«Home

Melchisedec - Who Was This Man?

Hebrews 7:1-4

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God,  who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;  To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.  Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

I studied about this man a few months after i gave my heart to christ. I was asked to do this study as an assignment in my foundation school. I tell you, it will refresh you to understand who he is and the significance of your discovery will amaze you.

From what i got, He was no ordinary man. He had no father or mother nor was he from any natural descent. He had no beginnig  or end of life.

Most shocking is the fact that he was called,'King of Peace' whereas Jesus was refered to in the scriptures as the 'Prince of Peace'. (Isiah 9:6).

Well, let me give you some more clues that i got:

Matthew 1:18 - "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."   

Acts 13:33 - "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. "

Revelation 1:5 - "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead... "

Rom  8:11- "[i]But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the d[/i]ead dwell in you..."

My discovery gave me explanations as to who the forth man in the fire with shadrach, Meshach and Abednego was (Daniel 3:25); who the man Jacob wrestled with was (Gen 32:24); who the scriptures refered to as the Lord among the visitors that visited Abraham at his home (Gen 18); and who the scriptures refered to as the Angel of His Presence in Isaiah 63:9-10.

I think you can now deduce from the above clues, what my conclusion is  ...What is yours?

Avatar
Newbie
91 answers

I believe he is the Holy Spirit because no one has seen God himself, and it would be silly to be a high priest in ones own order.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hebrews 7:10 "For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him". So he had to be the Holy Spirit, for only GOD or the Spirit of GOD can know the spirit of the flesh before it is placed in the loins of it's father,and he new Levi in the spirit,before he was even manifested into the flesh. ALL PRAISE TO THE MOST HIGH GOD!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Melchisedec was Jesus in a priestly form.

Jesus was described as our high priest. Abraham payed his tithes to him, while the priesthood clan were still in his loins(The levites).

And that single action shows the elevation of Jesus over all human flesh.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I just want to give some food for thought and clear up this Question? First being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. Melchisedec was refereed to this way because first he was a King of Salem, second he was a Righteous King, and he was refer to as a king of peace because, he was a king. Actually a king of the Gentiles or Pagan people. Jesus was The son of God and his kingdom was not of this world but, of a heavenly world were the Father God Jehovah is that why Jesus was Called the prince of Peace. Because is the son of God. And he became everything to all Men Bond or free. He Is the ALfa and Omega The beginning and the end. Melchisedec righteousness on earth allowed him to have no begging and no end because look at the story of Moses. The scripture says he walked into heaven. Moses body or grave is not on earth. I feel the same for Melchisedec.

This is what the word and the holy spirit gave me. God Bless!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hello viaro,

I would appreciate if you can be my guest on my forum at http://www.mutualinterestsforum.com/ for more discussion.

Your impression about GOD is what you think as a sensible human being.Secondly i want you to recognise the fact that the 'senses'  i am referring to is a collective word and is more than the ordinary  five biological  senses you are made to believe.

0
Avatar
Newbie

No, I don't think so; but if that is 'god' for you, I have no problem with allowing you think that way. Yet, I don't agree at all with your statement that defines 'God' as representing "everything you can perceive with the aid of the senses".

Application to test your theory:

There are different senses - touch, smell, taste, hearing, sight, etc.

Take an example from these -

* mr A smells gas in his room and feels that a pipe is leaking

* mr B spilt his cup of tea on his trousers and felt the hot drink burn his skin

* mr C sees a shadow of a cat in the corridor as he came from his room

Now, could we say these are all the same things as 'God' for you, especially going by your definition? Was the gas in mr A's sense of smelling supposed to be his own 'god' as much as the shadow in mr C's case which he perceived with the sense of sight?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Nezan you are right. He actually 'plagarized' the good stuff and left out the crap.

First of all you have a suicidal god who is ever afraid to declare his divinity. Then we hear of another who is busy  collecting tithe up and down, calling himself a high priest.

I dont know whether to call this delusion of sheer idiocity

0
Avatar
Newbie

@nezan, You can say that again

0
Avatar
Newbie

@the _seeker; I think mohammed did not plagiarise the Melchizedec priesthood so you will not be familiar with it. May be he was dumbfunded with this man.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@the_seeker,

But does Islam teach you anything about Melchizedek? If the best you can do is make silly comments, it would be most pitiful indeed to wonder what your belief is doing to your system.

0
Avatar
Newbie

'remember when God will say (on day of resurrection,'O jesus , son of mary ! Remember my favour to you and your mother when I supported you with Ruhul Qudus (Gabriel), so that you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity and when i taught you writing , Al hikmah, the torah and the Gospel

and when you made out of the clay a figure like that of a bird, by My permission and you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission and you healed those born blind, and the lepers by My permission and when you brought forth the dead by My permission and when i restrained the children of Israel from you (when they resolved to kill you) as you came to them with clear proofs and the disbelievers amongst them said,'this is nothing but evident magic' Quran 5:110

0
Avatar
Newbie

It simply means Viaro does not know. The only sensible post I have seen from him. You see the benefit of not being so overtly emotional? You may actually be correct if you apply rationality.

0
Avatar
Newbie

In my opinion, No.

I'm not a literalist - but then, nobody's faith stands or falls with what I believe or how I personally interpret anything from the Bible.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Viaro. In your opinion should everything in the Bible be taken literally?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I did not accuse you, so please stop being unnecessarily reactive. The points I made are clear enough for anyone to read.

Just what is your subject matter - the glorification of your own importance about a passage you wrongly interpreted? Please.

Lol, sorry I'm not upset about anything. It matters absolutely nothing to me whatever your change of figuration, having first twisted the passage that Abraham then 'went to get blessings' as if that was predicted upon the slaughtering of kings.

Yea, you can yap all day long about non-essentials. The passage does not glorify war, you rather twisted it to mean it that way. Did you take the time to read the background of what had happened that led Abraham to that war? I guess not. While I would not glorify war, I would most certainly not apologise if I had to go to war to recover my own relatives. You can shout to the roof if it please you and then come back and yap to twist that to mean I would glorify war. If you never wanted to be dragged into a useless discussion, you didn't need to twist the passage to mean what it does not mean so that you can hoot about non-essentials.

I pointed out what you had misinterpreted - because your hasty conclusions were based on that. If that does not go down well with you, my apologies - and you're most certainly welcome to yap till break of day.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ Viaro,

Your accusations about drawing hasty conclusions is clearly unfounded. I base my conclusions on information provided.

i honestly do not understand your complaint, when you discuss with anyone you should understand the subject matter, that is the important points in the argument. The part you bolded is highly irrelevant to the discussion. You are upset because i said Abraham went to get blessings from high priest of God. I just do not want to be dragged into the argument of who went to meet who, it is completely irrelevant. but the passage says "who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings" So it shows both met on the way. but if it upsets you that i said Abraham went to meet Melchizedek, then i can accommodate Melchizedek traveling to Abraham's village to pay homage, it does not matter to me.

my grouse against the passage is the glorification of war, slaughter and plundering(spoils of war). I will forever never support such an action, whether by Jews, Christians or Muslims. I can never find justification for going to war against others just to kill their kings and plunder their belongings, not even if they are worshiping foreign gods. This was the same thing criminals like Alexander the Great, Hitler and Napoleon did to others, and we all condemn them.

Correct me if you did not call  Melchizedek prince of peace and at the same time you said he blessed Abraham who was returning from slaughtering kings, and collected his own tithes from the spoils. Why do you not correct my hasty conclusions instead of bringing out irrelevant issues of who met who.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I don't know if you do this as a special talent; but I'm beginning to wonder that you have a penchant for drawing hasty and often vacant conclusions upon your own misgivings. This is not a healthy way to discuss with anyone. But let me highlight a small problem with your assertion:

It seems the only part that you could have seen in your quoting Hebrews 7 is that part highlight earlier in your post - "slaughter of the kings". And without even giving considerations to anything at all, you jumped quickly to assert that Abraham "then went to get blessings".

Dear wirinet, just incase you're calling for attention, please observe - Abraham did not "went to"! You're reading a deliberate falsehood into the text. Rather, it is clear that it was Melchizedek who went out to meet Abraham! Here's the quote again -

"this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God,

who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings,"

It was Melchizedek who met Abraham returning, not the other way round. It's quite a sad event for people to chance upon just about anything in other people's beliefs and call unnecessary attention here and there when there is absolutely no need for such over-reactive dramas. In your case, you were declaring a "contradiction" when clearly it was you who had misread and contradicted the text.

Well, if those 'non Christians' have not been too busy deliberately contradicting themselves as you certainly did. One does not need an anointing or anything to see what you've done; then what was the substance in your attempts?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Christianity and its glaring contractions;

Abraham (a nomadic tribal king) went into war and slaughtered other kings, and then went to get blessings from the high priest of God (the king of Salem), and in appreciation Abraham gave a tenth of his spoils of war. Then in the same breath they would label the priest that blessed a slaughterer , a king of peace and elevate such a person to be Jesus Christ.

No wonder Christian Pastors collect tithes from armed robbers, corrupt govt. officials, Prostitutes, Yahoo yahoo boys, etc and bless them, and the pastors would be called righteous me.

It is a pity non Christians without the holy spirit in them cannot understand such contradictions.

0
Avatar
Newbie

melchedsec was shem,a very righteous man of God,and a Biblical "Type" of Christ.There are many extrabiblical works including the book of jasher,and from the jewish historian Flavious Josephus to name just a couple.There are also other ways to do a study on who this person was.It is well known in the scriptures and secular history that when a person in ages past would take his family,household,servants,flocks,etc.to another place or land,he would either name the place after his own name,his son's name,or after an event he or a family member experienced.when we look at the name "Jerusalem" which means :city of peace"/Heb: "yarushaliym",we see something. just follow the sound of the name,"shem","salem" or more pronounced "sha'lem" and the hebrew word for "peace","shalom"!,arabic "salam".Its really easy once you know what to do by God's leading.The reason melchesedic is not recorded in the bible as having a recorded family and such is because before the Aaronic Priesthood was established,there were no records of High Priests recorded.This is fact!.You must understand,righteous people all over the bible were in the position of High Priest,Adam in the garden was such,Abel was such,Seth another,and down the line it goes,however there was a special order of priesthood that would point to the prophecied messiah to come who would fulfill the "Type"that righteous Shem was and that was Jesus Himself.so,in a nutshel,there it is.all it takes is a true desire to know God and the various ways He has given us clues and do research."faith without action,is dead",nothing just falls into our laps,God expects us to seek,seek,and keep seeking for the information we are looking for with an honest heart for the knowledge he has placed in the bible,nature,hebrew traditions,extrabiblical works,both biblical and secular history,the bible code,hebrew names,biblical numbers,etc.Even the constallations(before man corrupted it into the zodiac)tell the story of man's salvation through Christ.again folks,God reveals His truth through many ways,its up to us to decide just how bad we want it.ask the Lord with hunger in your heart and a true desire and He will honor your request-"seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all this will be given to you". Just pray and ask.Hope this helped.

0
Avatar
Newbie

This is pure nonsence. Where does it say in the bible (buy-bill) that Melchisedec was the Holy Ghost?

This statement by Jesus "before Abraham was, I AM." was reference to the fact that Jesus was the reincarnation of Tammuz. Ezekiel 8: 14 and I quote "Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz."

Now why were woman weeping for Tammuz? Who was Tammuz you may wonder?

Tammuz was the Messiah of the Sumeria era, which predates christianity by over 50,000 thousand years.

And this was real life, there is evidence of this in more than one place, concrete evidence, not be[b]lie[/b]ve?

Jesus was the reincarnation of Tammuz, and was not Melchisedec.

This is not what the book of Hebrews in the New Testament of the bible says.

Try and be coherent, please apply sound reasoning, not be[b]lie[/b]f.

Don't believe me, check it up for yourself.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Ndipe

That's link you posted was mere religious propoganda.

There is no where in the bible where it states that Jesus is Melchisedec, nowhere.

You show me one place in the bible where it state that Jesus was Melchisedec?

Don't start to argue now, because our souls are searching for the truth.

And stay on point.

Where does it say in the bible the Jesus was Melchisedec?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Thank you loisamy,

@Lia

That is because he has the same attributes of that 'Angel of His presence',  the Holy Ghost, who manifests God's presence wherever that presence is needed. Remember Jesus said he will send Another comforter (Gk., meaning one of the same kind). They (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) are one remember?[

before Abraham was, I AM. He used the same Name that God (That same Angel of His presence) used when he spoke to Moses from the burning bush. That is why they picked up stones to kill him bc he equated himself with God. If what he meant was that he was alive on earth before Abraham, they could have just laughed it away calling him a mad man.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Malachizodok, is the ancient of days.

This is a seat, as in prime minister, director. That' s why the bible says he has no mother or father.

Malachi mean Angel, Zodok means rightousness. Malachizodok (in Hebrew) or Melchisedec (in the Greek).

When they were re-translating the Bible they left the name in Greek, hence you find in Genesis 14: 18 the Malachizodok, mentioned and refered to as the priest of the Most High God, not to be confused with God.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@peter

Having studied the man Melchisedec, you will see that he has virtually all the attributes of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I believe he's no other person than the Prince of Peace Himslf.

You could recall, that Jesus said, Before Abraham was I was.

I luv ur post but jst to correct u dat Jesus said before Abraham was, I am. Jesus did use past tense. Bible scholars have more to say about this.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The teacher of all teachers.

The master teacher.

Supreme being son of the supreme being, prince of Salem (peace).

All saluations and gratitude is due to the master teacher.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Backslider

So is the explanation u gave strong enough to qualify mine as 'false'? From where did u get that theology that prince is greater than king?

Jesus wasnt a Levi but ws John d baptist?

Do u remember the baptism of Jesus. Who laid hands on who?

God is a God of order and Jesus had to fulfil all righteousness by allowing John to lay hands on Him thereby tranfering the levetical priesthood.

What gave him the priesthood wasnt the robe he put on. He qualified to be a priest and our high priest through obedience and is functioning as such today. He is not still 'working for' the priesthood but is 'funtioning as' a priest for us today.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Quite interesting. Another interpretation is that Melchizedek is Shem because he "outlives all of the generations of his own son” (read it at BibleTruthOnline.com).

However, that theory of making Melchizedek into the same person as Shem is froth with problems. The theory cannot be established by similarities in pronunciation of names (shem, shalem, shalom, salam) - No. Waht about the similarity in the pronunciation of the name 'Shelah' (1 Chronicles 1:18)? We know that 'shelah' means 'a sprout' rather than assuming the meaning of 'peace' for shem.

A few questions need to be asked:

(a) In the first place, Hebrews 7:3 says that Melchizedek is without descent; but we know that the generation of Shem is recorded in the Bible. The first mention priesthood is not with Aaron, but with Melchizedek; so if anything at all, then certainly Aaron's priesthood would have been foreshadowed by such priesthoods as preceded his. Hebrews 9:9 makes clear that the Aaronic priesthood was a figure for the time then present; and as such, it cannot be used as the prism for all other concepts of priesthoods, priests, or high priests.

(b) Secondly, in the OT, Shem’s descent, genealogy or ancestry is recorded in several places, including Genesis 11:10ff; 1 Chron. 1:4, & 17; and Luke 3:36. Shem’s father is Noah (Gen. 5:32 & 6:10). But all these details clearly do not align with what is said regarding Melchizedek’s, who is said to have been without father or mother or descent in Heb. 7:3. The reason is not because of Aaron's high priesthood; rather, it was because Melchizedek enters the scene without a pedigree and also vanishes without anything being said about him for centuries until the Psalms. If we're looking at the same individual named Shem, then we would have to first answer the question of how he managed to have lived up until the generation of Abraham where Melchizedek appears to him as the priest of the most high God (Genesis 14). One cannot make such huge leaps to cover the wide gaps between these generations.

No, Shem is not Melchizedek. To make the connection between both individuals leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@topic

This is a false doctrine

Melchisedec was never God in any any form

He was the perfect Levitical priest without the Lineage of Levi and he was King of righteousness without any lineage to Judah.

Jesus was from the Tribe of Judah but was not from Levite

He had to hold the Scepter (which he did because he was by blood an heir to the Jewish throne ) and wear the priestly robe( he worked for this and still works) .

In Spiritual interpretation King is Less stronger than Prince but at times they could be used interchangeably

Prince is Higher Than King

0
Avatar
Newbie

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/who-was-melchizedek.html

0
Avatar
Newbie

[img]http://www2.gsu.edu/~phpgls/murdoq.jpg[/img]

0
Avatar
Newbie

Wow! Please bari_kade, go it easy with donnie. It may actually not be his fault because he might have been mis-taught.

@donnie, I think it would be of great help to prayerfully study the Word of God on your own to see if what your pastor is teaching is actually as the Bible teaches. This way, you will do yourself a whole world of good than merely trying to impress people with your church doctrine. Just my observation.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@donnie,

Actually, if you had got them right without wrongly interpreting 'Christ' as the Church, I'm sure no one would try to raise concerns. The Church didn't lose sight of the fact that "Jesus is the Christ" (John 20:31 and I John 5:1). Sadly, those who through Church history have attributed that appelation to the Church (or even to themselves) have had to face the challenge in I John 2:22 --

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?

He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."

Words cannot be clearer, donnie. The unfortunate thing in all this is that those denying the clear declaration of Scripture do not claim to be making such denials; but nonetheless, they do so in the way they interpret scripture to fit what God's Word does not teach! Not in one single verse is the Church ever called or addressed as "Christ".

I appreciate that; although the arguments from you so far have not been convincing to the point.

That may well be true; but then, if we can't find verses clearly teaching what we try to persuade others to believe, it might just as well be the better for us to not even push such ideas at all.

That is not even the issue here. Your trying to make the Church into what the Bible does not teach anywhere in its 66 books is the crux of the matter in the present discussion.

If the change you're propagating is to confuse the subject by far-fetched references, it won't work regardless the eisegesis.

The references were offered to point out that:

the Body is the Church

and the Head is Christ.

The Bible nowehere lends credence to the sad neo-classical heresy of referring to the Body as CHRIST! Think about it for a moment: would your interpretion of the following verse fit your idea?

'And hath put all things under his feet, and gave HIM to be the head over all things to the church

which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all'  --  Eph. 1:22-23.

There it is clear that CHRIST is Head over ALL things to the Church; and not the other way round as you stated. Your inference, if applied to that verse would go on to say that "the church is head over all things to the church" - and you know what school of heresy propounded that idea a few centuries ago.

Speaking of CHRIST, Col. 1:18 articulates that "HE (Christ) is the Head of the body, the church". It does not say that Christ is the Body; but that Christ is the HEAD!!  Again, "the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the church" (Eph. 5:23).

You will not find the Body called 'CHRIST' in any verse of the Bible; nor will you find Christ in any verse being called the Body! The Body is consistently called the Church; and Christ is consistently called the HEAD. Please don't try to continue your re-inventing of what is clearly declared in God's Word.

Your shakara will not work, because the texts you quoted (Eph. 5:30 and John 17) do not refer to you as "Jesus". That you are a member of His Body does not make you the Head either! Jesus Christ is the Head; we are members of His Body.

To touch you is not the same thing as touching the only begotten Son of God (John 1:18 and I John 4:9). You cannot place yourself as the very same One whom the Father sent into the world for us; nor are you the One who suffered and gave Himself for me on the Cross (Gal. 2:20). Most importantly, you're not the Apostle and High Priest of our Christian profession (Heb. 3:1 & 4:14); neither do I ask anything in your name, donnie (John 14:14).

We should be satisfied with what is declared in God's Word and not over-hallow yourself by misadventures that the Word of God never called you at all.

Cheers.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ricadelide,

I just tire for certain things we read coming from certain quarters. Only God go help us in our times.

@donnie,

Following on from my rejoinder yesterday, I took time to go back and study all the references you used in your arguments; and I'm sorry to say you've got them all muddled up.

Trying to make Jesus any less than Himself is a sad adventure. Was it not the same Paul who wrote to Timothy and used the term 'the man Christ Jesus'? "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim. 2:5).

Does anyone have to be acquainted with Jesus as "man" before such a person could understand that Jesus is the Christ? Then what about Apollos, of whom we read in Acts 18:28 that, "he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ"? I don't remember having read anywhere in Scripture that Apollos knew and related with 'the man Jesus as the other apostles did'.

Not only so, but the same Paul was well acquainted with the humanity of Jesus even though he was an apostle of late arrival among the other apostles. Long after his conversion, Paul was heard saying: "that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ" (Acts 17:3; see also ch. 18:5). This is consistent with what the other apostles who knew Jesus in their humanity declared in their epistles: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him" (I John 5:1).

There again, you got it wrong, donnie. The Holy Spirit is consistent in His manifestations, however He chooses to manifest Himself. So is the Father; as well the Son. If there is no consistency in the manifestations of the divine Persons of the Godhead, you would have an inconsistent body of doctrines which would otherwise further your flawed views.

Consistency does not contradict diversity. The manifestations of the Holy Spirit are diverse; but nonetheless, they are consistent. In the NT where the manifestations of the Holy Spirit are given, we read the confirmation of this point:

1 Cor. 12: (4) Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

(5) And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

(6) And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God

which worketh all in all. (7) But the manifestation of the Spirit is given

to every man to profit withal. - - -

(11) But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to

every man severally as he will.

When you read of the various manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the OT, you will find the same message of His being consistent. He does not contradict Himself in any way; though His manifestations may be diverse.

It is because many people have supposed that the Holy Spirit is not consistent in His manifestations, that is why they have allowed just about any type of supernatural manifestation into the Christian testimony and then called it the work of the Spirit.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Quote from Tayo D:

Thanks for taking the first step towards dispelling this error that donnie is propagating on these pages. I have always been fascinated and eventually heart broken by many men of God whose primary calling is evangelism, but are so eager to keep a following that they delve into the office of a teacher and the end result is error like this one. While I have not heard Pastor Chris teach on this subject, I am not too surprised that he has taken this view because he tends to emulate Benny Hinn a lot, and Benny Hinn's teaching is just totally wacko some times. The attention he gives to the person of the Holy Spirit goes way beyond what I see revealed in scriptures. I'll explain this further in my answers to donnie. Besides, this is not about Benny Hinn.

So you now assign ministries to men of God ? You are bold o! But i do not want to become as bold as you.

Quote from Tayo D:

I learnt very well from my Master Jesus. The testimony He received is that He taught as one having authority. He made categorical statements based on scriptural premises. That is more than I have seen you do so far.

Really?

Quote from Tayo D:

Please try to think about what you are saying a little bit. No one ever said the man Jesus was here in the O.T. As you rightly pointed out, the man Jesus was born by Mary in Bethlehem. The one who manifested in the O.T. is the One called the Son of God which the Bible testifies about in Micah 5:2 whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. To claim that Jesus (used loosley to mean the Word of God or the second member of the Godhead) was never manifested in the OT is the height of abysmal ignorance. While I intend to prove this more later on, I will first bring your attention to His manifestation in the Garden of Eden where He came to meet with Adam and Eve and they hid from Him. Genesis 3:8 - And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. Did you notice that it was the voice of God that was doing the walking? Who is the voice og God if not the Word of God - Jesus!

I'm not unaware of that manifestaion of the Word. You must understand that the Word of God is God. You do not seperate a man from his word. His words are a representation of his personality. If you heard my voice over the radio, will you say: Donnie's voice said so so and so? Will you not say: Donnie said? I agree that the voice of God was the Word of God and in fact God himself. But not the man Jesus. That voice was known from the beginning, by the prophets of old and by the angels. That was the voice they heard walking ( or talking) in the garden. They heard the voice but they saw no form.

Quote from Tayo D:

Now here you are making categorical statements without any scriptures to prove it. Will you please read in full John 1:18 I quoted earlier to see the entire picture.  John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.We are told here that no one has ever seen God in all His glory, but all the manifestations we see of Him is from no other but the Son who makes Him known. I will go into more depths on these different manifestations when I talk about Jesus calling Himself the "I AM" as Telly B mentioned earlier.

I do not think there is anything i have said that i cannnot prove with scripture. The Son was manifested in due time to show us the father. He was the express image of the father's person. But he promised to send us the Holy Spirit in His place who will hear from Him and show unto us. This Holy Spirit is the one on the earth today making the presence of the father and of Jesus real to the world.

Quote from Tayo D:

So? That does not mean He has ever been a manifestation of God in the physical which is the bone of contention here. Jesus also came from the Father which is the same thing as the phrase "proceedeth from the Father". John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. Now do you notice the word again in bold? What does that mean to you? Doesn't that tell you that He has been in the world before and was going back as a matter of habit? Again means this is not the first time I am doing this!

The scripture refering to the Holy Spirit as that which proceedeth from the Father cannot be used in the same way for Jesus because Jesus unlike the Holy Spirit proceeded once and is in heaven now. Take note of the term Proceedeth(proceeds) as used for the Holy Spirit.

Quote from Tayo D:

I just can't wait. I hope you will think through scriptures yourself and not come here to regurgitate that which you have been taught!

My friend, If enter in to unwholesome arguements. I only share that which i am a partaker of. I have no business discussing what i have not personally experienced bother I have been taught by God and by His teachers whom He hath annointed andappointed.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@HorusKuns,

We notice that up until this time your efforts to be deliberately dubious haven't caught on your expected public ovation. Melchizedek himself said this:

     'And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God,

     possessor of heaven and earth' (Gen. 14:19)

And again, it is said:

     'And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of my master Abraham, who hath

     not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way,

     the LORD led me to the house of my master's brethren. (Gen. 24:27)

By trying so hard to be dubious with the clear declarations of Scripture and cheating on language misadventures and wrong inferences, your labours will continue to be exercises in futility. No vex, but it doesn't take a Harvard education to see through your facade.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The bible is basically watered down versions of the Ancient Tamarean (falsely called ifriqia by the Arab (Hindu) invaders, which trhe Romans called Africa, which really means to separate or divide). The stories of the bible were taken from the writtens that pre-date the bible by hundred of thousands of years.

The story of the flood could be found in other cultures that pre-date the bible version by over 50,000 fifty thousand years. Where Noah was called Utnafishtim. You can check this up. Don't just accept what I'm saying.

Old yoruba scripture were taken from our fore father and watered down and became parts of the bible, the Ancient Sumerians, who were descendants of the Annunaki's (those who Anu sent from heaven to earth) was taken and plagarised and became your Genesis story (which really is refering to the Gene of Isis). This is how the Caucasian race gave themselves a present in world scripture, as the Ancient Tamareans, the Sumerians (Annunakis), Yoruba's, Chaldeans were black folks with thick lips, broad noses wolly hair. These were our ancestors they built the great pyramid and edifices you see in Egypt today.

Those people you see in Egypt today are invaders, Berber (Hindus) people who came in a perverted the meaning of those Statutes which are symbols of the Most Highs creation.

Isaiah 19 : 25

"whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my heritage."

This is why the Lord of host is saying Blessed by Egypt my people.

The Lord of host is not calling Israel his people, he is not calling Greek or Romans his people. He is calling TAMARE (which is the root of the word Oludu-ma-re). The Lord of host is calling our ancestors his people.

Why? , when this is thousands of years after the story of captivity of the Lying Jews in Egypt which took place in Exodus.

Hear what Yashua El Massiah say

Revelation 1 : 1

" 1: The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place" ,

Most christians today be[b]lie[/b]ve that Paul wrote the book of Revelation, no , Isa Al Masih wrote it according to Revelation 1 :1

Revelation 2 : 9

"9: "`I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. "

Revelation 3 : 9

"Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie -- behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you."

The question you lot need to ask yourselves is who are those people calling themselves Jews today and who are those people who worship in a synagogue?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Melchisedec not Just refering to a person , it is refering most to a seat (position). That is why the Melchisedec does not have mother or father.

Melchisedec was the priest of EL Elyown Elyown EL (The most High God).

Genesis 14 : 18

"And Mel-chiz'edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. "

If you notice the title priest of God Most High , up to this time Abram was serving the wrong God.

Yashua El Massiah (also known as Isa Al Masih) was also a member of the Ancient Mystic Order of Melchiz'edek

Hebrew 5 : 10

"being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek. "

All the major and minor prophets of the Torah namely Isaiah, Amos, Malachi, Elisha (El is my Salvation), Yonah, Yoel, Nahum etc,etc were all members of the Ancient and Mystical Order of Melchiz'edek.

Yashua El Massiah (Aka Jesus) was not the only member of this Ancient Priesthood, they were many members of the Ancient priesthood which still lives on today June 18 - 06 - 2007.

Hebrew 7 : 23

"The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office;"

Yashua was also a member of the Essenic brotherhood with was a branch of the order of Aaron (Ancient Egyptian Order).

Hebrew 7 : 11

"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[b] order of Aaron[/b]? "

The order of Melchiz'edek is grew out of Ancient Kemet (also known as Tamare falsely called Egypt by the Greeks) as the Order of Ma'at (Order, Justice and Truth).

0
Avatar
Newbie

No probs dude, see you there.

I have revived the original tithing thread, so as suggested, lets meet there. Apologies for any disruption or inconvenience caused to anyone by my digression.

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hi Tayo,

Whats up? Trust all is well. I also appreciate Bari-Kade's, input here and on other threads. But can't say that anything we did not discuss before or a new perspective has been raised. And I am no more persuaded that tithing mandatory or voluntary is edifying to a mature Christian walk.

You are reading "giving & recieving" as between the giver and God. That is at best debatable. It makes at least as much sense to read it as between giver and receiver. That is standard Pentecostal thinking, to always believe that giving engenders a multiplied return in kind. It is simply not bourne out by scripture or practice.

I think the above speaks to your second paragraph as well. Additionallty, please lets be careful in our approach to interpreting scripture. Did the Lord promise physical blessings with persecution? Then what happens to the "Lord makes rich and adds no sorrow". I see that exegesis as flawed on so many levels, not to mention that I think you've done the early Christians an injustice by ascribing a "give to get" motivation to them.

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

You miss my point, giving as I said is a grace. Tithing (mandatory) is an obligation. If you wish to make it incumbent on yourself and ritualise it, that's your choice, but there is nothing to suggest this in itself is something that demonstrates a increasing walk of faith.

And God loves a cheerful giver. Nothing about income streams or classifications. Simply give. Be it as a worship response, a need or to bless, just give. There is no need to be overly scholarly or spiritual.

First Abraham did not tithe out of anything God gave him.

Second the NT makes it clear that one's first priority is to provide for their family. Subscribing to some tithing or blessing the man of God notion while your family go without is a clear sign of self-enforced religious obligation.

Giving is a grace. An outworking of a walk of faith and maturing Christianity.

I hate to say this, but the main emphasis of Abrahams life was his faith. There is nothing to suggest that we are to live by his every action. How about marrying one's sister? Or lying about it? Why not insist on concubinage for NT Xtians?

For the umpteenth time, Christians simply give, as the Lords exhortation clearly stated. The attempts to classify giving (and then calling tithing giving), assign different types and levels of rewards is at best over-scholarly and over spiritual (religious & ritualistic). At worst it's a sly way to keep the tithing bondage going by claiming it's not mandatory, but there are benefits if you do so. Sorry mate, it simply doesn't wash.

Not on any type, just on any instance or simply the fact that you do. The taxonomy of giving is of the fertile imagination of those who insist on it. The only things are relevence are how cheerful and the degree (how sacrificially). No income streams!

It was a demonstration of faith, but more pertinent an acknowledgement of the superiority of Melchisedeks priesthood.

No one said what Abraham did was a work, you are trying to make it one. And it's a lack of faith that leads one to ritual.

All I asked was how are tithes to be used? Could you outline or direct me to this NT principle of tithe use.

Your idea that I give to you whilst humerous, does suggest that you - maybe unwittingly - subscribe to the notion that giving is primarily to benefit, rather than a worship response

Again, please outline what the NT says about tithing. Giving is distinct. If voluntary then the distinction is pointless if mandatory your are back on tax/tribute territory. And whatever, I 'd still appreciate your showing NT direction for the use of tithes.

Not against it per se, but against those who would try and sell it as across-board beneficial or required NT Christian practice.

Nice attempt to skirt the main question. How does tithing dove-tail with an "all things in common" attitude?

If you do not legislate, perhaps you'd care to explain the difference between tithing and other types of giving, and the need for a distinction if tithing is giving and not mandatory. Upfront I'd say the only reason to distinguish tithes is because you ascribe something to the act (although you keep trying to pass it off as a response).

God as love is all about people and their need. It's the whole point. Disdaining human need and responsibility in an effort to sound super-spiritual leads nicely to the point about pharisees tithing herbs, but overlooking love, justice and mercy. Responding to human need is a worship response. The Macedonians fully well realised that.

Christianity is not about doctrinal excellence, academic rigour or scholarly depth, its about practial day to day Christian living, loving the Lord and your neighbour as yourself. It's not about knowledge, it's about love.

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

@topic,

I am still waiting to hear from donnie so we can sort out the personality of this man called Melchizedek!

0
Avatar
Newbie

@bari_kade,

Thanks for breathing some fresh air into this issue of tithing. While I have disagreed with TV01 regarding this issue, no doubt he has enriched my knowledge through the process as well. Having said that, I am glad you guys have now "carry go" this discussion to the right forum.

@TV01,

I just want to respond to an issue you raised which bari_kade already dealt with as well. Phillipians 4:5 - Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. It is obvious that Paul and the Phillipians expect God's response each time they give. Giving can not be separated from receiving except one is not interested in going through the entire cycle. When you sow, you will reap, when you give you will receive, when you lend to God, He will repay you and when you cast your bread on the waters, you will find it after many days. These are biblical principles that bear eloquent testimony that expecting God to respond to our giving is just doing what the Bible says.

This I believe was a big motivation for the early Christians who sold their lands for the benefit of the church. Jesus already promised them multiple of that in return here in this lifetime! Matthew 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, 30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. These disciples knew that you can't beat God at giving. The more they gave, the more they received.

0
Avatar
Newbie

fact !

the story of jacob and the tenth "offering" is another mis-used verse to support the "tithe" as both accounts talk about people GIVING or OFFERING this to god and NOT as a condition. infact jacob (i love this guy) goes as far as to say that he will ONLY give the tenth IF god protects his journey, etc. so that is totally different to how its used today to defend the tithe.

as i believe in the various administrations, i look at the administration i am in and what applies to me and the church. based on this, i have come to the conclusion that i hold on to.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hi Bari-Kade,

I know you are chewing on this particular issue at the moment and I know that we are all still learning, but a few more points.

I appreciate the stance on "various types of giving", But I see it from another perspective. Giving is in response, primarily to need or a desire to bless. I see no need to classify or categorise giving, but neither do I don't deny others the right to do so. In any event, I don't see this as core to a discussion on mandatory tithing for NT Christians. I also fail to see how over 27 pages of discussion boils down to this 1 point? If I recall, TayoD likewise refused to budge from a point of "priests offer gifts and tithe = gift, therefore NT Xtians must tithe". If you want to equate the tithe with a type of giving, my personal opinion is that connection is at best tenuous, as a tax, tribute or madatory tithe is not the same as giving.

I also (and quite fondly) remember my discussion with Syrup about "theocracy". I appreciate that the discussion cleared up the difference b/w ecclessiocracy and theocracy, which I failed to distinguish when posting. Again this was not pivotal to the discussion and Syrup agreed that there is no mandatory tithe for NT Xtians. We also concurred that a NT Christian choosing to tithe is another matter entirely. To make a tithe mandatory makes it no difference to a tax or tribute. And as we know, Kings only take tribute from strangers, not their sons.

I trust we all are, but there are only 3 positions really. Yes, no or undecided. Most proponents of tithing can wheel out anecdotal evidence to suggest it "works". And at best that's just what an enforced tithe is, a work. I humbly submit that there is nothing scriptural to attest to this. I could similarly testify that tithing made no difference to my walk (except in a negative sense). To which I'd expect the well worn rejoinders of "not doing it right", "heart not right", "sin" or some other of the type I've heard severally, which only point it back to being a work

Feel free to presume that a amndatory tithe =/= tribute, but can it really be anything else?

It's not an idea that it was common practice, it's a fact. My introducing this was not to argue against it, merely for background knowledge and for a full discussion.

Accepted. WhatI believe God's word teaches is that NT Christians give in response to need (or to bless). But as ever, I am happy to hear other submissions, attested to by scripture of course.

Your interplay from a to c is at best debatable. Abrahams response is no where testified as something incumbent on NT believers or integral to the priesthood. He voluntarily/by freewill GAVE! Nothing divinely ordained or mandated, and as you clearly stated demanded or requested.

I stated clearly that tribute in the form of a tithe (tenth) was paid to the warlord or PRIEST. I don't think it's hard or would be considered tenuous for anyone to make the leap from warlord to king. Niether did I infer that Abraham was paying tribute. That would be counter-intuitive to my point above.

As ever I appreciate your contributions. I was hoping to advance the discussion in that main thread, to considering the practical application and outworking of a "mandatory tithe" for NT Christians.

Given the universal priesthood of all believers (with The Lord as High Priest), would you have any suggestions as to what it represents it's significance, and  how it should be correctly/scripturally done?

Thanks for your time.

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

Bara_kade,

I don't argue against tithing what I argue against is the very convenient idea that tithing came before the Law so this was not abolished. I like to point out that a lot of the parts of the Law came before the Law and so to be consistent these same people who so badly want your tithes should be arguing that we are subjected to far more than tithing, if it is based on something being before the law.

This may help you with your concern about priesthood and tithes and Jesus Christ:

Heb 8:4 For if indeed He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the Law,

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hi Bari-Kade,

Whilst I wouldn't want to ascribe anything to you, if as you claim, you are persuaded that the arguments against a mandatory tithe for NT Chritians are weak, does that mean you are more in favour at this point? And would you be so kind as to outline your thoughts vis-a-viz the following;

~ Whether you followed or have read the main discussion on this forum?

~ Your thoughts on the weaknesses against and the strengths for.

~ And possibly more interesting to me, your thoughts on the outworking and practicality of a

tithe for NT Christians with of course reference to your linking tithing to priesthood.

In response to the "simplicity" of Abraham's act in offering tithe, I'd like to point out (and you may well be aware) that tithing was extant long before Abraham, and is recorded as being practised by communities in the region both before, and up to the time of Abraham. It was common practice and a form of tribute to the most senior warlord and/or priest in a region.

Hope your study of the subject shed's light. Be sure to share with your peeps on NL.

Hi Dru,

Not right your taking off without so much as a "by your leave". Good to hear your voice again. I trust you are well.

Now where's Trini?

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

Dear Drusilla,

I have no worries with anyone who argues against tithing, as far as that is their persuasion; but from what I've read of them, I'm more inclined to the persuasion that most of the arguments against it are weak.

As regards this very subject, the core question of my concerns are not about dietary laws, etc. Rather, it is here more about PRIESTHOOD and TITHES - both made in reference to the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Bari-Kade,

Also do look up "clean and unclean" animals on Noah's ark. If Abraham's tithing before the law was given is a sign that tithing is for NT believers. Then surely Noah's knowing what was an clean or unclean animal is a sign that the dietary laws in regards to clean and unclean were in effect also long before the law.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Interesting point you just brought up, my dear bari_kade. Interesting point.

0
Avatar
Newbie

It is true that Melchizedek did not ask Abraham for tithes; but the patriarch did so in simplicity. Which makes me wonder at the mystery of how he came to that understanding; noting that the first time priesthood and tithes are specifically mentioned in the Bible are in reference to Melchizedek - whose priesthood prefigures that of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Many people have their persuasions as to tithing not being a practice for NT believers; but I'm still studying this subject with reference to the priesthood of Melchizedek as a figure of the priesthood of our Lord.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.