Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think that Melchizedek is Michael the Archangel.
Pilate ordered a sign posted above Jesus on the cross stating this is Jesus the Nazarene the Michael of the Jews
and where do you think the word melech came from
No, Christ was not Melchizedek. Melchizedek was one of the many types or pictures that was displayed in the OT of the Christ who was to come.
Heb. 9:23. "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now ONCE in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."
The author of the letter to the Hebrews pointed to Melchizedek as a prefiguration of Christ because of their likeness to each other in this way: Melchizedek was not of sacerdotal lineage, as he seems to have appeared out of nowhere as a 'high priest', showing no record of who his father or his father's father before him, and so on, and so forth, was. Jesus was without earthly sacerdotal lineage also.
seems you are in the minority here. Christ is not Adam, nor Melchizedek, nor Moses, etc. Hebrews makes this quite clear because Melchizedek became without father or mother or beginning of days but was made LIKE UNTO the Son of man. Therefore, he was not the Son of God. Melchizedek was not the only high priest of God. Jethro, Moses, and Aaron all were High priests. This is where trad Christianity starts to crumble....
Oh, well, I agree that many of the OT prophets prefigured Christ. Adam prefigures the Most High God. Moses prefigures Christ - absolutely. But Moses was not Christ in person - he was an imperfect man like Melchizedek, who was "perfected" in the gospel.
seems melchizedek isn't a name, as preached for centuries, pulpit to pulpit (seminaries too?).
its "king of Sodom" in gen 14:17
and "righteous king of shalem" in gen 14:18
There are many mistranslations that need to be corrected by truth seekers be they jew, messianic jew, Christian, muslim, (whoever), etc.
Too many are "lazy" to do the work necessary to dig out accuracy & thereby,
truth.
its no wonder jews, muslims, et al, mock Christians.
yet the "ignorance" abounds in all camps ('cept for those willing to "dig.")
"with all thy getting, get thee Wisdom/understanding..." Prov4:7
----"my work continues.....still."
Right as a Christian I'm really concerned about the misconceptions that Muslims have about Christianity. Did you know that in the Quran, Sura 82 the sun sets in a muddy spring?
Melchizedek according to the 1907 Jewish Publication Society OT. Guess some folks don't know that all Jewish names have meaning.
Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High.
To be accurate, from a Hebrew to English POV or translation, the translators should've written "zedek melchi (or melek, translit)" and then..."(righteous king of salem)" in parenthesis, when doing their work.
Yet, no doubt "scholars," evangelists &/or Zionists would've taken liberties again/anyways leading to more superfluous discussion over ha shem melchizedek vs. tzedekmelek (or any English transliterated spelling/meaning issues.
in re: to suras of the quran, HimiH's not knowledgably acquainted enough to comment on them adequately/extensively as, they too may be accurate or misquoted, same as our greek/Hebrew texts. However it is interesting to consider that "the sun sets in a muddy spring" (if translated accurately) has some mystical "possibilities" to it, vis-à-vis man, mankind, earth, creation, life/death, lake of fire, (just to name a few...especially when considering the Hebrew connotations) etc.
And tho' HimiH is sure YHVH has dealt some enticing "truths" for Arabs to dig up/consider (be it in quaran &/or "the good book" as they call the OT-bible) in order to fully accept Yeshua (Isa, as known to them) as ha Meshach, HimiH is wary/skeptical of any people/, religion, scripture or doctrine who/which doesn't presently acknowledge Him as such. (see 2John1:7 & 1John4:2)
Shalom Aleichem.
Do you read Hebrew? Can you translate Hebrew into English? On what do you base your accusations "Yet, no doubt "scholars," evangelists &/or Zionists would've taken liberties...," assumptions/presuppositions?
Better for u to say (if u disagree) "well, this is what I read/think...blah blah baaaa." U defending scholars, et al., now? IF u are truly English oriented American, well rounded read in biblical matters/topics, then NO explanation/defense is necessary, as many know what HimiH is ref to; the list of examples are all over worldwide media. Just google it if u need confirmation; for HimiH already gave u a Hebrew (not Yiddish, mind u) example.
BUT....if u depend on yer Yiddish, well then very easy to "go negative" in your (lack of?) understanding.
Besides.....u could deem these "accusations" as opinions, if u like, and everyone's entitled to one in U.S. and the 'net, last time I checked.
Then you have a lengthy task before you learn Arabic enough to know if the Quran has been correctly translated by Muslim scholars. There are three recognized English translations available online.
HimiH stands by his comment on nonbelievers in Yeshua, and on scholars who've botched the translations of bible as well. H>S> works "miracles" with folks regardless of these errors, but the truth will come out in time, and messengers like HimiH will be vindicated/exonerated of any heretical charges. Besides....who are u to defend Arabic/muslim scholars who may or may not be (true) believers? Please consider who's Christian symbol u have on yer moniker up by your (sarcastic) name. OR.....
give yer own examples of what/why u think so accurate about the quran.
Interesting u took the negative/argumentative side to converse with HimiH where positives were available to u as well.
Arte Johnson - Very interesting - YouTube.flv - YouTube
VERY INTERESTING...." indeed.
The Quran does not call the Bible the "good book" it calls the Bible simply "The Book" Christians and Jews are called "people of the Book."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?