The Truth About Melchizedek

[Ben Masada]

Deleted for doubly posting

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

Moshe is not the first after the order of Melke-Tzedek though. He received it from Jethro. Do you agree?

Absolutely not! Moshe was not a priest after the order of Melchizedek but after the order of Aaron. Moshe was from the Tribe of Levi. Even Jethro aka Reuel was a pagan priest of the Midianites. (Exod. 2:16) He couldn't even be said to be after the order of Melchizedek because he was not an Israelite. I High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek must have been an Israelite not from the Tribe of Levi. Any other Tribe but an Israelite. During the Hasmonian Dynasty, the head of the Government was a Zadokite from the Tribe of Levi. Therefore, he would accumulate both positions of King and High Priest. But he was a priest after the order of Aaron.

 

[Wick Stick]

4 - Not necessarily but, if you are correct, Jesus lost his chance because he never became a king in Jerusalem. The opposite is rather true that in Jerusalem, he was arrested, taken to Court before Pilate and condemned to the cross.

5 - Illogical reference because of #4.

Are you quite sure of that? What are the requirements to become the legitimate king?

Davidic descent? The books of Matthew and Luke go to some lengths to establish this.

The main one would seem to be that they were anointed. But the gospels record an anointing.

Judging in the gates of the city? That's there too.

Presentation before the people and acclamation by the people? Palm Sunday.

Receiving a crown? Check. In fact, the trial and crucifixion as written show that the Romans apparently enacted a mock coronation and procession.

Jarrod

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

1 - Are you quite sure of that? What are the requirements to become the legitimate king?

2 - Davidic descent? The books of Matthew and Luke go to some lengths to establish this.

3 - The main one would seem to be that they were anointed. But the gospels record an anointing.

4 - Judging in the gates of the city? That's there too.

5 - Presentation before the people and acclamation by the people? Palm Sunday.

6 - Receiving a crown? Check. In fact, the trial and crucifixion as written show that the Romans apparently enacted a mock coronation and procession.

Jarrod

1 - First and foremost, to be of the lineage of David, and Jesus was only according to the gospel of Paul in II Tim. 2:8. Not good for two reasons: First, who was Paul? and second, the NT has exonerated Jesus from being of the lineage of David by denying his biological affiliation with Joseph was the one from the Tribe of Judah.

2 - Perhaps, do you mean the opposite? According to Mat. 1:18, Jesus' father was not Joseph and Joseph was the one from the lineage of David; God could not be.

3 - Whatever you mean by that, Prophet Habakkuk says that Israel was the anointed one of the Lord aka the Messiah. (Hab. 3:13)

4 - According to you or to the NT? If the NT where is the quote?

5 - That's the precise reason why Jesus was arrested and condemned to the cross on the charge of insurrection. INRI. (Luke 23:38)

6 - Now, you are making a joke of your own savior-to-be.

 

[God's Truth]

What do you care, as long as I do not slander you? You can offend Moses all the way to the Bank. I'll have no reason to get upset.

I care if you slander the Word of God.

I care if you slander a person and bear false witness.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

I care if you slander the Word of God.

I care if you slander a person and bear false witness.

You wish you could honor the Word of God as we, the Jews do.

 

[daqq]

1 - You are lumped up already with all the others. What are you trying to prove? Are you implying that Jesus did not resurrect physically? If so, how did he spend 40 days eating with his disciples?
(Acts 1:3)

2 - Please Daqq, stop it! All Christians believe in bodily resurrection.

1 - Como on Daqq, whom are you trying to fool? All Christians believe in bodily resurrection. If you don't, you will be denying all the four gospels plus the book of Acts and all the letters of Paul.

1 - Como on Daqq, whom are you trying to fool? All Christians believe in bodily resurrection. If you don't, you will be denying all the four gospels plus the book of Acts and all the letters of Paul.

2 - Are you talking about Jesus up on the Mount Tabor with his 3 disciples, Peter, John and James? You are definitely joking! The whole time they were up there, the disciples were slumbering and dreaming about seeing Jesus between Moses and Elijah. Every thing is possible in a dream, even for a cow to fly. Didn't you know that?

3 - No neither Jesus, nor the Sadducees or the Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection. The resurrection of Judaism is the metaphorical resurrection from the graves of the exile and back to the Land of Israel. That's what Jewish resurrection is. (Ezek. 37:12)

4 - Yes, Elohim is not a God of the dead but of the living. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian doctrine of resurrection. Paul made it very clear that he was the one who fabricated the idea that Jesus had resurrected. Read II Tim. 2:8. All according to his gospel as he said. It means that there was another gospel being preached at the time in whose agenda Jesus was not preached as the Messiah and that he had resurrected. Read it! It is all down in your own NT.

You may reject the mainstream idea but you still see resurrection in the sense of a physical body and it is therefore you who is really no different from most of mainstream Christianity, even though you reject the idea of a physical bodily resurrection, because you still believe that is what the apostolic writings are speaking about on this subject. It is you that has lumped yourself with the carnal minded while Yeshua clearly says that the flesh profits you nothing. There are different kinds of flesh and different kinds of bodies. Likewise there are two temples even in the apostolic writings and those two temples are the individual body-temple and the great congregation body-temple of Messiah which was formerly the Tanach body of Moshe, (which Tanach body of the saints was folded into Messiah at Golgotha in Matthew 27:51-53).

Which body-temple does Yeshua speak of in the following passage?

John 2:13-21
13. And the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Yeshua went up to Yerushalaim.
14. And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15. And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the money of the changers, and overthrew the tables;
16. And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not the house of my Father an house of merchandise!
17. And his talmidim remembered that it was written, The tkelet-zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
18. Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign show you unto us, seeing that you do these things?
19. Yeshua answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up!
20. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt you rear it up in three days?
21. But he spake of the temple of his body.

If you say Yeshua speaks of raising his own physical body in the above passage then you are no different than most of the mainstream and you neither understand nor believe his doctrine because you see it as carnal in meaning just as those whom you lump me together with.

1 Kings 8:10-14
10. And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of YHWH,
11. So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of YHWH had filled the house of YHWH.
12. Then spoke Sholomoh, YHWH has said that He would dwell in the `araphel.
13. I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide olamim.
14. And the king turned his countenance about, and blessed all the congregation of Yisrael, and all the congregation of Yisrael stood:

Check the record and perhaps you might notice that king Solomon never turns himself back to face the temple made with the hands of men, for he knows that the great congregation are the people-temple of the Creator, and this is likewise how Yeshua speaks at the same location and of the same congregation people-temple in John 2:19-21.

 

[RBBI]

AMEN

 

[God's Truth]

You wish you could honor the Word of God as we, the Jews do.

The Jews do not honor God.

John 5:23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Jews do not honor God.

John 5:23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

This post of yours above is for the Greeks, not for the Jews. Our God does not have a son without a biological human father. Our only reference to a son of God is according to the collective concept of the People, not of the individual. (Exod. 4:22,23) "Israel is My son..."

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

You may reject the mainstream idea but you still see resurrection in the sense of a physical body and it is therefore you who is really no different from most of mainstream Christianity, even though you reject the idea of a physical bodily resurrection, because you still believe that is what the apostolic writings are speaking about on this subject.

I neither can see evidence for bodily resurrection nor can you. This is beside the evidence of the written word. You are not having this discussion with Greeks but Jews. Body resurrection is a Hellenistic doctrine, not Jewish. Jesus was a Jew and not Greek.

Which body-temple does Yeshua speak of in the following passage? John 2:13-21 And the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Yeshua went up to Yerushalaim. And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the money of the changers, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not the house of my Father an house of merchandise! And his talmidim remembered that it was written, The tkelet-zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign show you unto us, seeing that you do these things? Yeshua answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up! Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt you rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.

The above never happened in the life of Jesus. Jews do not adopt the Christian doctrine of bodily resurrection. BTW, I accept only 20% of the NT as worthy learning something from Jesus or about him. The other 80% is made up of anti-Jewish interpolations to promote the Pauline gospel of Replacement Theology.

If you say Yeshua speaks of raising his own physical body in the above passage then you are no different than most of the mainstream and you neither understand nor believe his doctrine because you see it as carnal in meaning just as those whom you lump me together with.

I have studied enough of the NT to understand that their claim about the resurrection of Jesus was bodily and that Jesus showed by several evidences when appearing to his disciples and eating and drinking with them. Spirits do not partake of these things of mortals.

Check the record and perhaps you might notice that king Solomon never turns himself back to face the temple made with the hands of men, for he knows that the great congregation are the people-temple of the Creator, and this is likewise how Yeshua speaks at the same location and of the same congregation people-temple in John 2:19-21.

The text is about the resurrection of Jesus. That's not Jewish. Paul made it very clear that it was all according to his gospel that Jesus resurrected. (II Tim. 2:8) That's a Christian doctrine fabricated by Paul. Nothing Jewish about it.

 

[Wick Stick]

1 - First and foremost, to be of the lineage of David, and Jesus was only according to the gospel of Paul in II Tim. 2:8. Not good for two reasons: First, who was Paul? and second, the NT has exonerated Jesus from being of the lineage of David by denying his biological affiliation with Joseph was the one from the Tribe of Judah.

Then why go to the trouble of documenting a genealogy of Joseph? (It is clear that neither genealogy pertains to Mary.) I believe there is a precedent for adopted children being considered legitimate that ought to be considered here.

2 - Perhaps, do you mean the opposite? According to Mat. 1:18, Jesus' father was not Joseph and Joseph was the one from the lineage of David; God could not be.

This doesn't really hold, in light of my response above...

3 - Whatever you mean by that, Prophet Habakkuk says that Israel was the anointed one of the Lord aka the Messiah. (Hab. 3:13)

There were many anointed ones. All the high priests and kings were messiahs. Looking for THE singular special messiah is a misrepresentation of the question (though probably based on a common Christian misconception). The question is simply whether Jesus was A messiah (an anointed one) - that is, was He legitimate in succession to be king?

4 - According to you or to the NT? If the NT where is the quote?

According to my imperfect memory of the NT, of course. But, Matthew 21 recommends itself when I perform a search.

5 - That's the precise reason why Jesus was arrested and condemned to the cross on the charge of insurrection. INRI. (Luke 23:38)

It seems we are in agreement on this point.

6 - Now, you are making a joke of your own savior-to-be.

A joke was definitely intended, though not by me, and perhaps the joke is not on me, either.

Jarrod

 

[Wick Stick]

I neither can see evidence for bodily resurrection nor can you. This is beside the evidence of the written word. You are not having this discussion with Greeks but Jews. Body resurrection is a Hellenistic doctrine, not Jewish. Jesus was a Jew and not Greek.

Are you sure you don't mean the opposite? Resurrection was explicitly a Pharisee doctrine, to the extent that it was a point of contention with the Saducees. (Can we call them Zadokites? I struggle with the crappy transliteration the NT provides.)

On the other hand, nothing of Hellenism believes in a resurrection in the same body. They believed in transmigration - which is a rebirth (not a resurrection) in a DIFFERENT body, and that without any memory of the prior lives.

Jarrod

 

[daqq]

BTW, I accept only 20% of the NT as worthy learning something from Jesus or about him.

You shall break none of his bones. You shall take of the blood and strike it on the two side post-arms and on the upper forehead-beam of your house-body-temple. You shall eat the flesh in your night of passage roasted with fire, and with unleavened bread, and with the bitterness that comes withall. You shall not eat of it raw, nor boiled with water, but roasted with fire: his head, with his legs, and with the inward parts thereof. You shall let nothing remain until your morning come, (when the Day Star arises in your heart).

The text is about the resurrection of Jesus. That's not Jewish. Paul made it very clear that it was all according to his gospel that Jesus resurrected. (II Tim. 2:8) That's a Christian doctrine fabricated by Paul. Nothing Jewish about it.

Resurrection may not be "Jewish" according to your understanding of what is "Jewish" but it is indeed Jewish, (and moreover of the Hebrews) as has been argued already with you several times over. Your rejection of a resurrection is merely your opinion based on the one eighth sect of the ruling half of the Sadducs, (which one eighth opinion was hotly disputed by the other sects including both houses of the Pharisees). In the Third Day the earth brings forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself, after his kind: and except a kernel of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone; but if it dies, it brings forth much fruit. And so is the kingdom of Elohim, like a man who cast seed into the soil, and sleeping and rising, night and day, and how the seed should germinate, sprout, and grow up, he knows not; for the earth brings forth fruit of herself: first the garden, (which is feminine) then the stalk, (which is masculine) then the full head of grain in the stalk. But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately the sickle is thrust in because the harvest stands ready.

 

[God's Truth]

This post of yours above is for the Greeks, not for the Jews.

You do not know the scriptures, because that scripture is when Jesus walked the earth and spoke only to the Jews.

Our God does not have a son without a biological human father. Our only reference to a son of God is according to the collective concept of the People, not of the individual. (Exod. 4:22,23) "Israel is My son..."

A person has to ignore and deny many scriptures to believe as you do.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

Then why go to the trouble of documenting a genealogy of Joseph?

The name is pious forgery to document Christianity.

It is clear that neither genealogy pertains to Mary.

Even if it did, it wouldn't help Jesus. The only thing Mary would contribute with was the Jewish identity of Jesus.

I believe there is a precedent for adopted children being considered legitimate that ought to be considered here.

Adopted children were legitimate in all accounts but one, the Tribal identification which was processed through the father. An adopted child in Israel would never belong to the Tribe of the new father.

There were many anointed ones. All the high priests and kings were messiahs. Looking for THE singular special messiah is a misrepresentation of the question (though probably based on a common Christian misconception).

We are not talking about any of the other Messiahs but the special one that Jesus is claimed to have been.

The question is simply whether Jesus was A messiah (an anointed one) -

No, he was not. Neither any Messiah nor the special one. An individual could not be the real Messiah. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a people before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36)

that is, was He legitimate in succession to be king?

No, he was not. He would have to be of the lineage of David and, the word of Paul cannot be taken for granted. (II Tim. 2:8) And to be of the lineage of David, he had to be from the Tribe of Judah and, he was not because Joseph was not his biological father, according to Matthew 1:18

According to my imperfect memory of the NT of course. But Matthew 21 recommends itself when I perform a search.

Mat. 21 rather shows the real reason why Jesus was crucified; because his disciples were acclaiming him king of the Jews in Jerusalem, a Roman province at the time. Besides, that Jesus was a sinner for having broken the Golden Rule in his treatment of the moneychangers.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

Are you sure you don't mean the opposite? Resurrection was explicitly a Pharisee doctrine, to the extent that it was a point of contention with the Saducees. (Can we call them Zadokites? I struggle with the crappy transliteration the NT provides.)

On the other hand, nothing of Hellenism believes in a resurrection in the same body. They believed in transmigration - which is a rebirth (not a resurrection) in a DIFFERENT body, and that without any memory of the prior lives.

Jarrod

I am 100% sure; only that to stand for that certainty, I cannot accept evidences given by Paul as he was the one who revealed the secret to his disciple Timothy that the resurrection of Jesus was according to his own gospel - the gospel of Paul. (II Tim. 2:8)

Regarding the Pharisees, I'll become a Christian like you if you prove to me that they believed in bodily resurrection. They didn't my friend, you are confusing some thing with something else. Even the apostles of Jesus did not believe in bodily resurrection. When the women went to them to report about the empty tomb and said that someone had removed Jesus from there and took him to another place. None of the apostles believed in them and took them as talking about an idle tale of nonsense. (Luke 24:11) Why couldn't they think of the resurrection? Because Jesus had never spoke a word to them about resurrection. Why! Because they were Jewish and the doctrine of the resurrection has never been part of the gospel of Jesus which was Judaism.

There was no point of contention between Pharisees and Sadducees. The whole contention was between Paul and the Jewish authorities. And, BTW, that contention was one of Paul's lies to defend himself from the charge that he had been arrested for preaching against Moses, the Law and the Temple. (Acts 21:21,27,28 and 23:6)

Transmigration or reincarnation is the same as resurrection to me. For someone to transmigrate he must resurrect first. So, what's the point?

 

[Ben Masada]

The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

You shall break none of his bones. You shall take of the blood and strike it on the two side post-arms and on the upper forehead-beam of your house-body-temple. You shall eat the flesh in your night of passage roasted with fire, and with unleavened bread, and with the bitterness that comes withall. You shall not eat of it raw, nor boiled with water, but roasted with fire: his head, with his legs, and with the inward parts thereof. You shall let nothing remain until your morning come, (when the Day Star arises in your heart).

Now, where on earth has this any thing to do with Jesus? When I am proving the collective concept of the Messiah, I mention the evidences on the text by name. Do you know why you cannot do the same with Jesus, because Jesus has nothing to do with the text. If you read Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His PEOPLE, to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord.

One more, when HaShem sent Moses to redeem Israel from Egypt, Moses reported God's command to Pharaoh and he asked, why should I do that? "Because Israel is My son; said the Lord. So let My son go that he may serve Me." (Exod. 4:22,23)

Just one more when the Lord commanded Moses to say to Israel: "And you shall be to Me a Kingdom of priests and a Holy Nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel." (Exod. 19:6) As you can see, the Messiah is to be a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. Now, do this with Jesus every time you are challenged to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. It will cause a much better impression on you.

Resurrection may not be "Jewish" according to your understanding of what is "Jewish" but it is indeed Jewish, (and moreover of the Hebrews) as has been argued already with you several times over. Your rejection of a resurrection is merely your opinion based on the one eighth sect of the ruling half of the Sadducs, (which one eighth opinion was hotly disputed by the other sects including both houses of the Pharisees). In the Third Day the earth brings forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself, after his kind: and except a kernel of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone; but if it dies, it brings forth much fruit. And so is the kingdom of Elohim, like a man who cast seed into the soil, and sleeping and rising, night and day, and how the seed should germinate, sprout, and grow up, he knows not; for the earth brings forth fruit of herself: first the garden, (which is feminine) then the stalk, (which is masculine) then the full head of grain in the stalk. But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately the sickle is thrust in because the harvest stands ready.

Never mind the parable above and let us get real for a change. Use the Scriptures that Jesus always referred to as the Word of God and bring to the light the evidences of bodily resurrection. Just don't mention the gospel of Paul aka the NT because Jesus never even dreamed that both, Paul and the NT would ever rise. On the other hand, if you decide that Jesus was not a Jew but a Greek, you don't have to prove any thing else for I don't have any business interfering with the gospel of Paul.

I think I understand a little more than you what resurrection is. If you prove to me resurrection in the Tanach, I'll commit myself to the gospel of Paul without question. Sadducees as well as Pharisees never adopted the Christian doctrine of bodily resurrection.

 

[Ben Masada]

1 - You do not know the scriptures, because that scripture is when Jesus walked the earth and spoke only to the Jews.

2 - A person has to ignore and deny many scriptures to believe as you do.

1 - Wrong! That scripture is part of the 80% of anti-Jewish interpolations with the intent at promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

2 - Wrong again! A person has to walk by sight to understand what he is talking about. The opposite would be to walk by faith and to leave the understanding with Paul. (II Cor. 5:7)

 

[Aimiel]

I think I understand a little more than you what resurrection is. If you prove to me resurrection in the Tanach, I'll commit myself to the gospel of Paul without question.

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.