Melchizedek

  • Thread starter Thread starter redrosetea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am a bit puzzled about his origina and who he was

Scripture says he was without father or mother…Does this mean he was a created being like Adam and Eve?
He was not literally without father and mother. He was a priest before the requirements for proof of Aaronic descent so he was not bound to having a compatable genealogy of father and mother. (Ezra 2:61-63; Neh 7:63-65)
 
He was not of the line of Aaron nor was he a Levite…It seems this priesthood came before the Jewish one…I think he was a foreshadowing of Christ
You are correct this is what’s referred to as a Christophany an incarnation of the pre incarnate Christ. Also found in Daniel as the fourth person in the fire with Shadrach , Meshach and Abednego. Dan 3:25
 
You are correct this is what’s referred to as a Christophany an incarnation of the pre incarnate Christ. Also found in Daniel as the fourth person in the fire with Shadrach , Meshach and Abednego. Dan 3:25
You are right i always wondered about this him being Like the Son of God, i said to myself many times how does he know, Jesus wasn’t born yet? This is a mystery and yet it is not we can solve it because of Christ. Think of how they felt back then when he made this statement and they had no seen the Messiah yet. raggetyann:)
 
Jewish Tradition and some Catholic Scholars think he was Noah’s son, Shem, who was still alive during Abraham’s time. I think he outlived Abraham by a few decades.

This would explain why he could give Abraham his blessing.
Yep, so the midrashim say. 🙂 There was even one Jewish story in which God originally intended to bring forth the priesthood through Shem/Melchizedek’s descendants, but because Melchizedek blessed Abram before he blessed God, God eventually brought the priesthood forth from Abram’s descendants, through Levi and Aaron. 😃
 
Yep, so the midrashim say. 🙂 There was even one Jewish story in which God originally intended to bring forth the priesthood through Shem/Melchizedek’s descendants, but because Melchizedek blessed Abram before he blessed God, God eventually brought the priesthood forth from Abram’s descendants, through Levi and Aaron. 😃
But Abraham was Shem’s descendant…? (of the 7th generation;))
 
But Abraham was Shem’s descendant…? (of the 7th generation;))
Yes, but Patrick is saying that Melchizedek blessed Abram before Melchizedek blessed God.

To God should go the glory!!!

Bear in mind that this is simply Jewish story; not “fully accepted tradition”.
 
But Abraham was Shem’s descendant…? (of the 7th generation;))
As pointed, of course, that’s just a Jewish story, kind of like the one that says Melchizedek came out from the womb already circumcised. 😉
Louis Ginzberg’s work (Legends of the Jews) put it in a more fuller form:

In spite of his great success, Abraham nevertheless was concerned about the issue of the war. He feared that the prohibition against shedding the blood of man had been transgressed, and he also dreaded the resentment of Shem, whose descendants had perished in the encounter. But God reassured him, and said: "Be not afraid! Thou hast but extirpated the thorns, and as to Shem, he will bless thee rather than curse thee." So it was.

When Abraham returned from the war, Shem, or, as he is sometimes called, Melchizedek, the king of righteousness, priest of God Most High, and king of Jerusalem, came forth to meet him with bread and wine. And this high priest instructed Abraham in the laws of the priesthood and in the Torah, and to prove his friendship for him he blessed him, and called him the partner of God in the possession of the world, seeing that through him the Name of God had first been made known among men. But Melchizedek arranged the words of his blessing in an unseemly way. He named Abraham first and then God. As a punishment, he was deposed by God from the priestly dignity, and instead it was passed over to Abraham, with whose descendants it remained forever.
 
Melchizedek is identified in extrabiblical Jewish commentary as Shem, Noah’s son, having fled Egypt with the bones of Adam. Hieroglyphs state Adam’s remains were aboard Noah’s Ark. “The sacred bones of Ra [Adam] were carried on the sacred boat of Nu.” This commentary states the bones of Adam were first buried by Shem under Golgotha. This is why crucifixes show the skull and bones under Christ’s cross, the bones of Adam. These were perilous times. Was there a security breach? Because Shem then moved the bones of Adam to Machpelah, the “twin caves” Abraham reclaimed from his kinsmen as he is stated as being a prince among these people who would have given him Machpelah. Abraham, in distancing himself from the rampant paganism, insisted on buying this sacred site where he buried his matriarch-wife, Sarah.

In Egypt, Shem probably preserved the remnant of original monotheism as the lion figure, a man with big hair and an attitude, the likely model for the guardian Sphinx. There are three exquisite basalt sphinxes with very literal faces. One may be Shem, and his visage is noble and serious. If the other is his brother, Japheth, it is almost as solemn and mighty. The third may be Cham, and that face is just goofy, and is associated with one having a high-pitched laugh (Cham was cursed for mocking his drunk and naked father, Noah), carnality and cannibalism. This is what monotheists were fighting.

Egyptian pagan priests took control and went on to demonize Shem, “King of Righteousness” in exile in Salem, probably the “lover of righteousness” or “Philition” that Herodatus identified as the shepherd of the Great Pyramid. Shem was turned into the god of wild typhoon wind and the wild *** god, a powerful and unyielding man and probably represented as Horus the hawk who tore up the self-proclaimed god Osiris and sent his body parts everywhere to show he flunked the god test, to show he was no immortal. That probably sparked, not a return to orthodoxy, but a revolt led by the dead ruler’s wife deified as Isis. While this may be termed grounded speculation, it is sure something occurred that induced Shem to totally obscure his identity as Melchizedek.

Melchizedek could not have dared to identify himself–named his father or mother–as Shem as being the guardian of the bones of Adam, that rarest of relics. To possess the bones of a great man, let alone the first man, gives untold credibility to the leadership, in this case, demonic pagans. One may note how Moses’ bones were hidden from the devil by the Archangel Michael.

In Mexico the pyramid cult was originally anti-cannibal, and taken over by cannibals prophesied to be overthrown by the anti-cannibal Mother-Son cultus. The Virgin of Guadalupe reversed the tide with her appearance, her image pregnant with Messiah converting eight million souls in three years. This Genesis 3:15 battle of the Woman & Seed against Satan and his minions is timeless. Today one profitable cannibal cult is abortion and the pagan priests wield political power as in the slain Wichita, Kansas, doctor, Tiller, who donated over a million dollars to Democrats in Kansas alone. May God reclaim America as one nation founded to foster life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

May the Virgin Mary and her divine Son, Christ Jesus, preserve us in safety, guide us in wisdom, send the Holy Angels to encamp about us, bring conversion, and reign and rule upholding life and blessing among thankful people everywhere. AMEN
😃

I am sure if Melchizedek, was indeed Shem son of Adam, you would have known, it would have been written down but it was written that Melchizedek had NO genealogy and that can only mean he had NO genealogy as the bible states. When it says that Jesus was a photo type of Mel. i believe this and i believe that he was a king and he did rule in Salem, but i do not think he was Shem. raggetyann. Go back and read my post!
 
It’s all just theory anyway…We won’t know for sure till we enter the pearly gates
 
😃

I am sure if Melchizedek, was indeed Shem son of Adam, you would have known, it would have been written down but it was written that Melchizedek had NO genealogy and that can only mean he had NO genealogy as the bible states. When it says that Jesus was a photo type of Mel. i believe this and i believe that he was a king and he did rule in Salem, but i do not think he was Shem. raggetyann. Go back and read my post!
But, why does Abram give tribute to Melchizedek and not to the King of Sodom. It’s obvious that Abram doesn’t respect a man simply because he’s royalty.

It has been postulated that Melchizedek was said to have no genealogy to show that he was a high-priest chosen by God, rather than because of his lineage, which is what the Levites used to become priests.
 
😃

I am sure if Melchizedek, was indeed Shem son of Adam, you would have known, it would have been written down but it was written that Melchizedek had NO genealogy and that can only mean he had NO genealogy as the bible states. When it says that Jesus was a photo type of Mel. i believe this and i believe that he was a king and he did rule in Salem, but i do not think he was Shem. raggetyann. Go back and read my post!
Jesus had a genealogy and so did Melchizedek. What is significant about “NO” is that neither of their priesthoods where dependant on Levitical Law which required proper genealogy.

If, then, perfection came through the levitical priesthood, on the basis of which the people received the law, what need would there still have been for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not reckoned according to the order of Aaron? When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well. Now he of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, of which no member ever officiated at the altar. It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. (Heb 7:11-14)
 
But, why does Abram give tribute to Melchizedek and not to the King of Sodom. It’s obvious that Abram doesn’t respect a man simply because he’s royalty.
Nicely stated! 🙂

As an aside, I’ve heard one opinion which state that the encounter with Melchizedek is some sort of meal. Kamal Salibi proposed that the Hebrew word מַעֲשֵׂר ma’aser (“tenth”) could be taken to mean portion, while מִכֹּל mi-kol (“from all”, “of everything”) could also mean food. He then goes on, saying that malki tzedek itself can be interpreted as mouthful of offering, citing Arabic cognates for support - in this scenario, Melchizedek is not a name, but an idiom. So, according to him, in this scenario:

And a mouthful of offering the king of Salem brought out - bread and wine; and he was a priest of El-Elyon. And he blessed him [Abram] and said, “Blessed be Abram to El-Elyon, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be El-Elyon, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” And he gave him a portion of food.

The ‘meal’ part is admittedly rather an interesting explanation, but I feel there’s weak support for Prof. Salibi’s proposed reconstruction - it’s all based on the conceit that everything was mistranslated/transplanted out of original context. Plus, I don’t think I’d immediately accept his arguments based on the other assertions he made (here’s some good refutation of these): for one, he thinks that the Israelites were originally from somewhere in West Arabia, who later migrated to what is now Palestine because of a strife between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (which were also to be located in West Arabia!) Eventually they forgot their Arabian origins as time passed, as languages shifted and as words became revocalized; as a result, the Bible became obscured or something. He thus reasons that we should try to find the setting for OT stories in a West Arabian setting instead of a Palestinian one.

Other theories were, well, that references to Elohim and YHWH refer to local Arabian deities, that references to the Jordan does not refer to a river but to the escarpment of 'Asir (taking yarden to mean “skyline”), or that Biblical ‘Lebanon’ was actually in Yemen - /Egypt of the ExodusMitzraim! It’s all in Yemen, I tell you. 😛
 
The Hebrew meaning of “Melchizedek” is king of riteousness.

And Abraham apportioned to him “a tenth of everything.” His name first means righteous king, and he was also “king of Salem,” that is, king of peace. (Heb 7:2)
 
😃

I am sure if Melchizedek, was indeed Shem son of Adam, you would have known, it would have been written down
It was was.

This tradition appears in the oldest translations of Genesis into Aramaic at Gen 14:18. It is in rabbinic commentaries on the Pentateuch and in the Babylonian Talmud. It is also in the writings of St. Ephraem the Syrian, St Jerome, and St. Thomas Aquinas. It is also noted by theologian: Alcuin, Peter Lombard, and Nicholas of Lyra. It is written in the margins of the medieval Latin Bible Glossa Ordinaria. Martin Luther accepted this interpretation.
 
The Hebrew meaning of “Melchizedek” is king of riteousness.
By the way, in Hebrew malki tzedek has a possible possessive pronoun in there (melek + -i = “king” + “my”) so another proposed meaning is “my king is righteous/ness”. Nice name, isn’t it? 🙂
 
It was was.

This tradition appears in the oldest translations of Genesis into Aramaic at Gen 14:18. It is in rabbinic commentaries on the Pentateuch and in the Babylonian Talmud. It is also in the writings of St. Ephraem the Syrian, St Jerome, and St. Thomas Aquinas. It is also noted by theologian: Alcuin, Peter Lombard, and Nicholas of Lyra. It is written in the margins of the medieval Latin Bible Glossa Ordinaria. Martin Luther accepted this interpretation.
:)Thank you all of you but ryannoneil, wasn’t there another language before the Aramaic? I think so. and i think when people take words and translate them into different meanings it becomes very hard for the best scholars to decipher.I was always taught actually that it was Jesus that came here to set up a priestly Levi. people. raggetyann
 
By the way, in Hebrew malki tzedek has a possible possessive pronoun in there (melek + -i = “king” + “my”) so another proposed meaning is “my king is righteous/ness”. Nice name, isn’t it? 🙂
Interesting!
 
:)Thank you all of you but ryannoneil, wasn’t there another language before the Aramaic? I think so. and i think when people take words and translate them into different meanings it becomes very hard for the best scholars to decipher.I was always taught actually that it was Jesus that came here to set up a priestly Levi. people. raggetyann
It’s fine if you don’t believe the tradition. I was just citing ancient examples where the tradition was written down.

I don’t understand what you mean by your last statement. Is this what you are talking about?

**Now the LORD said to Moses: “Summon the tribe of Levi and present them to Aaron the priest, as his assistants. They shall discharge his obligations and those of the whole community before the meeting tent by serving at the Dwelling. They shall have custody of all the furnishings of the meeting tent and discharge the duties of the Israelites in the service of the Dwelling. You shall give the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they have been set aside from among the Israelites as dedicated to me. But only Aaron and his descendants shall you appoint to have charge of the priestly functions. Any layman who comes near shall be put to death.” The LORD said to Moses, "It is I who have chosen the Levites from the Israelites in place of every first-born that opens the womb among the Israelites. The Levites, therefore, are mine (Num 3:5-12) **
 
Its best to think of Melchizedek, not as a person, but as righteousness itself, as if a person having no particular father or mother. The Hebrews were very conceptual writers in all Scriptures. They worshiped concepts as sacred (the Angels). Every word represents first and foremost a concept before a material item.
 
Its best to think of Melchizedek, not as a person, but as righteousness itself, as if a person having no particular father or mother. The Hebrews were very conceptual writers in all Scriptures. They worshiped concepts as sacred (the Angels). Every word represents first and foremost a concept before a material item.
Here James I do not believe in what you say i was always a believer of Melchezedick being a High Priest, and he was. This is all i could come up with it seems to be taken right off the net because there are people that own these sites and believe like you do.
St. Mary Coptic Orthodox Church of Middlesex County, East …
1108, 1B-001281-A-O, Songs and hymns for St Mary, song book, St. Athanasius … 1671, 2A-OO2345-A-O, Life of Melchezedick. Priest of God of the Heighst …

saint-mary.net/services/library/DB/libdb.xlt - Cached - Similar pages
They use to believe back then! By the way you spelt it wrong, raggetyann
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top