Who was Melchiz'edek?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bwtby
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KathleenGee said:
I tread lightly here, being no scholar.

Melchizedek was stated as having no beginning or end, mother or father. Scripture simply didn’t record it. But Christ as God, literal here, did not have mother or father, beginning or end.

The Levites could only serve as priests because they alone refused to worship the golden calf. However, they were under time restraints, only able to minister between an age in their 30’s up to early 50’s. Melchizedek did not have age/time restrictions.

The Levites had to prove their lineage. Otherwise, they could not be priests.

The Levites were bound by the law. Melchizedek was not bound by the law. Christ came to fulfill the Law.

Melchizedek blessed Abraham and gave him offerings of bread and wine. Jesus offered us a new sacrifice, made from human hands and ordinary food…and through Him, became the elements of the sacrifice of bread and wine transformed into Him.

Thus Melchizedek is a prefigure of the coming High priesthood of Jesus Christ. The priest acts in the place of the Lord through the sacrament of holy orders. The Eucharist then becomes the first fruits of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
I think it’s interesting that St. Paul does not talk about Melchizedeks offering of bread and wine when he compares Jesus to him.

MJ
 
Bwtby said:
It was going good until it said ‘the Prophet Joseph Smith’. 🤷

Lol, thanks though! I appreciate it.
Click to expand...
I did mention “from the LDS perspective”…

Interesting reaction though…
If a Catholic says, Jesus is the Son of God, is it true?
What about if an LDS says, Jesus is the Son of God, does that then make it false?
🤷
 
Bwtby said:
No. The issue is this…
Click to expand...
No issue there.

It is a FULLER understanding by the mere fact that it provides more information - a LOT more - than what is given in the Holy Bible. It has nothing that contradicts the accounts of the Holy Bible and can pass scholarly scrutiny.

It is a better speculation than all the other posters here who think Melchizedek is Jesus as their own interpretation of the events of the Holy Bible.

Whether you accept it as true or not is a separate matter. But if you don’t find issue with whoever it was that said Melchizedek is Jesus, I don’t see why you would find issue with this explanation of who Melchizedek is.
 
rev·e·la·tion (rv-lshn)
n.

Theology A manifestation of divine will or truth.

revelation ˌrɛvəˈleɪʃən]
n

(Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) (Christian Religious Writings / Bible) Christianity
a. God’s disclosure of his own nature and his purpose for mankind, esp through the words of human intermediaries
Latter-day revelation from the Prophet Joseph Smith gives fuller understanding…
Click to expand...
 
Bwtby said:
rev·e·la·tion (rv-lshn)
n.

Theology A manifestation of divine will or truth.

revelation ˌrɛvəˈleɪʃən]
n

(Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) (Christian Religious Writings / Bible) Christianity
a. God’s disclosure of his own nature and his purpose for mankind, esp through the words of human intermediaries
Click to expand...
Yes. Revelation. God’s manifestation of truth to the human intermediary, Joseph Smith.

I don’t understand what your point is?
 
Bwtby said:
See, now we are where we started from. 🙂
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Because, you took issue to my answer of who is Melchizedek yet you didn’t take issue with the person who says Melchizedek is Jesus… both answers not present in the Holy Bible, Sacred Tradition, and Episcopacy.

As a matter of fact… none of the answers mentioned except for those quoting the Bible are present in the Holy Bible, Sacred Tradition, or Episcopacy. Because… there is no mention of him anywhere in the Catholic Church beyond those. Therefore, all you will get is speculation.

One speculation is as good as the other because I never said this is who Melchizedek is as the end all be all of truth… all I said is “this is who the LDS say he is”.
 
pinay said:
Not necessarily. Because, you took issue to my answer of who is Melchizedek yet you didn’t take issue with the person who says Melchizedek is Jesus… both answers not present in the Holy Bible, Sacred Tradition, and Episcopacy.

As a matter of fact… none of the answers mentioned except for those quoting the Bible are present in the Holy Bible, Sacred Tradition, or Episcopacy. Because… there is no mention of him anywhere in the Catholic Church beyond those. Therefore, all you will get is speculation.

One speculation is as good as the other.
Click to expand...
Because I wanted to hear fellow interpretations.

Not from somebody who claims God is talking to them ‘claiming’ they have the direct ‘truth’. 🙂

You follow? 😃
 
Bwtby said:
Because I wanted to hear fellow interpretations.

Not from somebody who claims God is talking to them ‘claiming’ they have the direct ‘truth’. 🙂

You follow? 😃
Click to expand...
No, I don’t follow… because you put it in the Non-Catholic forum…
🤷
 
He’s mentioned in Genesis, Psalms, and Hebrews. About 3 times in total. Do we really know anything about him beyond the example he displays in Hebrews? Not really. He’s just a mysterious guy who everyone would like to learn more about but we don’t really know.
 
Melchizedek was a prefigure to the coming of Christ as the fulfillment of true High Priest.

But it is truly Christ Who has no beginning or end. This means Christ is of God, of the same substance of God.

Christ is the acting agent of the Word Made Flesh. The Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father in Jesus Christ–through which the universe was made carnate through God’s will, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Heavenly Father and from Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit proceeded from Christ at Pentecost and did not ever turn around and go back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top