I believe that Melchisedec is an Old Testament reference to the Lord Jesus Christ as evidenced by the following verse.
“For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 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; 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.” -Hebrews 7:1-3 KJV
Melchizadek is an interesting character, and there are many theories about who he is.
In Jewish theology, Melchizadek is a title, King of Zadek, which was a old name for Jerusalem. This king, according to Rabbis, is Shem, the son of Noah. Melchizadek is also believed to have been apotheosized like Enoch and Elijah.
Like Elijah, the Jews expected him to return during the Messianic age and to be an eternal priest (much like Jesus is claimed to be).
However, most likely Melchizadek was a Canaanite priest who blesses Abraham in the name of Marduk (The Most High). His addition to the story of Genesis is strange.
Yes it is strange and curious that he is only ever mentioned like twice. I had notes of research i had done on this and they have mysteriously disappeared. Just adds more fuel to the fire for me.
IF there really was a Abraham and Melchezedek; yours is about as close as I could deal wiith; althoough i would love to see someone back the mormon theory that he is Shem, would be Noahs son if they really existed.
[quote=“ashtkerr, post:2, topic:7884”]Melchizadek is an interesting character, and there are many theories about who he is.
In Jewish theology, Melchizadek is a title, King of Zadek, which was a old name for Jerusalem. This king, according to Rabbis, is Shem, the son of Noah. Melchizadek is also believed to have been apotheosized like Enoch and Elijah.
Like Elijah, the Jews expected him to return during the Messianic age and to be an eternal priest (much like Jesus is claimed to be).
However, most likely Melchizadek was a Canaanite priest who blesses Abraham in the name of Marduk (The Most High). His addition to the story of Genesis is strange.[/quote]
[quote=“Frater Dark Matter, post:4, topic:7884”]IF there really was a Abraham and Melchezedek; yours is about as close as I could deal wiith; althoough i would love to see someone back the mormon theory that he is Shem, would be Noahs son if they really existed.
[quote=“ashtkerr, post:2, topic:7884”]Melchizadek is an interesting character, and there are many theories about who he is.
In Jewish theology, Melchizadek is a title, King of Zadek, which was a old name for Jerusalem. This king, according to Rabbis, is Shem, the son of Noah. Melchizadek is also believed to have been apotheosized like Enoch and Elijah.
Like Elijah, the Jews expected him to return during the Messianic age and to be an eternal priest (much like Jesus is claimed to be).
However, most likely Melchizadek was a Canaanite priest who blesses Abraham in the name of Marduk (The Most High). His addition to the story of Genesis is strange.[/quote][/quote]
The Bible gets a little tricky when it comes to who really existed and who didnt. Becausefor the most part i believe most of the stories were taken from the egytians and sumerians. But there were eyptian pharohs and king Xerxes did exist. So they kina toom the truth and there versions and then some made up stuff and mixed it all together. So you have to sift through it. Melchizedek just raises my curiousity bc there is so little info and mention of him. Yet he was supposedly so important he was given and a tenth of want Abraham had. And thats whats most churchs go by to push their tything a tenth to the church.
It just amazes me that in the 21st century people still put so much stock in a book written thousands of years ago by a bunch of ignorant, old Jewish guys from bumfuck Arabia with ZZ Top beards who smelled like goats and had terrible hygiene by modern western standards and who believed the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth and it is still the most popular book on the planet! The mind boggles…
I guess it holds some merit as a part historical/part mythological document.
[quote=“Iam Incide, post:6, topic:7884”]It just amazes me that in the 21st century people still put so much stock in a book written thousands of years ago by a bunch of ignorant, old Jewish guys from bumfuck Arabia with ZZ Top beards who smelled like goats and had terrible hygiene by modern western standards and who believed the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth and it is still the most popular book on the planet! The mind boggles…
I guess it holds some merit as a part historical/part mythological document.[/quote]
Books, there’s more than one book in the bible. And does bad hygiene really make what they said necessarily untruthful? Your logical fallacy is ad hominem The gods of Debatism declare, “Thou shalt not commit logical fallcies in thy typing, for this is loathsome, and doth not proveth thine point!”
But actually, the whole clean and unclean laws in Leviticus (which may be original elements of the Jewish religion or imports from Zoroastrianism which has similar laws, scholars are in debate) means that the Jewish people ritually bathed regularly every couple of days. And the middle east is well known for perfume to help people smell nicer (or at least less terrible).
The reasons why people believe in books key to their religion always amazes me. /s
One could make the point that the entirety of the Bible is an ad homimen attack, in which people whose personalities and private actions (VERY private, in some cases) that the authors didn’t approve of are classified as evil on some cosmic scale, and deserving of persecution, genocide, and so on?
One could make the point that the entirety of the Bible is an ad homimen attack, in which people whose personalities and private actions (VERY private, in some cases) that the authors didn’t approve of are classified as evil on some cosmic scale, and deserving of persecution, genocide, and so on?[/quote]
There’s a big difference between having a set of laws determining right from wrong and associating punishments with them (mosaic law) and saying that because you’re evil you’re wrong (that would be ad homimen).
But, the Mosaic Law is pretty standard as much as ancient middle east laws go. Every set of laws; from the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi to the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu, and the Hittite and Assyrian Laws all have many things in common with each other.
Granted, there are some differences between the various laws. The offences against the Mosaic Law were considered offences against the deity himself, which is unique among many laws that viewed them in the sense of breaking civil order. But, persecution and genocide was just par for the course in the bronze age middle east. I recommend that you read “Genocide in the Age of the Nation State: Volume 1: The Meaning of Genocide” by Mark Levine.
It’s improper to impose our modern 21st Century morality, which is itself a prime invention of Christian values (such as the sanctity of life and unalienable rights as God’s image) onto people who lived three to five thousand years ago and make a judgment call about their ethics.
Granted, that said, the Bible specifically is a very ancient document that people have a lot of beliefs in. And when I hear people quote mosaic law I grit my teeth a little because there was a context where those laws were okay, now it is improper.
I’ve seen most religion in the modern era as doing the latter, but that could be a matter of perspective - agree in general about the rest, this stuff like “Don’t eat pork” came about for very good reasons, and in the absence of any understanding of modern scientific method, making it a “sin” or an act against the will of God was the fastest way to propagate it - hell, people STILL talk in terms of “good” and “bad” when describing breaking their diet! :\