Order of Melchisedek

[JasonHC]

That is the funny thing about Catholic apologist; they have to stick to traditions as being equal to Scripture by using the Bible alone; this is why they attack and train you all to attack Sola Scriptura because it the rock that holds all those arguments against the leaking of other doctrines into Christianity.

LOL Do you realize the danger of sola scriptura?

The real issue for me, is not so much Sacred Tradition. Arguments can go on and on both sides and I’m not about to go there, but the bigger problem I see with Sola Scriptura is the idea that someone’s interpretation will always determine the content of scripture. Whether we like it or not, Scripture cannot speak for itself, so long as someone is interpreting it. It is impossible for the Scriptures to speak for itself on every single facet of Christianity to everyone, otherwise one would only have to hand out Bibles.

Pastors of various churches may agree on certain doctrines, yet completely disagree on others. This to me is a red flag and is the fruit of sola scriptura. As long as someone is reading it, they are attempting to interpret it.

Thus, the issue boils down to this: Whose interpretation are we going to trust? The Catholic Church’s? Pastor So-and-So? Ourselves?

I believe the Catholic Church which put the NT together is being guided by the Holy Spirit, so I place my trust in it, rather than trusting several pastors of a variety of churches I used to attend.

 

[ryanoneil]

Shem would be in the line of Noah with the same Rite. Melchizadek is not performing the Rite of Noah. Therefore, he can’t be Shem. . .

It is also my opinion that Melchizadek posed a dilemma for Jewish scholars of the time, because the Rite of Melchizadek was known by scripture but NOT the covenant that preceded his rite. . .

I’m not just making this up. The tradition identifying Melchizedek with Shem appears in the oldest translation of Genesis into Aramaic (Tarjum Neofiti and Fragmentary Targum at Gen 14:18). It is in rabbinic commentaries on the Pentateuch (Genesis Rabbah 43, 6; Leviticus Rabbah 25, 6; Numbers Rabbah 4, 8) and in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Nedarim 32b).

It is also in ancient Christian writings: St Ephraem the Syrian (Commentary on Genesis 11, 2), St. Jerome (Letters 73), and St. Thomas Aquinas (Commentary on Hebrews 7, 1). The running commentary that filled the margins of the medieval Latin Bible (the Glossa Ordenaria) also identified Melchizedek as Shem, and Martin Luther accepted this interpretation as late as the sixteenth century (Lectures on Genesis 14,18).

So, If you believe there is a dilema that is fine, but it is unfair to say it is impossible.

Peace

 

[codebilly]

I’m not just making this up. The tradition identifying Melchizedek with Shem appears in the oldest translation of Genesis into Aramaic (Tarjum Neofiti and Fragmentary Targum at Gen 14:18). It is in rabbinic commentaries on the Pentateuch (Genesis Rabbah 43, 6; Leviticus Rabbah 25, 6; Numbers Rabbah 4, 8) and in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Nedarim 32b).

It is also in ancient Christian writings: St Ephraem the Syrian (Commentary on Genesis 11, 2), St. Jerome (Letters 73), and St. Thomas Aquinas (Commentary on Hebrews 7, 1). The running commentary that filled the margins of the medieval Latin Bible (the Glossa Ordenaria) also identified Melchizedek as Shem, and Martin Luther accepted this interpretation as late as the sixteenth century (Lectures on Genesis 14,18).

So, If you believe there is a dilema that is fine, but it is unfair to say it is impossible.

Peace

Did I say impossible? Probably. Well … I often lean toward the zealous side …

OK … I’ll say it, Shem could be Melchizadek, but somehow, his priestly order must have changed from Noah’s.

And that is fine with me also … I am happy to admit that could be the case … joyous in fact.

However, it still seems to me, that the Author of Hebrews does not believe Melchizadek to be Shem, and therefore is a higher authority than the commentators.

 

[ryanoneil]

Did I say impossible? Probably. Well … I often lean toward the zealous side …

OK … I’ll say it, Shem could be Melchizadek, but somehow, his priestly order must have changed from Noah’s.

And that is fine with me also … I am happy to admit that could be the case … joyous in fact.

However, it still seems to me, that the Author of Hebrews does not believe Melchizadek to be Shem, and therefore is a higher authority than the commentators.

It is uncertain whether the author of Hebrews ever knew or accepted this tradition, but it would certainly enhance the parallelism between Melchizedek and Jesus, who is hailed as the "Father’s “first-born”(Heb 1:6).

It is interesting how God gives Abraham three promises in (Gen12:1-3) and later upgrades them to covenants later. After the battle in Gen (14:17) the descendent of Shem, Abraham, ruled over the descendants of Ham and Japheth - just as Noah had prophesied would happen (Gen 9:25-27). Precisely at this moment, Melchizedek appears and he pronounces a blessing over Abraham that sounds a lot like the blessing that Noah pronounced over Shem. (Gen 14:19-20). So, If Melchizedek is really Shem, the son of Noah, then it means that the blessing God gave to Noah and Noah in turn gave to Shem is now being passed on to Abraham. Then God upgrades his first promise to a covenant in (Gen 15:7-21).

If anything changed from Noah’s priestly order it probably had to do with dynamic of Kingship and family and nation. Melchizedek is a high priest and a king. If he’s also the first-born son of Noah, then his blessing upon Abraham is a sort of “ordination,” a consecration, by which Abraham too becomes, not only a righteous first-born son, but a priest of God Most High.

Then the covenant with Moses makes the nation of Israel God’s “first-born son” (Ex 4:22) and a “kingdom of priests” (Ex 19:6). And in the covenant with David, he and his son Solomon, are considered “first-born” sons (Psalm 89:6) who are both kings and priests. Of course, Melchizedek foreshadows David, who is declared “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4). Finally, in the New Covenant, Jesus is seen as first-born, high-priest and king (Heb 1:2-13; 5:5-6). And a priest in the line of Melchizedek.

 

[NonCatholic]

If I may join in this discussion…

You are probably referring to Matt 23:8 - “And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.”

However, to take this literally, it means we shouldn’t ever call our dads, “father” (and I’m not referring to priests). The next verse also says:

“Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ” (Matt 23:9)

Does this mean no one in school should ever say the word ‘teacher’ anymore? The context is clear that this has nothing to do with the Catholic priesthood.

More importantly, St. Paul even states that he became a ‘father through the gospel’:

1 Cor 4:15 - “Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.”

Does this mean, St. Paul just did what Jesus said not to do? Rather, he is referring to the fact that he was the Corinthian community’s spiritual father, just as Timothy is called by Paul as his ‘son in the faith’ (1 Tim 1:2). Ditto for Titus (Titus 1:4). This is why Catholic priests are called ‘father’, while it is not uncommon for a priest to call a parishioner ‘son’.

What makes you think that you are not the blind or ignorant one?

Regardless, scripture is very clear that priests are to be called upon for anointing oil (James 5:14):

“Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.” (James 5:14, NIV)

The Greek word for ‘elder’ is literally ‘Presbuteros’, which in Latin is Presbyter, which in turn is likely the origin of the word ‘priest’ in English. Check any online dictionary.

That passage (James 5:14) is the Biblical basis for the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.

As for the basis for the ordained priesthood, consider these articles:

The Office of New Testament Priest

The Priesthood Debate

Both articles demonstrate that there are three types of priests: high priests, ministerial priests, and high priests.

**Presbuteros = Elder or Pastor not to be confused with Hiereus=priest 1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites 2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ… I am part of the royal priesthood

Why do you think that none of the Apostles referred to themselves as priest? Must be a reason?

Bonus: Archiereus Used for high priest**

 

[NonCatholic]

LOL Do you realize the danger of sola scriptura?

The real issue for me, is not so much Sacred Tradition. Arguments can go on and on both sides and I’m not about to go there, but the bigger problem I see with Sola Scriptura is the idea that someone’s interpretation will always determine the content of scripture. Whether we like it or not, Scripture cannot speak for itself, so long as someone is interpreting it. It is impossible for the Scriptures to speak for itself on every single facet of Christianity to everyone, otherwise one would only have to hand out Bibles.

Pastors of various churches may agree on certain doctrines, yet completely disagree on others. This to me is a red flag and is the fruit of sola scriptura. As long as someone is reading it, they are attempting to interpret it. **The Catholic church councils have many times not come to unanimous decision, for example on Papal infallibility when speaking excathedra; this had multiple votes to get a majority. The doctrines are changing and increasing, for example Mary as co-mediatrix, which many Catholics wholly and rightfully reject.
**
Thus, the issue boils down to this: Whose interpretation are we going to trust? The Catholic Church’s? Pastor So-and-So? Ourselves? I personally, like all true believers, depend on the Holy Spirit. You can’t go wrong there; at least for long. Until you know you are indwelt, then one sticks with what’s comfortable and seems right.

I believe the Catholic Church which put the NT together is being guided by the Holy Spirit, so I place my trust in it, rather than trusting several pastors of a variety of churches I used to attend.

That’s one of the errors in misunderstanding. I plan to do a thread titled "What Sola Scriptura is and is not"

 

[NonCatholic]

Question, How do you know what books are to be in the bible if the bible doesn’t tell you this? How do you know which books were inspired and which weren’t? Are you aware that the Corinthians accepted the Letter of Clement as inspired. Should it be included into the bible. One step further; Did you know that many Christians didn’t accept the book of Revelation as inspired. Should it be removed from the bible. Pressing on, how do you know that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. No book or letter in the bible tells you it was. So how do you know it was? Better yet, how do you know which Mark wrote Mark? The bible doesn’t give this information. So you have to rely on something outside of the bible to come to this knowledge. Such as Tradition.

**This is a great example of some unregenerate minds think. Do we need to start a thread on the Cannocity of Scripture. One important aspect of Scripture is that is does not contradict itself, that is why the Maccabee’s and gospel of James are not included. No one knows the human author of Hebrews, but everyone seems to understand it was written by the Holy Spirit; as is all of Scripture. A safe place to stay since:

2 Timothy 3:14-16 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, **

A simple question: If the Holy Scripture are able to make one wise unto salvation; what is the danger in adding or subtracting?

 

[broski234]

**This is a great example of some unregenerate minds think. Do we need to start a thread on the Cannocity of Scripture. One important aspect of Scripture is that is does not contradict itself, that is why the Maccabee’s and gospel of James are not included. No one knows the human author of Hebrews, but everyone seems to understand it was written by the Holy Spirit; as is all of Scripture. A safe place to stay since:

2 Timothy 3:14-16 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus**. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

A simple question: If the Holy Scripture are able to make one wise unto salvation; what is the danger in adding or subtracting?

We weren’t the ones subtracting here. NOR did we add anything. The original septuagint contained those 7 books that protestants leave out of their bibles. Did you know that Martin Luther took those books out on his own authority? And again, Non, you don’t address the questions. Instead you give a ploy to obfuscate so one may get caught up reading your man-made, fallible interpretation. Your negligence goes unnoticed.

 

[guanophore]

Presbuteros = Elder or Pastor not to be confused with Hiereus=priest 1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites

This is true. The Levitical priesthood is no longer needed, since the once for all sacrifice of the Lamb of God.

1. metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ… I am part of the royal priesthood

Yes, to the extent that you are in unity with the successors of the Apostles.

Why do you think that none of the Apostles referred to themselves as priest? Must be a reason?

They were Apostles, also referred to as bishops (shepherds of the flock - overseers). There were too many duties for one person to fulfill. the Apostles appointed presbyters to assist them.

They did not use the word “priest” because it is a centuries later Latinization of the Gk. Most of them spoke ARamaic, and Gk. when the need arose.

Bonus: Archiereus Used for high priest

Do you believe that Jesus, as the archhiereus, fulfills the definition you have given above?

I find that definition too restrictive for HIm.

 

[guanophore]

I personally, like all true believers, depend on the Holy Spirit. You can’t go wrong there; at least for long. Until you know you are indwelt, then one sticks with what’s comfortable and seems right.
That’s one of the errors in misunderstanding. I plan to do a thread titled “What Sola Scriptura is and is not”

I agree, this is one of the most grievious errors associated with SS. A person believes they are led by the HS, and “sticks to what comfortable and seems right”. Each one does what is right in his own eyes. There is a way that seems right to a man…

This is a great example of some unregenerate minds think.

It seems that you determine what “regenerate minds” should think based upon how closely they agree with your own theology.

In point of fact, the questions that were posed to you had nothing “unregenerate” about them. I see also that you did not address any of them. If you think your avoidance goes unnoticed then you are wrong. Using the smokescreen to avoid answering perfectly legitimate questions by saying that they come from an “unregenerate mind” is not working very well. Most Reformed who espouse SS here also state that the doctrine “assumes a canon”. I believe this is necessary, since the formation of the canon in itself debunks SS. However, I will not take up that here, since it is way off topic.

Do we need to start a thread on the Cannocity of Scripture. One important aspect of Scripture is that is does not contradict itself,

Yes, or use one of the hundreds that is already open on this topic. We battle that particular heresy quite a bit around here.

I agree, scripture does not contradict itself, but the people interpreting it sure do! Like you, saying there are “two separate and distinct baptisms” when Scripture says there is One Baptism.

that is why the Maccabee’s and gospel of James are not included.

No, this assertion has no historical or factual support.

No one knows the human author of Hebrews, but everyone seems to understand it was written by the Holy Spirit; as is all of Scripture.

Unlike yourself, who seems to go with what is “comfortable and seems right”, these were not the standards for the formation of the canon. The canon was formed using the teaching of the Apostles that produced it. That teaching did not become invalid after the canon was formed.

A safe place to stay since:

2 Timothy 3:14-16 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

I find it amazing that people can quote these verses, and still not grasp what they are saying. This one says that Timothy "received the faith from those to whom it was committed. He did not just pick up the Scripture on his own, and put together whatever was comfortable and seemed right.

15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

A simple question: If the Holy Scripture are able to make one wise unto salvation; what is the danger in adding or subtracting?

There is nothing here that indicates that everything pertaining to the Christian life is contained in the Scriptures. They are profitable. The training in righteousness is done by those whom God appointed to this task. The scripture is one of the tools of the training.

 

[mercygate]

In the Septuagint, Genesis 14:18, Melchizedek is referred to as “hireus”: ιερευς του θεου του υψιστου.

Christ is the great high priest and those who serve His Sacrifice are legitimately understood to be priests “according to the order of Melchizedek.”

The Apostles, in setting elders to lead the congregations, understood both the unversal priesthood of the priestly people and the appointed, ministerial priesthood of service “according to the order of Melchizedek” through the laying on of hands.

Hebrews is the pattern and crown of this theology.

 

[NonCatholic]

In the Septuagint, Genesis 14:18, Melchizedek is referred to as “hireus”: ιερευς του θεου του υψιστου.

Christ is the great high priest and those who serve His Sacrifice are legitimately understood to be priests “according to the order of Melchizedek.”

The Apostles, in setting elders to lead the congregations, understood both the unversal priesthood of the priestly people and the appointed, ministerial priesthood of service “according to the order of Melchizedek” through the laying on of hands.

Hebrews is the pattern and crown of this theology.

**
The only earthy priesthood is the “royal priesthood” of individuals believers. Christ completed what the earthly priesthood couldn’t. Do you know what the main purpose for the formal earthly priesthood was? Please tell! Once you know the purpose of the priesthood, then you can conclude that the formal priesthood of the Catholic church is invalid from a biblical basis.

We have only spoken of one of several comparison of the Levitical priesthood in contrast to the Melchizedek priesthood. I don’t plan on taking those issues further because if no one can see the most obvious one of death versus eternal, then there is no room for further study.**

 

[NonCatholic]

I agree, this is one of the most grievious errors associated with SS. A person believes they are led by the HS, and “sticks to what comfortable and seems right”. Each one does what is right in his own eyes. There is a way that seems right to a man…

It seems that you determine what “regenerate minds” should think based upon how closely they agree with your own theology.

In point of fact, the questions that were posed to you had nothing “unregenerate” about them. I see also that you did not address any of them. If you think your avoidance goes unnoticed then you are wrong. Using the smokescreen to avoid answering perfectly legitimate questions by saying that they come from an “unregenerate mind” is not working very well. Most Reformed who espouse SS here also state that the doctrine “assumes a canon”. I believe this is necessary, since the formation of the canon in itself debunks SS. However, I will not take up that here, since it is way off topic.

Yes, or use one of the hundreds that is already open on this topic. We battle that particular heresy quite a bit around here.

I agree, scripture does not contradict itself, but the people interpreting it sure do! Like you, saying there are “two separate and distinct baptisms” when Scripture says there is One Baptism.

No, this assertion has no historical or factual support.

Unlike yourself, who seems to go with what is “comfortable and seems right”, these were not the standards for the formation of the canon. The canon was formed using the teaching of the Apostles that produced it. That teaching did not become invalid after the canon was formed.

I find it amazing that people can quote these verses, and still not grasp what they are saying. This one says that Timothy "received the faith from those to whom it was committed. He did not just pick up the Scripture on his own, and put together whatever was comfortable and seemed right.

There is nothing here that indicates that everything pertaining to the Christian life is contained in the Scriptures. They are profitable. The training in righteousness is done by those whom God appointed to this task. The scripture is one of the tools of the training.

**You have thoroughly stumped me; your intellect is so overwhelming that I’m running down to St Cecelia’s and enrolling in RCIA. **

 

[mercygate]

**The only earthy priesthood is the “royal priesthood” of individuals believers. Christ completed what the earthly priesthood couldn’t. Do you know what the main purpose for the formal earthly priesthood was? Please tell! Once you know the purpose of the priesthood, then you can conclude that the formal priesthood of the Catholic church is invalid from a biblical basis. ******There is only one Priest: Jesus Christ. The Priesthood of the Catholic Church is the Priesthood of Jesus Christ. When the Priest at thet altar prays the words of consecration at the Eucharist or pronounces the words of absolution in confession, it is Christ who speaks, Christ who acts, Christ who offers through the agency of His priests.

**We have only spoken of one of several comparison of the Levitical priesthood in contrast to the Melchizedek priesthood. I don’t plan on taking those issues further because if no one can see the most obvious one of death versus eternal, then there is no room for further study.**We’ll still be here when you figure it out.

 

[mercygate]

**The only earthy priesthood is the “royal priesthood” of individuals believers. **Catholics actually do not believe that this is an “earthly priesthood.” The priesthood of the Church is entirely divine, whether the priesthood of the priestly people or the priesthood of the altar. All derives from Christ and is divine.

 

[Kykoh]

I just went to a Bible study class today and the Pastor of our Church said that Melchisedek was the son of Noah, he was also known as Shem. He lived for almost 900 years and that is why they refer to that saying “you shall reign forever as in the line of Melchisedek”. To be a high priest you had to be in the priesthood for 50 years and if Melchisedek lived almost a whole millenium! Back then sickness was rare. Hope this helps.

 

[NonCatholic]

mercygate:
There is only one Priest: Jesus Christ. The Priesthood of the Catholic Church is the Priesthood of Jesus Christ. When the Priest at thet altar prays the words of consecration at the Eucharist or pronounces the words of absolution in confession, it is Christ who speaks, Christ who acts, Christ who offers through the agency of His priests.

**We have only spoken of one of several comparison of the Levitical priesthood in contrast to the Melchizedek priesthood. I don’t plan on taking those issues further because if no one can see the most obvious one of death versus eternal, then there is no room for further study.**We’ll still be here when you figure it out.

Okay, you avoided the issue. Here is the question again for reference. Do you know what the main purpose for the formal earthly priesthood was? Please tell! Once you know the purpose of the priesthood,

 

[maryj]

We’ll still be here when you figure it out.

Okay, you avoided the issue. Here is the question again for reference. Do you know what the main purpose for the formal earthly priesthood was? Please tell! Once you know the purpose of the priesthood,

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Priesthood

 

[JasonHC]

Presbuteros = Elder or Pastor not to be confused with Hiereus=priest

The word ‘pastor’ literally means shepherd in Latin, while the Latin word for priest is literally ‘presbyter’. Catholic priests are not ‘hiereus’ since they do not resacrifice Christ or sacrifice animals for that matter.

Moreover, the 24 ‘elders’ or ‘priests’ mentioned in Revelation 5:8 are holding bowls of incense which suggest there are offering incense to God, just as old testament priests have done (Numbers 7:84-86). This shows that a ‘presbuteros’ was not only a pastor.

1. metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ… I am part of the royal priesthood

 

[JasonHC]

This is a great example of some unregenerate minds think.

Is it necessary to indirectly mock others who are raising points regardless of whether or not they are intelligent or unintelligent? What after all, is the purpose of making such a statement? What are you trying to achieve by saying this?

It seems you’re here not to encourage or inquire but to cause controversy. If your faith is true, then please present it without any mockery and with greater humility.

Do we need to start a thread on the Cannocity of Scripture. One important aspect of Scripture is that is does not contradict itself, that is why the Maccabee’s and gospel of James are not included.

This was directed to Timothy, who had read the Old Testament scriptures. Paul was clearly referring to the Old Testament, since the New Testament wasn’t compiled until 300 years later when the canon was determined by the Catholic Church.

A simple question: If the Holy Scripture are able to make one wise unto salvation; what is the danger in adding or subtracting?

You are presupposing that the Catholic Church added 7 books. The problem is that, as I mentioned, apostle Paul was referring to the old testament, which was able to make Timothy wise.

This particular verse, by the way, does not say it makes people wise. It says it is able to do that. As with anyone who is learning, there needs to be an adequate teacher or interpreter. This would explain the existence of ‘teachers’ (1 Cor 12:28), since, for example, the Ethiopian eunuch could not understand a passage from Isaiah (see Acts 8:30-31) and he needed Philip’s help to understand it (Acts 8:34-35).