FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-22-2001, 11:22 AM   #21
Nomad
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 410
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Kyzra:
Hi Kyzra

Please go back and read my earlier posts on this subject, as I addressed the points you raised here. Jesus was seen as a priest in the order of Melchisedek, but that did not make Melchisedek Jesus, nor was he a god. It requires a good deal of creative interpretation to make these two the same individual. I do not believe that the evidence warrents such an interpretation, nor is it orthodox Christian interpretation to make such a claim.

Peace,

Nomad
Nomad is offline  
Old 11-23-2001, 06:14 AM   #22
3DChizl
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 160
Post

Nomad- The link to the Catholic Encyclopedia was most helpful - how is it that you don't get the same intrepetation as they do since you referenced it for your argument?
From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10156b.htm
Quote:
The silence of Scripture about the facts of Melchisedech's birth and death was part of the divine plan to make him prefigure more strikingly the mysteries of Christ's generation, the eternity of His priesthood. Abraham, patriarch and father of nations, paid tithes to Melchisedech and received his blessing. This was all the more remarkable since the priest-king was a stranger, to whom he was not bound to pay tithes, as were the children of Israel to the priests of the Aaronic line. Abraham, therefore, and Levi "in the loins of his father" (Heb. vii, 9), by acknowledging his superiority as a type of Christ (for personally he was not greater than Abraham), thereby confessed the excellence of Christ's priesthood. Neither can it be fairly objected that Christ was in the loins of Abraham as Levi was, and paid tithes to Melchisedech; for, though descended from Abraham, he had no human father, but was conceived by the Holy Ghost. In the history of Melchisedech St. Paul says nothing about the bread and wine which the "priest of the most High" offered, and on account of which his name is placed in the Canon of the Mass. The scope of the Apostle accounts for this; for he wishes to show that the priesthood of Christ was in dignity and duration superior to that of Aaron, and therefore, since it is not what Melchisedech offered, but rather the other circumstances of his priesthood which belonged to the theme, they alone are mentioned.
em added

[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: 3DChizl ]
3DChizl is offline  
Old 11-23-2001, 11:39 AM   #23
Nomad
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 410
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by 3DChizl:

Nomad- The link to the Catholic Encyclopedia was most helpful - how is it that you don't get the same intrepetation as they do since you referenced it for your argument?
From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10156b.htm
Hi 3D

I included the article to show that Christians do not think that Melchisedek was a god. The article does not call him a god, but someone superior to Abraham, and a special high priest. Since your question was what do Christians think about Melchisedek, I thought the article would help clarify matters for you.

Do you think that the article considers him to be a god? If so, what is your basis for such a belief?

Nomad
Nomad is offline  
Old 11-24-2001, 06:56 AM   #24
3DChizl
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 160
Post

I just hate thickheadedness.

From the above.

by acknowledging his superiority as a type of Christ
3DChizl is offline  
Old 11-24-2001, 09:14 PM   #25
Sauron
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by 3DChizl:
<STRONG>I just hate thickheadedness.
</STRONG>
I see you've met Nomad.

Unfortunate that he was too busy playing Emily Post and correcting your "protocol", instead of reading the text you provided.
Sauron is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 09:04 AM   #26
Nomad
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 410
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by 3DChizl:
I just hate thickheadedness.

From the above.

by acknowledging his superiority as a type of Christ
My apologies 3D, but I thought that you knew this already: A "type of Christ" is not automatically a god, nor is Jesus the only one called a christ, or messiah in the Bible. Christ, or Messiah, is translated as "annointed", and all Kings of Israel were considered to be "annointed", or "Christs". The king of Persia, Cyrus, was also called a christ or messiah (Isaiah 45:1). None of these men were called gods by the Bible.

So, what is your question?

Nomad
Nomad is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 10:46 AM   #27
3DChizl
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 160
Post

OK - I am actually tired of you, but here we go...
Where do you come up with that translation?
Quote:
The king of Persia, Cyrus, was also called a christ or messiah (Isaiah 45:1). None of these men were called gods by the Bible.
Isaiah 45:1
Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

From Blue Letter Bible concordance
The word used is:
mashiyach - hebrew root (to his anointed) OT
Of course, that is in the OT and originally hebrew. The greek word for Christ in the NT is
Christos - greek root (Christ) NT

and I just have no idea where you came up with your statement.

[ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: 3DChizl ]
3DChizl is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 01:56 PM   #28
Muad'Dib
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 845
Post

Actually, lots of things were referred to as christs: "christ" is simply the Greek counterpart to the Hebrew "messiah" (which comes from mashiyach) and both mean (by themselves) "anointed." The terms were used for priests, rulers, even ceremonial vessels. In general, it's not accurate to assume that the term Christ is synonymous with Jesus or divinity.

(Edited for clarity.)

[ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]
Muad'Dib is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 03:27 PM   #29
Photocrat
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 405
Cool

Quote:
Originally posted by 3DChizl:
<STRONG>BTW - Does anyone know where to locate the Jewish perspective?</STRONG>
Heh, I thought the Essenes were gone nowadays--they were the ones really into him, IIRC :] Not that there might not be some commentary on that, but I can't say that I've read all that much on their perspectives.

Where Christians get that from is Hebrews. Just like Paul's description of Jesus as the 2nd Adam, Melchizedek the King of Salem [Peace] and Jesus stack up rather nicely. It's also used to show something of a preisthood above that of Aaron, since even the Patriarch, Abraham tithed to him.

I saw some long post by Nomad, so I hope he explained the rest. It's nice & long, ranges all over the OT and has nice ties to apocryphal material :] E.G. you could spend a *long* time reading up on this.
Photocrat is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 03:31 PM   #30
Photocrat
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 405
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by marduck:
<STRONG>I think the Mormons believe Jesus & Melchizedek are the archangel Michael.
or was that some other cult I read about?</STRONG>
Mormons, IIRC.
Photocrat is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:22 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.