LDS Mormons faux Melchizedek

Christian Apologist

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 21, 2019
484
120
77
Vancouver Washington
Visit site
✟155,046.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So you're presuming that anything which disagrees with your arguments must automatically be incorrect?

Do you have anything which can prove this?

My beliefs is based on the Bible
 
Upvote 0

wheatpenny

Quaker/Independent Catholic (dual affiliation)
Supporter
Jul 3, 2017
41
49
61
York, Pennsylvania
✟61,149.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Bible actually says that Melchizidek was not Jesus. Hebrews 7:3 says Melchizidek was "made like the Son of God". Note that it says "Like the Son of God", meaning that he was not the Son of God, but like Him.
 
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Do you the difference between incarnation and reincarnation ?

Hebrews 9:27 condemns baptism for the dead why did you quote it ?
We do not believe that Melchizedek was the incarnate Jesus Christ, nor do we believe that Hebrews 9:27 condemns baptism for the dead. There will be a judgment eventually.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacobKStarkey
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Just the Mormons---who believe that we all existed before being born and have to be reincarnated as humans in order to learn how to resist temptation.
Jesus was God, Melchizedek, The Son---and this one will get everyone uposet---He had one other title also, (which is not what this thread is about so don't get on your bandwagon about it and derail!) He was also, Michael.
Pre=existence is not reincarnation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacobKStarkey
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
OH, BOY---:blush1:now I've done it! I went by memory instead of verifying my info---I take it back!!!
The statement I confused was that Jesus spoke through Melchizedek as His priest. I remembered it as He was Jesus---I humbly apologize--crow tastes horrible---too many feathers.
 
Upvote 0

gideon123

Humble Servant of God
Dec 25, 2011
1,185
583
USA
✟59,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is nothing in the Bible that teaches that Jesus was Melchizadek. That is faulty teaching, completely erroneous. The idea is contradicted by the Book of John, Chapter 1.

Those who seek to propagate the faulty interpretation involving Melchizadek ... usually also seek to corrupt the translation of the initial verses in the Book of John as well.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacobKStarkey
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

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Commentaries have to be taken in light of context and what the whole of the bible says and the character of God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If the commentaries go against that---then I do not adhere to therm.
Unless they fit your agenda, then you stick to with all your heart. This particular commentary basically says that Paul was talking about Melchizedek's priesthood was without beginning or end of days, without father or mother etc.
And this commentary also outlines Melchizedek's lineage, really screwing up your thought that Melchizedek was without beginning of days or end of day, without father and without mother, etc.

So I would expect nothing else from you except some statement like, commentraries have to be taken in light of context, unless they fit my belief, and then if they do not fit my belief, I do not adhere to them.

Pretty much in line to all people, but you are more passionately inclined to think this way.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Do your commentaries, guys. Melchizedek is not Jesus.

Hebrews 7:3

Without father, without mother, without descent
Which is to be understood not of his person, but of his priesthood; that his father was not a priest, nor did his mother descend from any in that office; nor had he either a predecessor or a successor in it, as appears from any authentic accounts: or this is to be interpreted, not of his natural, but scriptural being; for no doubt, as he was a mere man, he had a father, and a mother, and a natural lineage and descent; but of these no mention is made in Scripture, and therefore said to be without them; and so the Syriac version renders it; "whose father and mother are not written in the genealogies"; or there is no genealogical account of them. The Arabic writers tell us who his father and his mother were; some of them say that Peleg was his father: so Elmacinus {d}, his words are these; Peleg lived after he begat Rehu two hundred and nine years; afterwards he begat Melchizedek, the priest whom we have now made mention of. Patricides F5, another of their writers, expresses himself after this manner

``they who say Melchizedek had neither beginning of days, nor end of life, and argue from the words of the Apostle Paul, asserting the same, do not rightly understand the saying of the Apostle Paul; for Shem, the son of Noah, after he had taken Melchizedek, and withdrew him from his parents, did not set down in writing how old he was, when he went into the east, nor what was his age when he died; but Melchizedek was the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Salah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah; and yet none of those patriarchs is called his father. This only the Apostle Paul means, that none of his family served in the temple, nor were children and tribes assigned to him. Matthew and Luke the evangelists only relate the heads of tribes: hence the Apostle Paul does not write the name of his father, nor the name of his mother.''


And with these writers Sahid Aben Batric F6 agrees, who expressly affirms that Melchizedek was (glap Nba) , "the son of Peleg": though others of them make him to be the son of Peleg's son, whose name was Heraclim. The Arabic Catena F7 on ( Genesis 10:25 ) , "the name of one was Peleg", has this note in the margin;


``and this (Peleg) was the father of Heraclim, the father of Melchizedek;''


and in a preceding chapter, his pedigree is more particularly set forth:


``Melchizedek was the son of Heraclim, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber; and his mother's name was Salathiel, the daughter of Gomer, the son of Japheth, the son of Noah; and Heraclim, the son of Eber, married his wife Salathiel, and she was with child, and brought forth a son, and called his name Melchizedek, called also king of Salem: after this the genealogy is set down at length. Melchizedek, son of Heraclim, which was the son of Peleg, which was the son of Eber, which was the son of Arphaxad till you come to, which was the son of Adam, on whom be peace.''


It is very probable Epiphanius has regard to this tradition, when he observes F8, that some say that the father of Melchizedek was called Eracla, and his mother Astaroth, the same with Asteria. Some Greek F9writers say he was of the lineage of Sidus, the son of Aegyptus, a king of Lybia, from whence the Egyptians are called: this Sidus, they say, came out of Egypt into the country of the Canaanitish nations, now called Palestine, and subdued it, and dwelled in it, and built a city, which he called Sidon, after his own name: but all this is on purpose concealed, that he might be a more apparent of Christ, who, as man, is "without father"; for though, as God, he has a Father, and was never without one, being begotten by him, and was always with him, and in him; by whom he was sent, from whom he came, and whither he is gone; to whom he is the way, and with whom he is an advocate: yet, as man, he had no father; Joseph was his reputed father only; nor was the Holy Ghost his Father; nor is he ever said to be begotten as man, but was born of a virgin. Some of the Jewish writers themselves say, that the Redeemer, whom God will raise up, shall be without father F10. And he is without mother, though not in a spiritual sense, every believer being so to him as such; nor in a natural sense, as man, for the Virgin Mary was his mother; but in a divine sense, as God: and he is "without descent or genealogy"; not as man, for there is a genealogical account of him as such, in ( Matthew 1:1-17 ) ( Luke 3:23-38 ) and his pedigree and kindred were well known to the Jews; but as God; and this distinguishes him from the gods of the Heathens, who were genealogized by them, as may be seen in Hesiod, Apollodorus, Hyginus, and other writers; and this condemns the blasphemous genealogies of the Gnostics and Valentinians. It follows,
having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;
that is, there is no account which shows when he was born, or when he died; and in this he was a type of Christ, who has no beginning of days, was from the beginning, and in the beginning, and is the beginning, and was from everlasting; as appears from his nature as God, from his names, from his office as Mediator, and from his concern in the council and covenant of peace, and in the election of his people; and he has no end of life, both as God and man; he is the living God; and though as man he died once, he will die no more, but lives for ever. It is further said of Melchizedek,

but made like unto the Son of God:
in the above things; from whence it appears, that he is not the Son of God; and that Christ, as the Son of God, existed before him, and therefore could not take this character from his incarnation or resurrection:

abideth a priest continually;
not in person, but in his antitype Christ Jesus; for there never will be any change of Christ's priesthood; nor will it ever be transferred to another; the virtue and efficacy of it will continue for ever; and he will ever live to make intercession; and will always bear the glory of his being both priest and King upon his throne: the Syriac version renders it, "his priesthood abides for ever"; which is true both of Melchizedek and of Christ.



FOOTNOTES:

F4 In Hottinger. dead skin in nether region Orientale, l. 1. c. 8. p. 269, 254.
F5 In ib. p. 305, 306, 254.
F6 In Mr. Gregory's Preface to his Works.
F7 In ib.
F8 Contra Haeres. Haeres. 55.
F9 Suidas in voce Melchisedec, Malala, l. 3. Glycas, Cedrenus, & alii.
F10 R. Moses Hadarsan apud Galatin. l. 3. c. 17. & l. 8. c. 2.

Hebrews 7:3 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
Interesting reading, thank you. The Church of Jesus Christ also believes that Paul was talking of Melchizedek's priesthood, and not his lineage. And for sure Melchizedek was not Jesus. So again thank you for this interesting post.
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Unless they fit your agenda, then you stick to with all your heart. This particular commentary basically says that Paul was talking about Melchizedek's priesthood was without beginning or end of days, without father or mother etc.
And this commentary also outlines Melchizedek's lineage, really screwing up your thought that Melchizedek was without beginning of days or end of day, without father and without mother, etc.

So I would expect nothing else from you except some statement like, commentraries have to be taken in light of context, unless they fit my belief, and then if they do not fit my belief, I do not adhere to them.

Pretty much in line to all people, but you are more passionately inclined to think this way.

Obviously did not read post#27.
 
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

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
The Bible actually says that Melchizidek was not Jesus. Hebrews 7:3 says Melchizidek was "made like the Son of God". Note that it says "Like the Son of God", meaning that he was not the Son of God, but like Him.
Good point. Thank you.
 
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

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I did not see your post 27. Thank you. And now I have to eat crow too.

Awful, ain't it?
eat_crow.jpg
 
Upvote 0