/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>A Pastor told me that he believes Melchizedek was actually pre-incarnate Christ.

Translating the bible into vernacular was a big winnie the pooh mistake

>>718779

That's what the bible says

>For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Melchizedek is a type of Christ and so prefigures him, but he's not a theophany.

He was one of the lizard people appointed to observe human behavior, so someday they could control us.

>>718800

It says "made like unto the Son of God". So he was not Son of God. Melchisedec was just a human, holy and and mysterious but a man.

>>718800

He didn't have 'beginning of days'? that would seem to imply that he from eternity like a angel.

>>718800

Like can also mean 'same' but it is also a mystery to St. Paul so he refrains from identifying them together as 'same'.

>>719056

…except that angels are created beings and had their begining.

>>719040

>It says "made like unto the Son of God"

Yes, it does say "like", not "same", but this interpretation is an anti-contextual fixation on a single word. The point of this passage is to associate Jesus and Melchizedek, so the apostle draws parallels between them (parallels, mind you, which are falsely drawn unless Melchizedek is "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life" and "abideth a priest continually") in which Melchizedek is just like Jesus, and he basically says "gee, Melchizedek sure sounds like Jesus huh". He might say Melchizedek is "like unto" the Son of God, but the context makes clear his point is that He is the Son of God. If his point is not that Melchizedek is the preincarnate Son of God, it raises the question why he spends so much time talking about Melchizedek in demonstrating how superior Jesus is to the old law, or why Jesus would be a priest in the order of Melchizedek when that would be such an unrelated and minor figure in the Old Testament. The point of this passage is to establish the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus to the Aaronic priests, but unless Melchizedek is Jesus, it seems to serve that purpose little to show that Melchizedek is better than Levi.

>Melchisedec was just a human, holy and and mysterious but a man

That's blasphemy. Melchizedek is the eternal God and should we encounter Him we must worship Him as God.

>>718889

are lizard people in the bible? i just assumed they were demons. i'm pretty sure aliens and ufos are demons too.

>>719100

>That's blasphemy. Melchizedek is the eternal God and should we encounter Him we must worship Him as God.

And that's idolatry.

The protestant logic. Veneration of the saints is idolatry, but worshipping a man as God isn't.

Just.

>>719113

>are lizard people in the bible?

Of course not lmao. That's a new age meme.

Obviously Melchizidek is the incarnate Holy Spirit since Jesus is said by Paul to have become a priest in the order of Melchizidek and how could he have become a priest in that order when he would have already been in it. Funposting aside I think Paul is pointing out the superiority of the priest-kings like Melchizidek or David over the mere Aaronic priesthood and that such priesthoods predated them

>>719121

>Jesus isn't God

Are you a muslim?

>>719100

>That's blasphemy. Melchizedek is the eternal God and should we encounter Him we must worship Him as God.

Only if your theory is correct. You don't risk committing idolatry over a theory.

>>719155

My "theory" is the explicit teaching of scripture

>>719160

If it was so explicit we would expect many among the major commentators of the Bible to recognize it. Instead no Church Father, no doctor, no saint, no reformer dare to say what you do.

At best some say he was the typus of Jesus, and that is not affirming 'explicitly' it was Jesus pre-incarnated.

So yes, it's a theory. Maybe true, maybe false. Not worth risking idolatry.

>>719174

>Instead no Church Father, no doctor, no saint, no reformer dare to say what you do

Interesting how the people that make claims like this never actually read any of those

>Not worth risking idolatry

If you're unwilling to worship God, expect repercussions on judgement day

>>719151

Melchisedec isn't Jesus who winnie the pooh heathen.

>>719182

I've gotta admit.

Good winnie the pooh try Satan.