/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

No. Melchisedek was a figure of Christ. Melchisedek is just Melchisedek. To thing otherwise is implying God incarnated twice which is pure heresy.

Israel means "the one who fought God" there's no need to attribute it to any person of the Trinity.

>>768337

>Melchisedek was a figure of Christ. Melchisedek is just Melchisedek.

Can you elaborate on that? What do you mean by a figure of Christ?

St. Melchizedek was a prefiguration of Christ, but he was not the pre-incarnate Logos. He was simply a normal guy. He was king of Salem, and priest according to the order of Melchizedek - a priesthood without beginning or end, specially granted to him by God as an announcement that there would be a better priesthood than priesthood according to the order of Aaron, and Christ is the High Priest of this order of priesthood, to which we also participate.

The Angel of the Lord, when he accepts to receive worship and be called God (YHWH), is the pre-incarnate Logos. But when Christ appeared pre-incarnate to guide Israel directly, it was as a kind of angel, not as a human being.

>>768345

What is a prefiguration of Christ?

>>768349

There are many "figures" or "symbols" of Jesus in the Old Testament, that, while they themselves aren't Jesus, they do point to Him and reveal Him.

For instance, King David was a prefiguration of Christ. He was the Messiah ("anointed one") of God, chosen to be king of Israel, and he generally did his job well (the Books of Chronicles even re-interpret his history to make it more idealized, sort of to bring back to mind what the perfect, future Messiah will be like). Even in his psalms, King David said things about himself that the apostles interpreted to refer to Christ. (Psalm 22, for instance)

It doesn't mean David was Jesus, but David was a prefiguration of Jesus.

There are many such prefigurations in the Old Testament. The manner of the birth of Samson prefigures the manner of the birth of Jesus, for example.

>>768349

A sign pointing toward the messiah who had not yet come. “I’ll be like this, except perfect.”

>>768343

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_%28theology%29

And what about Daniel 3:25?

>>768367

>Daniel 3:25

This was not a mere image pointing to Christ - it was Christ Himself, pre-incarnate, acting upon reality to guide His people directly. The Logos appeared, spiritually, in the form of an angel, but He did not "incarnate as" or "become" an angel. He was among the three who visited Abraham, and is called the Lord. He was the one who wrestled with Jacob. He was the one who appeared with the three youth in the furnace to protect them. But not every instance of "the Angel of the Lord" is the pre-incarnate Logos Himself - sometimes it refers to Michael, the leader of God's armies, as in the book of Joshua, and sometimes it refers to an angel who, while taking the appearance of the Lord Jesus, is only a messenger, as in the book of Revelation. But when the Angel of the Lord directly receives worship, he is the Logos, appearing in the world before His incarnation, both to show to His people that He is really with them directly and personally, and to prefigure to His future and true incarnation as a man.

>>768345

This.. all this.

>>768376

As much as I love our Catholic brethren, I perused the Catechism earlier to learn more.. and they still hold on to the idea that all angels are specific creatures (and don't differentiate the Word himself).. even saying the visitation to Hagar was a normal angel. It makes me sad that they don't teach the beauty of the theophanies. You'd think it'd be Catholic too. Although I bet many believe it instinctually, because it's obvious from study of scripture.. and the Spirit may have given them the mind of the Church's oldest and consistent position on it.

>>768397

Oh. Catholics don't believe that several appearances of God in the OT were actually the Logos and not simply regular angels? If that's the case, allow me to point out, OP, that what I said earlier was specifically from an Orthodox perspective. Sorry.

>>768343

Like the baptism of John was a figure of the baptism of Christ for example.

>>768397

>angels are specific cretures

Wait you don't believe in angels? Wtf are you doing here?

>>768398

It really open to debate. There are fathers in both sides.

>>768397

>the idea that all angels are specific creatures

But they are. All angels were made in the beginning as witnesses to the creation of the universe and Mankind, the Bible states throw in several places. And since all angels were made at the same time, and do not increase in number, each individual angel is it’s own “species” for lack of a better word.

>>768594

So Evangelion got it right?