.” Thus, though the Levitical priests received tithes from the people of Israel, they, as represented in their ancestor Abraham, paid tithes to Melchizedek. Furthermore, the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood is shown in that he blessed Abraham, Paul pointing out that “the less is blessed by the greater.” Such factors are among those making Melchizedek a suitable type of the great High Priest Jesus Christ.—Heb 7:4-10.


No predecessors or successors. Paul clearly indicates that perfection was unattainable through the Levitical priesthood, thus necessitating the appearance of a priest “according to the manner of Melchizedek.” He points out that Christ sprang from Judah, a nonpriestly tribe, but, citing Jesus’ similarity to Melchizedek, shows that he became a priest, “not according to the law of a commandment depending upon the flesh, but according to the power of an indestructible life.” Aaron and his sons became priests without an oath, but the priesthood conferred on Christ was ordained by an oath of Jehovah. Also, whereas the Levitical priests kept dying and needed to have successors, the resurrected Jesus Christ “because of continuing alive forever has his priesthood without any successors” and, therefore, is able “to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them.”—Heb 7:11-25.


How was it true that Melchizedek had ‘neither beginning of days nor end of life’?


Paul isolated an outstanding fact respecting Melchizedek, in saying of him: “In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but having been made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.” (Heb 7:3) Like other humans, Melchizedek was born and he died. However, the names of his father and mother are not furnished, his ancestry and posterity are not disclosed, and the Scriptures contain no information about the beginning of his days or the end of his life. Thus, Melchizedek could fittingly foreshadow Jesus Christ, who has an unending priesthood. As Melchizedek had no recorded predecessor or successor in his priesthood, so too Christ was preceded by no high priest similar to himself, and the Bible shows that none will ever succeed him. Furthermore, although Jesus was born in the tribe of Judah and in the kingly line of David, his fleshly ancestry had no bearing on his priesthood, nor was it by virtue of human ancestry that the offices of both priest and king were combined in him. These things were as a result of Jehovah’s own oath to him.


A view that appears in the Targums of Jerusalem and that has gained wide acceptance among the Jews and others is that Melchizedek was Noah’s son Shem. Shem was then alive and even outlived Abraham’s wife Sarah. Also, Noah specifically blessed Shem. (Ge 9:26, 27) But this identification has not been confirmed. The fact remains that Melchizedek’s nationality, genealogy, and offspring are left undisclosed in the Scriptures, and that with good reason, for he could thus typify Jesus Christ, who by Jehovah’s sworn oath “has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.”—Heb 6:20.

RikoduoSennin:
Melchizedek king of Salem and priest of the Most high God is a MAN/HUMAN who lived in the time of Abraham. Read Hebrew 7:1-28

References to that Fact:

Melchizedek means "King of Righeousness" and he is the King of a place called "Salem" which means "Peace". This place was later named "Jerusalem".
Read Hebrew 7:2

Melchizedek is a Man: Hebrew 7:6 " THIS MAN who "has not their GENEALOGY receive tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises"

Jesus is the second Melchizedek just like he is the Second Adam--- Hebrew 7:15,28 " This becomes even more evident when ANOTHER PRIEST arises in the LIKENESS of Melchizedek....Indeed, the law appoints men of weakness as high priests, but the word of oath WHICH CAME LATER THAN THE LAW appoints A SON who has been made perfect forever"

Jesus was appointed a king and high priest after he was made perfect forever

Argument points:

Hebrew 7:3 "He is without Father and Mother"-
Since every "Man" after from Adam and Eve was given birth to (even Jesus was), Melchizedek had a Father and Mother who was NOT MENTIONED

"He is without genealogy"- His genealogy is not mention yet he remain a priest.

"He has neither beginning of days"- His day of birth is not known.

"He has neither end of life"- His date of death is not known.

"He continues a priest forever"--- He was not succeeded by his descendants (Hint: No mention if he continues as King forever since he is both King and Priest at the same time, So he can't remain a priest forever without still being a King forever).

Good work, keep it up!