Rejecting Hebrews?

Higher Truth

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2002
962
11
✟1,257.00
Faith
Messianic
[font=Times New Roman, serif]Since the book of Hebrews was originally authored in Greek, I decided to review some other Greek writings from the era that might have information concerning the Greek word in question. I reviewed the Greek LXX, and found that the same word that is translated as censer in Hebrews 9:4, can be found in the Septuagint in the following verses:[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, serif]Ezekiel 8:11[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, serif]2 Chronicles 26:19[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, serif]In both passages, the Greek word thumiasterion (G2369) is used as censer. Thumiasterion is used as the equivalent for the Hebrew miqtereth (H4730) in both passages. What is really of interest, is that 2 Chronicles 26:19 differentiates between the censer and the incense altar or mizbach (H4196) by using the Greek word thusiasterion (G2379) for altar.

Here is how the KJV translated the Hebrew:
[/font]



[font=Times New Roman, serif]2 Chronicles 26 [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, serif]19 Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the LORD, from beside the incense altar.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, serif]Ezekiel 8 [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, serif]11And there stood before them seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel, and in the midst of them stood Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan, with every man his censer in his hand; and a thick cloud of incense went up.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, serif]Now the LXX:[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, serif]2 Chronicles 26 [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, serif]19 And Ozias was angry, and in his hand [was] the censer to burn incense in the temple: and when he was angry with the priests, then the leprosy rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, over the altar of incense. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, serif]Here is the Greek:[/font]


[font=Arial, sans-serif]19 kai eyumwyh oziav kai en th ceiri autou to yumiathrion tou yumiasai en tw naw kai en tw yumwyhnai auton prov touv iereiv kai h lepra aneteilen en tw metwpw autou enantion twn ierewn en oikw kuriou epanw tou yusiasthriou twn yumiamatwn[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, serif]Ezekiel 8[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, serif]11 And seventy men of the elders of the house of Israel, and Jechonias the son of Saphan stood in their presence in the midst of them, and each one held his censer in his hand; and the smoke of the incense went up. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, serif]Here is the Greek:[/font]

[font=Arial, sans-serif]11 kai ebdomhkonta andrev ek twn presbuterwn oikou israhl kai iezoniav o tou safan en mesw autwn eisthkei pro proswpou autwn kai ekastov yumiathrion autou eicen en th ceiri kai h atmiv tou yumiamatov anebainen [/font]




[font=Times New Roman, Times]
[/font]
 
Upvote 0

Higher Truth

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2002
962
11
✟1,257.00
Faith
Messianic
[font=Times New Roman, serif]I also decided to reference the first century writings of Flavius Josephus. Here is an excerpt from one such writing:[/font]


[font=Times New Roman, serif]Against Apion book 2[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, serif]Lastly, it is not so much as lawful to carry any vessel into the holy house; nor is there any thing therein, but the altar [of incense], the table [of shew-bread], the censer, and the candlestick, which are all written in the law;[/font]


[font=Times New Roman, serif]This particular writing by Josephus, who was a chronicler for the Roman empire was available in Latin. Here is the Latin text below.[/font]

[font=Arial, sans-serif]denique[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]nec[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif] uas [/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]aliquod[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]portari[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]licet[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]in[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]templum[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif], [/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]sed[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]erant[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]in[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]eo[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]solummodo[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]posita[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]altare[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]mensa[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]turibulum[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]candelabrum[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif], [/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]quae[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]omnia[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]et[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]in[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]lege[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]conscripta[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]sunt[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif].[/font]


[font=Times New Roman, serif]It is interesting to note, that Josephus was a Jew familiar with temple service,[/font][font=Times New Roman, serif]and originally wrote this in the first century. When translated to Latin, they chose the Latin word [/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]turibulum [/font][font=Times New Roman, serif]to represent censer. It is the same word that is used in the Latin Vulgate which was translated from ancient Latin and Greek texts in 385 ce. Its definition is an incense-pan, incense-burner, censer. If you go to Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, [/font][font=Times New Roman, serif]A Latin Dictionary, you will find that the equivalent word in Greek is thumiaterion, [/font][font=Times New Roman, serif]which is the same Greek word that is used in Hebrews 9:4 to describe the censer.[/font]


[font=Times New Roman, serif]Here is the link so that you may view this page:[/font]


[font=Arial, sans-serif]http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2348270[/font]


It is also interesting to note, that while translating the Latin Vulgate, Jerome was consistent in the word that he chose for censer, turibulum , whether translating from the Hebrew, or the Greek. Here are some TeNaKh verses where he chose the same word for censer.

Leviticus, chapter 10, verse 1

Leviticus, chapter 16, verse 12

Numbers, chapter 16, verse 6

Numbers, chapter 16, verse 17

Numbers, chapter 16, verse 37

Numbers, chapter 16, verse 39

Numbers, chapter 16, verse 46

1 Kings, chapter 7, verse 50

2 Kings, chapter 12, verse 13

2 Kings, chapter 25, verse 15

Ezekiel, chapter 8, verse 11

2 Chronicles, chapter 4, verse 22

2 Chronicles, chapter 26, verse 19

And also including in the NT...

Hebrews, chapter 9, verse 4
 
Upvote 0

Higher Truth

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2002
962
11
✟1,257.00
Faith
Messianic
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Here is a comparison between the TeNaKh (OT) and the New Testament that should be of particular interest:[/font]

The Contents of the Ark

First the Torah:

Exodus 16

32 And Moses said, This is the thing which YHWH has commanded, Fill an omer from it, to keep for your generations, so that they may see the bread which I caused you to eat in the wilderness, as I brought you out from the land of Egypt.

33 And Moses said to Aaron, Take one pitcher, and put there the fullness of an omer of manna, and lay it up before YHWH, to keep for your generations.

34 Even as YHWH commanded Moses, Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to keep it.

Numbers 17

9 And Moses brought out all the rods from before YHWH to all the sons of Israel. And they looked, and each one took his rod.

10 And YHWH said to Moses, Put back the rod of Aaron, before the testimony, to be kept as a token to the sons of rebellion. And you shall end their murmurings off Me; and they shall not die.

Now the Prophets:

1 Kings 8

9 Nothing was in the ark, only the two tables of stone which Moses put there in Horeb, when YHWH cut a covenant with the sons of Israel as they went out of the land of Egypt.

Now the New Testament:

Hebrews 9

4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein [was] the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

[font=Times New Roman, Times]So which one should we remove from the canon? The first three passages do not list all of the articles in the Ark of the Covenant. 1 Kings states that there was ONLY the tables. Hebrews 9:4 is the passage that list all of the contents of the Ark correctly. This is an example of how any argument based on a minor point can be taken to an extreme.[/font]


[font=Times New Roman, Times]As we can see from the many witnesses listed above, we can determine the reliability of the word that is used in Hebrews 9:4, and be certain that the rendering of censer, is in fact accurate.[/font]
 
Upvote 0

simchat_torah

Got Torah?
Feb 23, 2003
7,345
433
45
San Francisco, CA
Visit site
✟9,917.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Sometimes I wish Protestants had kept Tobit...which presents the cultural values of keeping Gemilut Hasadim.

I always loved Jasher personally ;)

I imagine that the statement by S_T was something like this:

Torah > Nevi'im > Ketuvim > Other Writings


Sure, if you want to simplify it to the point that anyone can understand it. :D :p
uhh, yeah, what he said ;)

I guess I can be a bit wordy at times, or even convoluted. I could give the whole "levels" of inspiration shindig all over again, or you could search the forum and repost it. *shrugs* Or let it all slide and call it a day. Whatever the mods want to let me get away with.

hehe.


-Yafet
 
Upvote 0

Yahudim

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic
Supporter
Sep 30, 2004
3,876
541
Deep in the Heart of Texas
✟129,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, for SOME of you, then this is how this works?:
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is only MARGINALLY inspired and
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is only PARTIALLY inspired and
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is MOSTLY inspired and
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is COMPLETELY inspired
Perhaps the word inspired isn't what you have in mind. Let's try trustworthy:
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is only MARGINALLY trustworthy and
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is only PARTIALLY trustworthy and
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is MOSTLY trustworthy and
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is COMPLETELY trustworthy
I suppose (for you) that's because the Father revealed things in a more COMPLETE (read face to face) manner to Moshe and therefore, that those passages carry more weight than another. Why aren't these erudite observations included in the ancient rules of PaRDeS?

What is the progression again?
Torah > Nevi'im > Ketuvim > Other Writings. I guess this lumps the Brit Chadashah in with the books of Enoch, Adam and Eve and Jasher. I suppose, according to SOME of you, that Gabriel can't be trusted when revealing truths to Daniel about his dreams or the Holy Spirit when revealing the Father's message in a vision to one of His chosen Prophets. Or maybe we can only partially trust those words. No wonder Saul, a self described "pharisee of pharisees", tried to clarify the concept for his dear friend Timothy. He wrote in a letter:

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I am encouraged that Rabbi Yeshua ben Yoseph HaMeshiach, when quoting or paraphrasing scripture and teaching Torah, made no such distinction. It should be noted here by all that He is my final authority on scripture and doctrine. I understand the concept that some scripture is elevated over other scripture... and by whom. I just don't buy it.
 
Upvote 0

koilias

Ancient Hassid in the making
Aug 16, 2003
988
44
51
Cambridge MA
Visit site
✟1,388.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
talmidim said:
Well, for SOME of you, then this is how this works?:
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is only MARGINALLY inspired and
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is only PARTIALLY inspired and
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is MOSTLY inspired and
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is COMPLETELY inspired
Perhaps the word inspired isn't what you have in mind. Let's try trustworthy:
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is only MARGINALLY trustworthy and
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is only PARTIALLY trustworthy and
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is MOSTLY trustworthy and
  • SOME part of the Word of G-d is COMPLETELY trustworthy
Inspiration and trustworthiness are not the issue, Talmidim. They are assumed for each level. I'd encourage you to talk with Chockmah.
 
Upvote 0

Yahudim

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic
Supporter
Sep 30, 2004
3,876
541
Deep in the Heart of Texas
✟129,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
koilias said:
Inspiration and trustworthiness are not the issue, Talmidim. They are assumed for each level. I'd encourage you to talk with Chockmah.
What are the issues?
 
Upvote 0

koilias

Ancient Hassid in the making
Aug 16, 2003
988
44
51
Cambridge MA
Visit site
✟1,388.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
talmidim said:
What are the issues?

For "inspiration" and "trustworthiness" of a halakhic/midrashic writing, as far as levels of completeness or reliability thereof are concerned, I would say such distinctions are not made ever in Jewish discourse. I would there say that it is a notion completely absent from the first century Jewish mind (and Rabbinic thinking in general). There is always inspiration and trustworthiness in the discussions of the sages and in the transmission of tradition. More reliable though is your training (discipleship), your humility, and your ethical grounding (knowing what's important and what is less so)...in particular any thing which concerns your treatment of others. The new wineskins are prepared first with these basic things.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yahudim

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic
Supporter
Sep 30, 2004
3,876
541
Deep in the Heart of Texas
✟129,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Shalom koilias,

Thank you for responding to my query. When you gave your advice that I participate in a discourse with a non believer on the subject on the "levels of inspiration and trustworthiness", I was puzzled as to why. After reading your explanation I am even more puzzled - then saddened and finally put off.

I have always respected you and your intellect. This is why I rose to the bait. I am sorry to say that I am disappointed with your position and sentiment. I, for one, do not accept the "Jewishness is next to godliness" position that seems to be offered in some circles. We are one, Jew and Gentile in Messiah. I will accept no other doctrine.

You said:
koilias said:
For "inspiration" and "trustworthiness" of a halakhic/midrashic writing, as far as levels of completeness or reliability thereof are concerned, I would say such distinctions are not made ever in Jewish discourse. I would there say that it is a notion completely absent from the first century Jewish mind (and Rabbinic thinking in general).
First of all, your prolific verbiage is misleading. You should speak plainly. You are responding with "halakhic/midrashic writing" when I WAS TALKING ABOUT CANON. The two are distinctly different, even according to first century writings. Your attempt to answer one with the other would be called "bait and switch" in any other venue.


May I assume that you still subscribe to the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef HaMeshiach? He had a great deal to impart about the difference between His word and the "traditions" of the rabbis. I hope and pray that you haven't strayed too far from His teachings.


First you confuse what I said about CANON with your explanation about "halakhic/midrashic writing". What you do next is astonishing! You said:
There is always inspiration and trustworthiness in the discussions of the sages and in the transmission of tradition. More reliable though is your training (discipleship), your humility, and your ethical grounding (knowing what's important and what is less so)...in particular any thing which concerns your treatment of others. The new wineskins are prepared first with these basic things.
Here you further your smoke and mirrors response by implying that the "halakhic/midrashic writing" of the "sages" are somehow raised to a level of "inspiration and trustworthiness", as if they themselves were elevated to the level of scripture. THIS IS NOT TRUE. TORAH, NEVI'IM, KETUVIM AND THE TEACHINGS OF YESHUA ARE THE WORDS OF G-D, VIA HIS RUACH HAKODESH, NOT THE WORDS OF MOSHE OR ANY OTHER MAN.

Finally, what you say next is most disturbing to me. Yes, I agree that we are to be judged by the fruit that we produce. But, you seem to forget that we, as followers of Yeshua, are not to seek the title of "Rabbi", call any man "father" or seek the approval of any man. These are His words, not mine.

We are to fellowship with those that show themselves to be followers of His teachings, study His word and be led by His Spirit. Anything else is a lie, an abomination before Him and runs contrary to His teachings.

Finally, I wish to say this:
  • I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE "FENCE LAWS" OF THE RABBIS. THEY ADD TO AND TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORD OF G-D.
  • THE "HALAKHIC/MIDRASHIC WRITING" OF THE "SAGES" ARE SUITABLE FOR CONTEXTUAL REFERENCE AND THAT IS ALL. THEY ADD TO AND TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORD OF G-D.
  • I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT ACCEPT THAT SOME SCRIPTURE IS MORE INSPIRED THAN OTHERS.
  • I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT ACCEPT THAT THE "HALAKHIC/MIDRASHIC WRITING" OF THE "SAGES" ARE RAISED TO ANY LEVEL APPROACHING THAT OF SCRIPTURE.
I NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL.

I am subject to my Father in heaven, my L-rd, Yeshua HaMeshiach, His Word and His Spirit and no other. If some of you find that I do not produce fruit worthy of His teachings, you are free to admonish me according to the instruction found at Matt 18:15. If you however, address me with public opinions contrary to His teachings, expect that I will respond with His truth, to the best of my ability. It is not my intention to offend. Only to clarify what I see as His truth. May His blessings rest upon you and yours.
 
Upvote 0

koilias

Ancient Hassid in the making
Aug 16, 2003
988
44
51
Cambridge MA
Visit site
✟1,388.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
chokmah said:
Koilias:

Would you agree that Torah stands supreme in authority to the rest of Scripture and Jewish literature?

Yes, and all discussion about the meaning stands it up. So book of Hebrews stands up Torah. Both are important.

In regards to your claims, Talmidim, I should clarify that I regard the book of Hebrews to be a halakhic and midrashic writing.

The final authority in regards to interpretation and application of Torah rests with the sages. Yeshua came to stand up Torah. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven." Not the other way around.
 
Upvote 0

Yahudim

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic
Supporter
Sep 30, 2004
3,876
541
Deep in the Heart of Texas
✟129,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The final authority in regards to interpretation and application of Torah rests with Yeshua. Not the other way around.

Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Kefa and Yochanan, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled. They recognized that they had been with Yeshua.
 
Upvote 0
C

chokmah

Guest
koilias said:
For "inspiration" and "trustworthiness" of a halakhic/midrashic writing, as far as levels of completeness or reliability thereof are concerned, I would say such distinctions are not made ever in Jewish discourse. I would there say that it is a notion completely absent from the first century Jewish mind (and Rabbinic thinking in general). There is always inspiration and trustworthiness in the discussions of the sages and in the transmission of tradition. More reliable though is your training (discipleship), your humility, and your ethical grounding (knowing what's important and what is less so)...in particular any thing which concerns your treatment of others. The new wineskins are prepared first with these basic things.


koilias said:
Yes, and all discussion about the meaning stands it up. So book of Hebrews stands up Torah. Both are important.

In regards to your claims, Talmidim, I should clarify that I regard the book of Hebrews to be a halakhic and midrashic writing.

The final authority in regards to interpretation and application of Torah rests with the sages. Yeshua came to stand up Torah. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven." Not the other way around.

Shalom Koilias:

In the two posts above, you use "halakhic/midrashic" and "halakhic and midrashic". I'm not familiar with throwing the two together in either fashion, and I wanted to ask: when you write that are you inferring that they are interchangeable?

Btw, I liked what other things you had to say.

My empathies.

chokmah
 
Upvote 0

koilias

Ancient Hassid in the making
Aug 16, 2003
988
44
51
Cambridge MA
Visit site
✟1,388.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
chokmah said:
[/color][/color][/size][/font]



In the two posts above, you use "halakhic/midrashic" and "halakhic and midrashic". I'm not familiar with throwing the two together in either fashion, and I wanted to ask: when you write that are you inferring that they are interchangeable?

Shalom Chokmah,

The Epistles of the New Testament are forms of writing which contain a mixture of halakha and midrash. They are not interchangeable in most Rabbinic writing, I agree. The book of Hebrews engages mainly in midrash. I would not consider it Halakhic in the strict sense...although it is placing the obligations of the high priest unto Yeshua (and boy is that fraught with questions;) ).

Cheers,

Eric
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

koilias

Ancient Hassid in the making
Aug 16, 2003
988
44
51
Cambridge MA
Visit site
✟1,388.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
talmidim said:
The final authority in regards to interpretation and application of Torah rests with Yeshua. Not the other way around.

Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Kefa and Yochanan, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled. They recognized that they had been with Yeshua.

And Yeshua placed it on us.:)
 
Upvote 0
C

chokmah

Guest
koilias said:
Shalom Chokmah,

The Epistles of the New Testament are forms of writing which contain a mixture of halakha and midrash. They are not interchangeable in most Rabbinic writing, I agree. The book of Hebrews engages mainly in midrash.

Thanks for the clarification.

koilias said:
I would not consider it Halakhic in the strict sense...although it is placing the obligations of the high priest unto Yeshua (and boy is that fraught with questions;) ).

Cheers,

Eric

LOL!
 
Upvote 0

Yovel

Regular Member
Oct 4, 2005
319
10
Norman, Oklahoma USA
✟15,516.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
I have been reading Hebrews and looking at all the times the author talks about Melchizedek. In the Tanak, Melchizedek is only mentioned twice. Once in Gen 14:10 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. The second time is in Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

The Author of Hebrews mentions Melchizedek nine times. There is something strange that he says in Heb 7:1-3. 1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 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; 3 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.

In the third verse it sounds like he is saying Melchizedek is G-D. That is weird because this is not mentioned of this anywhere else in the Bible.

Any Thoughts?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
C

chokmah

Guest
Yovel said:
I have been reading Hebrews and looking at all the times the author talks about Melchizedek. In the Tanak, Melchizedek is only mentioned twice. Once in Gen 14:10 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. The second time is in Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

The Author of Hebrews mentions Melchizedek nine times. There is something strange that he says in Heb 7:1-3. 1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 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; 3 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.

In the third verse it sounds like he is saying Melchizedek is G-D. That is weird because this is not mentioned of this anywhere else in the Bible.

Any Thoughts?
Yovel:

I find Malki-tzedek to be a very interesting character.

Did you know that the name Malki-tzedek means "righteous king"?
Also, did you know that Jewish tradition holds that Malki-tzedek was actually Shem, Noah's son?

I pass this on, because when I found out - it really struck me strongly.

Have a pleasant day.
 
Upvote 0