/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Just because some of the Jews (even in the gospels) believed in reincarnation in the Bible doesn't mean its Biblical. Many Jews worshiped Baal and Molech and worshiping those is not biblical.

>>843704

A christophany is not reincarnation

>>843705

Then why are we talking about this? Of course, all the old testament prophets can be called prior manifestations of Christ.

>>843706

No, that's typology. A christophany would be the real literal person christ appearing before the incarnation.

>>843709

Okay, well that's heresy plain and simple. Christ means savior. There is only one savior, Jesus.

>>843710

Yes and Melchizedek is debateably the second person of the trinity. The same Christ who was later born of a virgin.

Why would one say he is? I am actually curious.

>>843719

It's really just an interesting question. It doesn't affect any doctrine.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Melchizedek.html

>>843703

No and thinking he was Jesus is peak sola scriptura Mumbo jumbo

>>843720

>having a second sinless man doesn't effect the doctrine of penal substitution

Is Sonic Jesus?

Is Sonic pre-incarnate Christ?

>>843725

based

>>843723

My dude you are really not getting it. I don't know how else to explain.

>>843705

Theophanies/Christophanies are the Angel of the Lord. Whom Abraham had already encountered. It's a little strange if he came again in another form. Melchizedek never struck me as the same person exactly. But you could be right.

>>843711

Reading Hebrews 4:15-5:10 settles for me that Melchizedek is not Christ but a Prophet and that this is important in understanding that Christ's priesthood comes from a place of humility and not exaltation.

Yes, this is the indisputable teaching of scripture. It is the entire point of Hebrews 7, if Melchizedek were not the preincarnate Son it would seriously undermine the apostle's argument since it would make Melchizedek's priesthood much more like Aaron's priesthood. This is why the author spends the first third of the chapter demonstrating the divinity of Melchizedek, it is the necessary foundation of his actual argument. The text is so clear on this topic it is puzzling why it can be so controversial among Christians.

>>843769

Anon, if you're Bible says to bend the knee to Baal, might I suggest you incinerate it, posthaste?

Melchizedek was a type of Christ, but was also known as Shem, the rightful inheritor of the birthright from Adam.

>>843897

Melchizedek was not Shem. That's a Masoretic invention to try and disprove Hebrews.

Here’s the exact quote from Hebrews:

> “ For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.” (Hebrews 7:1-3)

> no beginning or end of days

> like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually (Compare with Daniel 3:25[95 in LXX and Vulgate])

Paul then goes on to talk about how Levi through Abraham, the one who received tithes gave tithes to Melchizedek. Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi, but “(he) was appointed to be a priest, not on the basis of a genealogical registry, but rather on the power of an indestructible life” (verse 16). He therefore supersedes Levi, because he has power to bring life while the law of Levi through Moses brings death.

So basically, if Melchizedek ISN’T Jesus, then there’s two immortal timeless beings that all of Israel bow to, which is in violation of Commandment 1(1-2 by the Protestant numbering).

However, we should also keep in mind that Paul might not be talking about Melchizedek in a literal, historical sense as we might think of it here, but rather like in Galatians 4 is using him as an allegorical/rhetorical example of how Jesus as a priest is perfect and everlasting while the Levite preists were mortal and imperfect. Just because someone doesn’t have their parents listed doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re angelic/ a theophany. Keep both sides in mind and pray about it.

>15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

>16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

>17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

The one referred to as "another priest" is Jesus Christ. But Melchisedec is not Jesus Christ but a heavy symbolic figure of Christ. A type of Christ as was stated.

>>843915

>So basically, if Melchizedek ISN’T Jesus, then there’s two immortal timeless beings that all of Israel bow to, which is in violation of Commandment 1(1-2 by the Protestant numbering).

Firstly, that would just be commandment 1 by Protestant numbering. Commandment 2 concerns images alone. Secondly, that wouldn't be a violation of the commandment per se so much as a violation of the eternal truth scripture reveals that there is just one God.

>However, we should also keep in mind that Paul might not be talking about Melchizedek in a literal, historical sense as we might think of it here, but rather like in Galatians 4 is using him as an allegorical/rhetorical example of how Jesus as a priest is perfect and everlasting while the Levite preists were mortal and imperfect

No, that does not hold water. If the parallel is not literal, he has no point. This is besides the fact the text is obviously literal on its face.

>Just because someone doesn’t have their parents listed doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re angelic/ a theophany

This is true, but it's also true that if the author was merely saying we don't have Melchizedek's birth and death certificates then he has absolutely no legitimate argument since his opponents can simply reply that we know that He must have had birth and death and parents since He was a mere mortal man

>>843917

Why does he need to spell it out for you to understand? He's already hitting you over the head with it. Don't get hung up on words like "similitude" or "another", the author is essentially going "hey guys, this Melchizedek guy sure is a whole lot like Jesus, I wonder why that is wink wink nudge nudge"

>>843812

Not at all, Paul is saying priesthood is no longer to be taken by fleshly sonship but spiritual sonship. The context is him inviting the Greeks.

>>844025

I don't know where you got your interpretation from but the context is most certainly not "him inviting the Greeks". The epistle to the Hebrews has very little to do with Greeks. The context, as with the rest of the epistle, is second temple Judaism. The entire book is essentially a polemic against Judaism.

And by "spiritual sonship", do you mean that the text establishes the existence of priests other than Jesus? If so, that would be the exact opposite of what the author is arguing. The apostle's entire argument is that there is no more priesthood on this earth because Jesus is such a perfect priest that one would be obsolete. He himself even says this is his point in 8:1-4

>>844041

Saint Paul calls himself a priest in Romans 15:15-16. You need to believe the entire Bible, not cherrypick.

The broader call and context of Paul is as apostle of the gentiles, there is no denying it.

>>844042

>Saint Paul calls himself a priest in Romans 15:15-16. You need to believe the entire Bible, not cherrypick.

I do believe the entire bible, but that means believing Hebrews as well, I will not reject its teachings. Paul does not describe himself as a priest but refers to his work as priestly. Why do you think that is? Is it because he is a member of an official priestly order, going into temples offering sacrifices making intercession for sinners? No. In this particular text, Paul uses the priesthood as a metaphor for his evangelistic ministry. He states the offering he makes is the gentiles themselves, that to minister to them the gospel is to prepare them to be offered up to God. However in a sense all Christians may be referred to as priests, inasmuch as they commune directly with their God, not through a priest.

>The broader call and context of Paul

Hebrews should not be interpreted on the basis of any greater historical context except that which it provides. You say Paul, but we don't know it was written by Paul. The author chose to remain anonymous. Even if it is Paul, the fact he tended to minister to gentiles rather than Jews does not give you license to rewrite the text. The meaning of the text is clear no matter who wrote it.

>>844044

>local man has Bible consulted out of context to support already held views, more news at 9.

Pardon me, but I have no choice but to laugh lest I would weep. You genuinely defend taking things out of context just because you have a prejudice about the vocable priest. Absolutely pharasaic.

>>844050

Excellent argument, how will I ever recover?

3 part series explaining Melchizedek

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/?s=Melchizedek

test.

>>844175

post