The Order Of Melchizedek

[Zemah]

Do you have a verse that says what exactly this authority was that allowed them to baptize (other than the keys to the kingdom verse)?

Do you have a verse that shows that anyone can baptize regardless of authority?

Because it sounds like youâ??re saying that baptism does not require any authority.

Yet even some of the former priesthood came to John-the-Baptist: â??But when he saw a number of Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism he said to them, â??Brood of vipers, who warned you to fly from the retribution that is coming?â??â? (Matthew 3:7-

How is it that the corrupt priests of Jesusâ?? day honored his authority but today it is questioned?

Zemah

[ed2276]

I am still intrigued by this verse in the context of the Mechizedek priesthood :

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

I note that the scripture doesn't say that he made as many as received him the sons of God. The verse says he gave them power to become sons of God. Combine this with D&C 84:

33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.

34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.

35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord;

36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;

37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;

38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Fatherâ??s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.

By receiving the priesthood one receives the Lord, and this seems to shed a light on just what John 1:12 is saying. As many as received Him received the Holy Priesthood, by which they were not made the sons of God, but were given power to become the sons of God. This seems to suggest that they must utilize this power in some way in order to become God's sons.

Earlier verses in D&C 84 tell us about what that power is:

19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

As I said in an earlier post regarding the false doctrine that all believers are the priesthood of God and Christ:

You failed to answer the question.

Zemah

Hi Zemah,

I wanted to bring your bolded quote back into my post.

I met some believers as I was returning to my apartment after Church one day. They were drunk and still drinking. They recognized me as a man of God and asked me to pray for them. I assured them that they could pray for themselves as the Bible teaches â??to the Father in the name of the Sonâ?. As we spoke together I learned that one was Catholic and the other Protestant; they both believed in Christ. They soon requested that we pray together but wanted me to lead the pray. This we did.

Now tell me honestly, are these believers able to represent Christ in the priesthood?

Seems you are making a point of saying they were "drunk and still drinking" then your bolded question comes into emphasis.

I agree that, being drunk is a sin. But it seemed to me, that in a previous post, you said that a Melchizedek Priest could sin and still be a Melchizedek Priest.

Your bolded question makes it a little more specific. We seem to both agree that a Melch. Priest could maintain their Priesthood, even if they sinned.

But can they represent Christ while in immediate sin "drunk and still drinking"?

My answer is that no one can represent Christ while in a current state of sin.

However, lets say these drunken gents awake the next morning and are sober. They realize the error in their drunkenness and repent.

Now tell me honestly, are these believers able to represent Christ in the priesthood? If you answer is no, then why not?

Respects,

Mudcat

PS - Sorry about the whole spewing DMD out my nose. I wouldn't blame you a bit for taking offense. I hope you will forgive me?

I really couldn't help it. It just struck me as... well... quite funny.

[Zemah]

I posted my thoughts on this on the last post I made on this thread. But the post was mainly addressing why I believe this priesthood is part of being a Christian. If you need me to tell which denomination is specifically Christian, I don't think I can do that. The Church goes beyond denomination, IMO, it is the body of all the elect and I do believe these elect can be found in the numerous denominations of Christianity. I certainly don't think all members of churches are Christians, but I think Christians can be found in nearly all of them.

Your statement is an often used assertion, but I don't think it is accurate, in that all denominations are derived from the NC. The Apostolic churches views are very different, for example.

I don't think the Church is a physical location on planet earth, so I can't say its here or there.

Christs' Church is the children of God. It is his family.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Well you certainly don't need Christ to be a child of God. All human beings are the children of God in Adam. The least bit of faith in the Creation at the hands of an Almighty power, coupled with living a decent life, and trusting in His mercy along with a little humility and meekness may well allow you to inherit the earth.

You certainly donâ??t need Christ to be a child of God in Noah. All you have to do is acknowledge that judgment is real, that we live in a world where our actions determine the punishment and reward we will inherit in the afterlife. Buddhists, Hindus, and all true religions have the doctrine of accountability established by God in Noah.

You certainly donâ??t need Christ to be a child of God in Moses. Jewish people are the children of God who will live and die according to the Law of Moses.

And you certainly donâ??t need Christ to be a child of God in Mohammed. Muslims are the children of God who will live and die according to the Qurâ??an.

You only need Christ if you wish to join the greater covenant of salvation, a painless and seamless transition from mortal life to the afterlife because your sins have been forgiven.

The only difference between all the Christian denominations is the doctrine by which we obtain forgiveness. The simplest is the â??saved by grace through faithâ? theology championed by the Protestant faiths, in which we can do nothing to gain our salvation. It requires no action on our part. This is incorrect theology.

Christ did not come to earth and forgive all the people of Judea. All those that were healed by Jesus came to him or later to his authority in the apostles. Before Christ, Jews did not just set up an altar next to their tent and slaughter the required offering; it required the involvement of the priest in the community.

In Jesusâ?? day nobody said I donâ??t need baptism to be in the body of Christ; nobody refused the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost to become a saint; nobody took upon themselves the authority of God without the approval of the Church body of apostles.

When anybody and everyone can claim the priesthood than anybody and everyone can begin to make doctrine that fits their own interpretation. That is how Christianity got into the mess it is in today, where all you need is a profession of faith and no one needs a church institution.

But the first Church was an institution of prophets, priests, and apostles who through the power of the Holy Ghost and the authority of God and Christ gathered in the people and built a unified community of saints.

What you describe, and what Christianity has today, is not a unified community of saints. It is a group of believers who believe different things. It is a group of faithful people who donâ??t understand the requirements of their faith. It is a â??body of Christâ?? with no head and so does not speak with the authority of the Holy Ghost.

Christ made the requirements of faith clear in the LDS Church. We follow one doctrine which matches the doctrine of the first Church.

It starts with a baptism of water unto repentance in the authority of His priesthood.

A community, albeit not enclosed with brick and mortar, nonetheless must have a common spiritual gateway.

Christians are the children of God who must live and will die or be saved according to the Law of the Gospel as spoken through the mouth of His modern day prophets.

Zemah

[Billy]

Do you have a verse that shows that anyone can baptize regardless of authority?

No

Billy states,

Looking at my patriarchal blessing it says that I am from the line of Ephraim. Ephraim is a son of Joseph, one of the 12 sons of Jacob (one of the 12 tribes of Israel/Jacob). The priestly line comes from the line of one of Jacobs other sons, namely Levi not Joseph.

When did the Aaronic priesthood change lines?

Zemah replies,

. . .When the Jewish priesthood failed to follow Jesus.

BTW, the NT never limits the authority to baptize to the genealogy of the sons (physical descendants) of Aaron.

Paul baptized and he was from the tribe of Benjamin.

I was simply asking what kind of authority did the apostles have that allowed them to baptize?

[Zemah]

PS - Sorry about the whole spewing DMD out my nose. I wouldn't blame you a bit for taking offense. I hope you will forgive me?

I really couldn't help it. It just struck me as... well... quite funny.

No, actually very little offends me. Sometimes my words may seem hostile, but I am rarely offended.

I just hope you didn't get the DMD all over your keyboard.

I'll probably not get to address the rest of your post today. I hope you'll check back tomorrow.

Zemah

[Zemah]

I was simply asking what kind of authority did the apostles have that allowed them to baptize?

I suppose they had the same authority that we have today in the LDS Church. I donâ??t believe there is a quote from the Bible that would verify this, but I can assure you the authority to baptize was not divided up among 900 plus denominations of Christianity. It was one authority controlled by the apostolic leaders of the first Church.

A house divide cannot stand. Christianity is divided by doctrine and various claims of authority or the belief that no specific authority is required or the belief that all authority is universally heard by the faithful. This is heresy and hypocrisy at its worst.

It was not like that in the first Church.

Zemah

[Mudcat]

I think I am glad I wasn't one of the people Moses was sprinkling!

I mean, it sounds like the prom scene in Carrie!

Well.. I would think it would be better than being a chariot driver in Pharaoh's army. But I see what you mean.

No light, no phone, no motor cars

Not a single luxury.

Got sloshed with blood by Moses,

as primitive as can be.

as primitive as can be.

But I do wonder if a masculine form of "strangers" would limit the use to "male strangers," and hence those presumably capable of holding the priesthood through ordination.

I did some research on the matter, but not a lot. From what I can tell "strangers" is the nominative masculine. I am no expert on what 'nominative' really means though. When if comes right down to it, I am more of a hack who is a 'comma splicing fool'. Who, BTW, is thankful for not dangling his participles to frequently. Though I will admit, IMO, it seems a fairly masculine address, as far as I can tell. Regardless, if we assume it is masculine, then what do you see that implies ordination of some sort?

In other words, I wonder if a masculine form limits the use of it somewhat from just generic "believer" of any gender.

I don' t feel like digging for the reference, but there is a verse about being neither male nor female, which might remove gender from the equation. It was put there to mean something, I just don't think it was put their to disengender me in the afterlife.

It's all Greek to me, too!

It's good that I am not alone. Besides, knowing Greek would take half the fun out my blind speculations.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Cold Steel]

I hope that you don't believe that a church is what saves you? You are not saved by a church, you are saved by faith in Christ and his finished work on the cross.

No, we believe it is through faith in Christ, and through obedience to His commandments. These include, repentance, baptism, the conferral of the gift of the Holy Spirit and so forth.

Regarding the priesthood, though, this is something that's been largely revealed in our day. Accept it or reject it, but it's illogical to assume that only two men held this office: Melchizedek and Christ.

I'm not being anti-Catholic by pointing out that having any part or portion of the scriptures was illegal in the church for many years. Everyone knows what happened to William Tyndale when he was caught making copies of his translation of the Bible. Many in his day suffered his fate. The Catholic priesthood (the guys with the collar) apparently didn't think those without a collar should even possess, much less read, the scriptures.

[Mudcat]

Hey Zemah,

First off, thanks for such a well articulated response.

Well you certainly don't need Christ to be a child of God. All human beings are the children of God in Adam. The least bit of faith in the Creation at the hands of an Almighty power, coupled with living a decent life, and trusting in His mercy along with a little humility and meekness may well allow you to inherit the earth.

Well, I look at this differently, given my view on original sin.

You certainly don’t need Christ to be a child of God in Noah. All you have to do is acknowledge that judgment is real, that we live in a world where our actions determine the punishment and reward we will inherit in the afterlife. Buddhists, Hindus, and all true religions have the doctrine of accountability established by God in Noah.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Buddhists, Hindus, etc.. are not on an equal playing field with Noah. Out of the earth's populace, God only saved eight folks.

You certainly don’t need Christ to be a child of God in Moses. Jewish people are the children of God who will live and die according to the Law of Moses.

I differ here to. They were imputed righteousness by faith. Like Abraham.

And you certainly don’t need Christ to be a child of God in Mohammed. Muslims are the children of God who will live and die according to the Qur’an.

I dunno that I can agree with this one.

You only need Christ if you wish to join the greater covenant of salvation, a painless and seamless transition from mortal life to the afterlife because your sins have been forgiven.

There is only one way to the Father, and it is through Christ. I don't believe a mulit-kingdom platform exists so the alternative is hell.

The only difference between all the Christian denominations is the doctrine by which we obtain forgiveness. The simplest is the “saved by grace through faith” theology championed by the Protestant faiths, in which we can do nothing to gain our salvation. It requires no action on our part. This is incorrect theology.

I think most Christian denominations think we obtain forgiveness from the Father through Christ. Don't you?

Christ did not come to earth and forgive all the people of Judea. All those that were healed by Jesus came to him or later to his authority in the apostles. Before Christ, Jews did not just set up an altar next to their tent and slaughter the required offering; it required the involvement of the priest in the community.

In Jesus’ day nobody said I don’t need baptism to be in the body of Christ; nobody refused the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost to become a saint; nobody took upon themselves the authority of God without the approval of the Church body of apostles.

When anybody and everyone can claim the priesthood than anybody and everyone can begin to make doctrine that fits their own interpretation. That is how Christianity got into the mess it is in today, where all you need is a profession of faith and no one needs a church institution.

Well, I personally believe that a genuine 'profession of faith' is a genuine testimony of Christ revealing himself to someone and that person choosing to follow him, the best they can. I don't think Christ asks more of us than that.

But the first Church was an institution of prophets, priests, and apostles who through the power of the Holy Ghost and the authority of God and Christ gathered in the people and built a unified community of saints.

What you describe, and what Christianity has today, is not a unified community of saints. It is a group of believers who believe different things. It is a group of faithful people who don’t understand the requirements of their faith. It is a ‘body of Christ’ with no head and so does not speak with the authority of the Holy Ghost.

The head has always been Christ. IMO, if there is a mess with Christianity, much of it has to do with those who would supplant his headship in the stead of anyone else.

Christ made the requirements of faith clear in the LDS Church. We follow one doctrine which matches the doctrine of the first Church.

If you are saying the doctrine of the LDS Church parallels the early Church, I would ask you, on what basis?

It starts with a baptism of water unto repentance in the authority of His priesthood.

Since you seem to believe that LDS are the only folks with priesthood authority, I would ask you, on what basis?

A community, albeit not enclosed with brick and mortar, nonetheless must have a common spiritual gateway.

I think we do, it is Christ Jesus.

Christians are the children of God who must live and will die or be saved according to the Law of the Gospel as spoken through the mouth of His modern day prophets.

On this, either you are right or you are wrong. I have no basis to believe you are right.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Programmer]

I think the language of the book of Hebrews is strong enough on it's own to support itself. If there is an order that has only one person in it, then it's not really an order at all. But really just a fancy way of saying that God is different from Men. But the context of the scripture does not indicate that.

[consiglieri]

Ed2267 wrote:

I am still intrigued by this verse in the context of the Mechizedek priesthood :

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

I think that perhaps the DSS verse originally cited may provide insight into what John means by giving people who "received him" "power to become the sons of God."

He (Melchizedek) will proclaim liberty for them, to free them from [the debt] of all their iniquities. And this will [happen] in the first week of the jubilee which follows the ni[ne] jubilees. And the day [of atonem]ent is the end of the tenth jubilee in which atonement will be made for all the sons of [God] and for the men of the lot of Melchizedek."

11QMelchizedek, 6-8.

Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, pp. 139-40.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Cold Steel]

The whole debate about priesthood comes down to this. The non-LDS scholars look at the New Testament texts they have available and they make best guess determinations about what the Melchizedek priesthood is and how they best think it fits in with what they believe. Then cometh the Latter-day Saints who believe in additional scripture that rounds out and explains the priesthood and its ordained perimeters.

But saith the critic, I don't accept your scriptures. I only accept the Bible and the comments of scholars who have made some pretty good guesses about how restrictive and exclusive the priesthood is. So we don't accept your Book of Mormon scriptures, nor do we believe in the supposed revelations of Joseph Smith!

Now we're at a logger jam. The critics say, "We want you to prove the Melchizedek priesthood is all you say it is and we want you to prove it by the Bible!" But we never said anywhere that we could do so. If everything were in the Bible, we'd hardly need anything restored, right? But our religion is based on the revealed fact that the Bible lacks vast sums of knowledge and that it was never intended as a church handbook. The critics, of course, disagree. Once they admit that not enough is known, we've won the debate. So we end up with threads like this, where there's lots of people beating their chests and nothing is proven or concluded.

[Bat-Man]

The whole debate about priesthood comes down to this. The non-LDS scholars look at the New Testament texts they have available and they make best guess determinations about what the Melchizedek priesthood is and how they best think it fits in with what they believe. Then cometh the Latter-day Saints who believe in additional scripture that rounds out and explains the priesthood and its ordained perimeters.

But saith the critic, I don't accept your scriptures. I only accept the Bible and the comments of scholars who have made some pretty good guesses about how restrictive and exclusive the priesthood is. So we don't accept your Book of Mormon scriptures, nor do we believe in the supposed revelations of Joseph Smith!

Now we're at a logger jam. The critics say, "We want you to prove the Melchizedek priesthood is all you say it is and we want you to prove it by the Bible!" But we never said anywhere that we could do so. If everything were in the Bible, we'd hardly need anything restored, right? But our religion is based on the revealed fact that the Bible lacks vast sums of knowledge and that it was never intended as a church handbook. The critics, of course, disagree. Once they admit that not enough is known, we've won the debate. So we end up with threads like this, where there's lots of people beating their chests and nothing is proven or concluded.

Well said, but I do believe there is something we can learn from threads like this.

By hearing more from each other, about whatever it is we are talking about, we are learning more about each other... which is the whole point of this board, in my perspective.

In the end, we are and will all be all that we have chosen to accept and reject.

[Zemah]

My answer is that no one can represent Christ while in a current state of sin.

However, lets say these drunken gents awake the next morning and are sober. They realize the error in their drunkenness and repent.

Now tell me honestly, are these believers able to represent Christ in the priesthood? If you answer is no, then why not?

Respects,

Mudcat

Please remember that the story I communicated was in response to the assertion made by others that â??all believers are in the priesthoodâ?, not that sinners are barred from it or that sinners cannot represent Christ. All believers are commissioned to spread the word of God. But the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood is not made holy by simply professing a belief in Christ. This Apostolic Order was and is the power and authority to represent Christ in the ordinances of the Gospel, namely, baptism and the laying on of hands to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost; but it also includes offering the Sacrament, blessing the living, marriage, healing and sealing and raising the died.

In Christâ??s first Church the priesthood was given to specific individuals, the twelve apostles, as witnessed by their miraculous deeds recorded in Acts which duplicated the miraculous deeds preformed by Christ. The only evidence that they received this priesthood is their calling by Christ to come and follow Him (when they put down their nets and came straight away). The priesthood is an apostolic calling directly from God or passed on by existing apostles as recorded in Acts when the eleven apostles chose a replacement for Judas the betrayer of Jesus.

Many have claimed it through vision and other miraculous events, I have had my share of them, but if they are not willing to submit their witness to the LDS Church as judge and be confirmed a priest and take the oath and covenant of the priesthood established by Christ in the Church than their calling is lost to the dung heap of self-righteous aggrandizement and pride. And they are lead away into destruction, even like Jim Jones.

Even a vision or a visitation of angels does not equal the right to call yourself a priest of God and Christ. Cornelius (Acts 10) had a vision, yet he sought validation by Peter the head of the Church. And Peter did not declare him a priest; he had him baptized in water like all the other member saints of the community. So receiving the Spirit of the Holy Ghost before water baptism as Cornelius did or as the congregation did at Pentecost does not preclude you from the requirement of baptism in order to be brought into the fold as a saint in the community of saints.

When Christ said, â??Come follow me!â? and also entered the waters of baptism at the hands of John-the-Baptist, who was called of God before being in the womb of his mother to be the one who cried from the wildness, He means that we need to start in the waters of baptism unto repentance for the remission of sin at the hands of priestly authority as was exampled in all the gospels.

So in answer to your question, no man can represent Christ in the priesthood without having the â??licenseâ?? or approval of the LDS Church, which is the gateway into the community of saints. A divided Christianity cannot be the door to Christâ??s Church.

Zemah

[Billy]

The whole debate about priesthood comes down to this. The non-LDS scholars look at the New Testament texts they have available and they make best guess determinations about what the Melchizedek priesthood is and how they best think it fits in with what they believe.

This is not correct. Christ is a priest after the order of Melchezedek. He is our High Priest--the only High Priest after the order of Melchezedek. The apostles and other NT members did not have the Melchezedek priesthood.

Now we're at a logger jam.

Agree

What you believe is mainly from modern revelation.

What I believe is from the Bible.

You have to decide what you believe more, either the Bible or Joseph Smith, that is the bottom line.

But our religion is based on the revealed fact that the Bible lacks vast sums of knowledge and that it was never intended as a church handbook.

How do you know that the Bible lacks vast sums of knowledge? Because as you said above it was a revealed fact--by Joseph Smith. But if Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God, then the fact that he revealed to you that the Bible lacks vast sums of information is a false idea.

Once they admit that not enough is known, we've won the debate.

I admit that enough is known, so does that mean that you lost the debate?

[Zemah]

The whole debate about priesthood comes down to this. The non-LDS scholars look at the New Testament texts they have available and they make best guess determinations about what the Melchizedek priesthood is and how they best think it fits in with what they believe. Then cometh the Latter-day Saints who believe in additional scripture that rounds out and explains the priesthood and its ordained perimeters.

But saith the critic, I don't accept your scriptures. I only accept the Bible and the comments of scholars who have made some pretty good guesses about how restrictive and exclusive the priesthood is. So we don't accept your Book of Mormon scriptures, nor do we believe in the supposed revelations of Joseph Smith!

Now we're at a logger jam. The critics say, "We want you to prove the Melchizedek priesthood is all you say it is and we want you to prove it by the Bible!" But we never said anywhere that we could do so. If everything were in the Bible, we'd hardly need anything restored, right? But our religion is based on the revealed fact that the Bible lacks vast sums of knowledge and that it was never intended as a church handbook. The critics, of course, disagree. Once they admit that not enough is known, we've won the debate. So we end up with threads like this, where there's lots of people beating their chests and nothing is proven or concluded.

That is a fair and balanced assessment of the situation. I can only add that their hard-headedness and hypocrisy, their blindness to the light and deafness to the sound of truth, and their doubt of modern prophets and denial of the voice of the Holy Ghost in the LDS Church and her priests allows us to claim victory now. THUMPâ?¦THUMP

Zemah

[ed2276]

This is not correct. Christ is a priest after the order of Melchezedek. He is our High Priest--the only High Priest after the order of Melchezedek. The apostles and other NT members did not have the Melchezedek priesthood.

How can you say that Christ is the only High Priest after Melchizedek's order , when Melchizedek also held that priesthood? There of necessity were two who held the Melchizedek priesthood under your view...Christ and Melchizedek.

It also seems strange to say that Melchizedek held the priesthood after himself, while Christ seems inferior to Melchizedek, as Christ didn't receive the priesthood after His own order, but after the order named for someone else.

[Billy]

How can you say that Christ is the only High Priest after Melchizedek's order , when Melchizedek also held that priesthood? There of necessity were two who held the Melchizedek priesthood under your view...Christ and Melchizedek.

It also seems strange to say that Melchizedek held the priesthood after himself, while Christ seems inferior to Melchizedek, as Christ didn't receive the priesthood after His own order, but after the order named for someone else.

Melchezedek is an interesting character that comes into the Bible abruptly and disappears just as quickly. If you ask three people who he was you are likely to get three different answers. Just look at this passage which shows some of the interesting things that were said about him. Some think he was Shem, others think it was a Theophany or Christophany, some feel it was a type of Christ but not actually Christ.

Heb 7

1For this Melchisedec. . .

3Without 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.

As far as Melchezedek holding the Melchezedek priesthood, it does not say that in the passage in Genesis 14, rather it says that he was the priest of the most high God.

Gen 14 "18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God."

Does Christ hold the same priesthood as Melchezedek, notice the word similitude in Heb 7:15 below, which indicates something similar but not the same.

si

[jadams_4242]

Melchezedek is an interesting character that comes into the Bible abruptly and disappears just as quickly. If you ask three people who he was you are likely to get three different answers. Just look at this passage which shows some of the interesting things that were said about him. Some think he was Shem, others think it was a Theophany or Christophany, some feel it was a type of Christ but not actually Christ.

Heb 7

1For this Melchisedec. . .

3Without 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.

As far as Melchezedek holding the Melchezedek priesthood, it does not say that in the passage in Genesis 14, rather it says that he was the priest of the most high God.

Gen 14 "18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God."

Does Christ hold the same priesthood as Melchezedek, notice the word similitude in Heb 7:15 below, which indicates something similar but not the same.

si

[Zemah]

How can you say that Christ is the only High Priest after Melchizedek's order , when Melchizedek also held that priesthood? There of necessity were two who held the Melchizedek priesthood under your view...Christ and Melchizedek.

It also seems strange to say that Melchizedek held the priesthood after himself, while Christ seems inferior to Melchizedek, as Christ didn't receive the priesthood after His own order, but after the order named for someone else.

And don't forget the Father surely must have the priesthood also.

Zemah

[urroner]

si

[Billy]

How, more specifically, do you believe that Christ was a similitude of Melchizedek?

Gen 14:18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Hebrews 7:3 (Melchizedek) 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.

Similarities from the above two scriptures include

1. King and a Priest. In the OT the Priests came from the Levitical line and the Kings came down through the line of Judah. Christ was both a King and a Priest as noted above. (see Heb 7:14 that Christ came down the royal line of Judah)

2. "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"

3. Also not in Hebrews 7:3 it says of Melchezedek " but made like unto the Son of God". I think this is why some people feel that this guy is a "type" or shadow of Christ in the OT, but not really an OT appearance of Christ like some people proclaim.

[Billy]

7-23 And they truely were many preists,{reffering to "high" preists} because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. but this man {jesus} because he continueth ever, hath an ubchangeable preisthood. so in other words he is the only high preist that never changes because he is the only one whom never suffers mortal death. this is after his ressurection of course. but of course yhere were and still are many other high preists.

There were many High Priests in the OT after the order of Aaron, not Melchezedek. Note that there is only one high priest on the earth at one time who went into the Holy of Holies once a year on Yom Kippur to offer sacrifices. This is symbolic of Christ as High Priest and Him entering into the true Holy of Holies (Heaven) once and for all. The difference is that Christ is a High Priest after the order of Melchezedek and not after the order of Aaron, and instead of offering animal sacrifices, he offered Himself as a sacrifice. Christ is also our eternal High Priest, verses the High Priests in the OT which were not eternal, died, and were replaced.

You can view them here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_High_Priests_of_Israel

[urroner]

Gen 14:18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Hebrews 7:3 (Melchizedek) 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.

Similarities from the above two scriptures include

1. King and a Priest. In the OT the Priests came from the Levitical line and the Kings came down through the line of Judah. Christ was both a King and a Priest as noted above. (see Heb 7:14 that Christ came down the royal line of Judah)

2. "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"

3. Also not in Hebrews 7:3 it says of Melchezedek " but made like unto the Son of God". I think this is why some people feel that this guy is a "type" or shadow of Christ in the OT, but not really an OT appearance of Christ like some people proclaim.

As far as a priest being only from the line of Levi, IIRC, there was in the days of the first temple another priesthood, a priesthood of Melchizedek, and a high priest who offered the sacrifice of a goat in the temple, cleansed the temple which was a representation of all creation of all sin, and placing all those sins upon another goat and sending it out into the wilderness. Isn't that similitude of what Christ did?

2. The Melchizedek priesthood, unlike the Levitical priesthood, was not based upon ones mother or ones father, and is an eternal priesthood.

3. I believe that Christ was very actively involved in the OT since he is Jehovah, but I don't believe that Jehovah was Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid his tithes and was the king and high priest of Salem.