So let's talk about today's readings 1/21/09

  • Thread starter Thread starter cheeto1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cheeto1

Guest
usccb.org/nab/readings/012109.shtml

This is a very mysterious day that concentrates on Melchizedek.
Another thread closeby here asks the question “who is
Melchizedek?” That is my question too. No father, no mother,
or ancestry, life has no beginning or end. Someone on the
Melchizedek thread thinks that is not to be taken literally, but
just that there is no “record” of his ancestry. I am not so sure,
despite the assertion that the one who takes it literally has no
followers. I have another question about him who cannot be known: how did he become a priest? How is it that he prefigured the eucharist with bread and wine? I guess what I am asking is: could he be Jesus? If Jesus can be in the fiery furnace, why
can’t he be Melchizedek?

Today is also the day of St. Agnes, martyred for her faith at
age 13.

So what struck you about today’s readings?:bible1:
 
JMJ

Melchizedek. Melech is hebrew for king and tzedech mean righteous one. A foreshadowing of the Moshiach.
 
I guess what I am asking is: could he be Jesus?
Melchizedek is fascinating!

The way he’s described in various part of Hebrews epistle, leads one to believe that he has a supernatural type of essence, by transcending time, and no genealogical father or mother. Further, to say that Jesus is “after the order of Melchizedek” has an implication that Melchizedek, being the original, is greater than Jesus. This of course cannot be true!

Then we have the discovery in 1945 & 1947 of the gnostic scriptures and dead sea scrolls indicating the early beliefs that Jesus was a reincarnated Melchizedek.

Makes one ponder! :hmmm:

Interesting site on this theory is here
 
Hebrews 7:1-17

[1] For this Melchiz’edek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him;
[2] and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace.
[3] He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever.
[4] See how great he is! Abraham the patriarch gave him a tithe of the spoils.
[5] And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brethren, though these also are descended from Abraham.
[6] But this man who has not their genealogy received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises.
[7] It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior.
[8] Here tithes are received by mortal men; there, by one of whom it is testified that he lives.
[9] One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham,
[10] for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchiz’edek met him.
[11] Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levit’ical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchiz’edek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?
[12] For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.
[13] For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar.
[14] For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
[15] This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchiz’edek,
[16] who has become a priest, not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent but by the power of an indestructible life.
[17] For it is witnessed of him, “Thou art a priest for ever,
after the order of Melchiz’edek.”

Psalms 110:4

[4] The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind,
“You are a priest for ever
after the order of Melchiz’edek.”

Genesis 14:18-19

[18] And Mel-chiz’edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.
[19] And he blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
maker of heaven and earth;

“Melchizedek in the Dead Sea Scroll 11Q13
11Q13 (11QMelch) is a fragment (that can be dated end II century or start I century BCE) of a text about Melchizedek found in Cave 11 at Qumran in Israel and which comprises part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In this escatological text Melchisedek is seen as a divine being and Hebrew titles as Elohim are applied to him. According to this text Melchisedek will proclaim the “Day of Atonement” and he will atone for the people who are predestined to him. He also will judge the peoples. [3]”

“Melchizedek in Nag Hammadi Library
A collection of early Gnostic scripts found in 1945, known as the Nag Hammadi Library, contains a tractate pertaining to Melchizedek. Here it is proposed that Melchizedek is Jesus Christ[7]. Melchizedek, as Jesus Christ, lives, preaches, dies and is resurrected, in a gnostic perspective. The Coming of the Son of God Melchizedek speaks of his return to bring peace, supported by the gods, and he is a priest-king who dispenses justice.[8]”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek

Question: Any ideas who Melchizedek was? I find it interesting that he brought out bread and wine to Abraham, and Paul in Hebrews says that Christ is a priest forever in the Order of Melchizedek, and we all know that he instituted the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper). I find this interesting. Any ideas?
 
Interesting site on this theory is here
Your site concludes that Jesus was Melchizedek. If that’s
true, and if Jesus was the one in the fiery furnace with
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, then what if there were
other times He came before He came as a baby?

I just don’t like the way the site says Jesus is a reincarnation
of Melchizedek. We don’t believe in reincarnation. I wouldn’t
think He was actually Born as Melchizedek, but just appeared
this once, in that form. I wouldn’t think the one in the fiery
furnace who looked like a son of God was actually Born, but
was Jesus simply appearing at that time for the 3 of them.
 
**Your **site concludes that Jesus was Melchizedek. If that’s
true, and if Jesus was the one in the fiery furnace with
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, then what if there were
other times He came before He came as a baby?

I just don’t like the way the site says Jesus is a reincarnation
of Melchizedek. We don’t believe in reincarnation. I wouldn’t
think He was actually Born as Melchizedek, but just appeared
this once, in that form. I wouldn’t think the one in the fiery
furnace who looked like a son of God was actually Born, but
was Jesus simply appearing at that time for the 3 of them.
Well, I referenced it, but definitely do not want to call it my site! 😛 It does make some interesting arguments, but I do agree with you 110% on the reincarnation angle.

At first your reference to the fiery furnace slipped right by me, but yes… the 3 lads in Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace & seeing a 4th in there!

Personally, I believe the 4th in the furnace was Jesus. And Melchizedek was Jesus. And of course all the OT folks that have seen God - Moses, the 70 elders, Abram, Job, Jacob, etc - it was Jesus. And there may be countless other times in OT era that he may have walked the earth, that are not chronicled. Not necessarily walking the earth incarnate, 100% man, as in his ministry, but in his divine nature appearing to be. To be both 100% human, and 100% God, would require both a divine parent and a human parent. Hmmmm… now who could those divine and human parents be? 😛
 
Well a lot about the bible is quite mysterious, at least for me. I’ve enjoyed reading the four volume set written by Ven. Anna Emmerich. In her first volume she wrote about Melchezedek. She said he was an angel. She also said that the chalice our Lord used at the last supper was the one that he used. Very wonderful to think about. 🙂
 
there may be countless other times in OT era that he may have walked the earth, that are not chronicled.
Well, do you think He could have appeared to the Native Americans, or the Chinese? How about the Mayans?
And what do you think about William’s idea, that maybe
Melchizedek was an angel instead?
 
usccb.org/nab/readings/012109.shtml

This is a very mysterious day that concentrates on Melchizedek.
Another thread closeby here asks the question “who is
Melchizedek?” That is my question too. No father, no mother,
or ancestry, life has no beginning or end. Someone on the
Melchizedek thread thinks that is not to be taken literally, but
just that there is no “record” of his ancestry. I am not so sure,
despite the assertion that the one who takes it literally has no
followers. I have another question about him who cannot be known: how did he become a priest? How is it that he prefigured the eucharist with bread and wine? I guess what I am asking is: could he be Jesus? If Jesus can be in the fiery furnace, why
can’t he be Melchizedek?

Today is also the day of St. Agnes, martyred for her faith at
age 13.

So what struck you about today’s readings?:bible1:
Another enigma:

The few passages in the OT that mention Melchizedek are written by a 5th author (apart from the 4 primary writing styles of the Pentetuech. This author’s contribution to the OT is found only Genesis ( e.g. Ge 14:18-20 ) and contain the Melchizedek story … the writing style appears nowhere else in the ancient scripture.
 
One tradition holds that Melchizedek was Shem (the son of Noah). Shem was still alive at the time.
 
And what do you think about William’s idea, that maybe
Melchizedek was an angel instead?
I’ve read a little on the Shem theory, theres a similar theory that Melchizadek was the nephew of Noah. And another theory that he was a neighboring king of Abram. IMHO, these 3 theories don’t meet the criteria in Hebrews as transcending time. Also, these possibilities would have a very known & traceable blood line, in contrast to Hebrews descriptions.

The angel theories, being either Gabriel or Michael, make a lot more sense & satisfy Hebrews descriptions. And a few of the Dead Sea scroll discoveries have gnostic writings related to this. But theres an issue with Jesus being “in the order of Melchizedek” - this would imply that Jesus, as a successor, is an inferior of the originator. An of course an angel is not superior to Jesus. Also, an angel is always defined as a servent glorifying & praising the Lord, and at times doing his works … never a Priest offering up sins or sacrifices.

All the theories seem to have holes. Something we’ll have to ask our Lord about! As Hebrews says, “Its hard to explain, for you have become dull of hearing” 😃
 
Shem was still alive at the time.
Wonder how old he was? Of course, everyone knows who Shem’s father was, and they didn’t know any ancestry of
Melchizedek. In fact, it said he was without an ancestry.
 
Another enigma:

The few passages in the OT that mention Melchizedek are written by a 5th author (apart from the 4 primary writing styles of the Pentetuech. This author’s contribution to the OT is found only Genesis ( e.g. Ge 14:18-20 ) and contain the Melchizedek story … the writing style appears nowhere else in the ancient scripture.
That IS interesting. And how would you characterize the writing
style? How is it different?
 
Even the Jesus theory? I don’t see holes in that one, just a
funny feeling.
Says in Hebrews several times that Jesus is a priest in the *likeness *of Melchizedek. Likeness meaning similarity.

So if Melchizedek = Jesus, then how could Jesus be a priest similar to Melchizedek?
 
Even the Jesus theory? I don’t see holes in that one, just a
funny feeling.
IMO, it’s one of those times you can trust your funny feelings! If you ponder it long enough you’ll find some holes.

If Melchizedek was a true human person (not an apparition), then that would mean the 2nd Person of the Trinity would have united Himself to human nature twice – and that would mean the One Person of the Son of God would be united to two separate human bodies and souls in heaven. :confused:

Neither would it be a case of Melchizedek being taken up and then later returning as Jesus. Scripture records the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary. Jesus is a descendant of David; Melchizedek is not (he lived long before David was born).

Nita
 
If Melchizedek was a true human person (not an apparition), then that would mean the 2nd Person of the Trinity would have united Himself to human nature twice
Nita
Are you saying that you are sure that Melchizedek was a true
human person?
 
Says in Hebrews several times that Jesus is a priest in the *likeness *of Melchizedek. Likeness meaning similarity.

So if Melchizedek = Jesus, then how could Jesus be a priest similar to Melchizedek?
Yep, that a hole all right.
 
Are you saying that you are sure that Melchizedek was a true
human person?
There’s nothing in Scripture to indicate he wasn’t. So, personally, I’m convinced he was a true human person to the same degree that I believe all the other OT people really were. (Eg. from that same section: Abraham, Sarah, Lot,…)

Nita
 
I’m convinced he was a true human person
Well, I don’t see how a true human person could have no
parents, ancestry, beginning, or end. Scripture does not
say these kinds of things about true human persons like
Abraham, Sarah, and Lot. I realize that popular belief is
that these facts were simply unknown, but I do believe
that they had the power of language to say they were
unknown. Are you then of the opinion that Melchizedek
had parents, ancestry, a beginning and an end?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top