Was Melchisedec the Pre-incarnate Christ?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

Originally Posted by wil

I get that, what I was wondering about was the defiling of the tribe of Levi and them not being suitable priests...and the geneology of Mary...as Jesus is not kin to Joseph who was descended from David. Sorry I wasn't clear.

Like Dor pointed to, Mary was directly related to the trive of Levi. Her aunt (I believe it was) was married to a Levitical priest. Elizabeth was three months pregnant with John the Baptist (as he would be later known) when Mary conceived. A really wonderful story in itself.

I can see challenging the tradition of Jesus being "King," as the Davidic lineage of Judah was through his "step-daddy" so to speak. But it seems difficult using the texts to challenge Jesus' acceptability for priesthood, especially since it is the maternal lineage in Judaism by which hereditary claims are made.

My two cents, as a non-Jew.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Blazn!

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

because melchizedek had no geneaology traced to levi which by tradition makes one defiled and not suitable as a priest; however, melchizedek was a priest nonetheless appointed not by law but probably by god, and abraham certainly recognized his superiority.

I think it was Wil that hit on the point that Melchizedek predated Levi. I wonder about the priest thing though, goodness knows I have used this same argument in the past...

But the thought hit me...Wasn't Sampson a priest? Specifically, a Nazarite priest? What relation did the Nazarites have with the Levites? Didn't Paul mention something about the Nazarites in the N.T. somewhere? (forgive my failing memory...)

so it is my understanding that melchizidek's purpose was to setup that which would come and be greater than him, and that is christ. it also paralleled with moses who was a type of saviour and prophet for freeing his people from pharoah and giving the law to the jews, but christ would come later and be an even greater saviour over all mankind and free all people from sin and death and actually fulfill the law and not just of prophet of truth, but truth itself.

I like this. I have long thought similar.

[flowperson]

A very interesting thread. I have three items to throw into the soup.

First, I believe that the head priest in Mormon hierarchy is known as the Melchizedek Priest. Anyone know why this is ? Is this some sort of priority claim on Priesthood rights on the part of the Mormon Religion ? I'm ignorant on what lies behind all of this, I only recall the name of their head priest.

Second, who were the Zadokites ? Melchizedek was designated a Zadokite priest if I remember correctly. Was this the tribal designation of those that inhabited Jerusalem at that time ? I also strongly believe that the very mount in Jerusalem that is held to be sacred by all three branches of the Abrahamic Religions is key to understanding things about the holiness of that place, and why it is one of the only things that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity seem to agree upon, and of course fight over.

Third and last, as I mentioned elsewhere sometime ago, the Deity is thought to be a shape-shifter in many cultures, and many prominent modern-day theologians still hold that this is likely true even today. Might this not explain our difficulty in fixing the nature and identity of this special Priest, and even Jesus himself? There is a special name for the Deity, IMHO, that is used in the Bible, and that is "Ancient of Days". In this sense I view the Deity as a spiritual being who has the ability and mission to travel throughout time and space to assume the persona, form, and identity that is needed in the historical timeline that He/She has created and is bound to maintain for the benefit of the human race and the earth. A bit of a grandiose viewpoint and explanation probably, but it works for me.

flow....

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Blazn!

I think it was Wil that hit on the point that Melchizedek predated Levi. I wonder about the priest thing though, goodness knows I have used this same argument in the past...

priesthood could have easily been established with the line that melchizedek was from, but it was not, for he had no known father or mother. high priests later came about through levites according to the law, but christ did not. my point is there are 2 that were high priests (and kings)-- M and J, but they were not levites.

[Faithfulservant]

If Melchizedek wasnt Christ Himself.. He certainly was a strong foreshadow of whats to come...

Was a King ...was a Priest.. served BREAD and WINE... Abraham tithed to him. He was the King of Righteousness and the King of Peace. No beginning of days no end of life.. no geneology and to Jews geneology was EVERYTHING....

This is my thought on the subject... Melchizedek was brought up in Genesis 14 and in Genesis 18 the Lord was visiting Abraham like it had happened before... and certainly Abraham knew it was the Lord... how would Abraham know it was the Lord and the men with him were angels?? If it was the first time The Lord had visited Abraham as such Im certain the bible would make issue of that fact.. Maybe it was made issue in Gen 14 when we met this Priest of the Most High God... Something to ponder.

Hebrews 7:1-10 1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated "king of righteousness," and then also king of Salem, meaning "king of peace," 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. 4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. 5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; 6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. 8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Blazn!

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

priesthood could have easily been established with the line that melchizedek was from, but it was not, for he had no known father or mother. high priests later came about through levites according to the law, but christ did not. my point is there are 2 that were high priests (and kings)-- M and J, but they were not levites.

I was agreeing with you, I simply added the question about Sampson and the Nazarite line of priests.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Flow!

Originally Posted by flowperson

First, I believe that the head priest in Mormon hierarchy is known as the Melchizedek Priest. Anyone know why this is ? Is this some sort of priority claim on Priesthood rights on the part of the Mormon Religion ? I'm ignorant on what lies behind all of this, I only recall the name of their head priest.

I know nothing in particular about Mormonsim.

Second, who were the Zadokites ? Melchizedek was designated a Zadokite priest if I remember correctly. Was this the tribal designation of those that inhabited Jerusalem at that time ? I also strongly believe that the very mount in Jerusalem that is held to be sacred by all three branches of the Abrahamic Religions is key to understanding things about the holiness of that place, and why it is one of the only things that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity seem to agree upon, and of course fight over.

I'm not fully certain about who the Zadok were / are. I am of the opinion they are (among the) elect. As for the city of Jerusalem...The site where Abraham offered Isaac is said to be a part of the Old City. By the time Joshua arrived with the wandering tribes, the area was occupied by the Jebusites. The original city was called Jebus until it was taken by Israel. If I recall correctly.

Third and last, as I mentioned elsewhere sometime ago, the Deity is thought to be a shape-shifter in many cultures, and many prominent modern-day theologians still hold that this is likely true even today. Might this not explain our difficulty in fixing the nature and identity of this special Priest, and even Jesus himself? There is a special name for the Deity, IMHO, that is used in the Bible, and that is "Ancient of Days". In this sense I view the Deity as a spiritual being who has the ability and mission to travel throughout time and space to assume the persona, form, and identity that is needed in the historical timeline that He/She has created and is bound to maintain for the benefit of the human race and the earth. A bit of a grandiose viewpoint and explanation probably, but it works for me.

This is an interesting perspective. Not sure how one could go about "proving or disproving" by Christian texts and methods, but it is an interesting view.

[Dor]

Originally Posted by flowperson

First, I believe that the head priest in Mormon hierarchy is known as the Melchizedek Priest. Anyone know why this is ? Is this some sort of priority claim on Priesthood rights on the part of the Mormon Religion ? I'm ignorant on what lies behind all of this, I only recall the name of their head priest.

Actually the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood is just the run of the mil people.
They do the Home Teaching, Conversion and Retention, Temporal Welfare, Single Adults among other things.

The heirarchy goes...
First Presidency-President and 2 counselors
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles-12 people....all the above 15 are considered prophets.
Seventies-the area presidencies
Stake Presidency
Bishops
Members

whew I did good here.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

If Melchizedek wasnt Christ Himself.. He...Was a King ...was a Priest.. served BREAD and WINE... Abraham tithed to him. He was the King of Righteousness and the King of Peace. No beginning of days no end of life.. no geneology and to Jews geneology was EVERYTHING.... and certainly Abraham knew it was the Lord... Something to ponder.

Namaste Dor and FaithfulServant... you are a couple of folks we trust that keep the ball on the fairway (while some of us frolick in the rough) but this is not out of the realm of possiblity?

Christ in a previous incarnation?

[Dor]

hehe Wil.

You have not seen my posts where I say it was actually The Son(pre-incarnate Jesus for lack of better terms) in the Garden, with Noah, Abraham, Isiac(sp), Moses, Joshua shall I continue?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Dor

hehe Wil.

You have not seen my posts where I say it was actually The Son(pre-incarnate Jesus for lack of better terms) in the Garden, with Noah, Abraham, Isiac(sp), Moses, Joshua shall I continue?

I'm not stopping you Dor...

v/r

Joshua

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dor

hehe Wil.

You have not seen my posts where I say it was actually The Son(pre-incarnate Jesus for lack of better terms) in the Garden, with Noah, Abraham, Isiac(sp), Moses, Joshua shall I continue?

Yes please do.

Now hmmm in the garden? Not Noah, but with Noah? Yes you've got me pondering.

Now I understand Adam consciousness an early Christ Consciousness but not nearly so developed in understanding as Jesus. And I can see each incarnation growth from that point...

But you are taking me on a limb that I am not used to with you. My confusion from the literal standpoint is in the Trinity, G-d creating (G-d incarnate) as Adam, then subsequently kicking self out of the garden. Now in Genesis there are references to Adam and Eve becoming like the 'us' after eating the apple...

But here goes my confusion again...Christ/Son/Adam commits original sin, which Christ/Son/Jesus absolves?

Have I totally missinterpretted what you were saying?

[Dor]

Not quite Jesus tells us in the New Testament no one has seen or heard The Father.

Well he can not lie so who was it that walked in the Garden with adam and Eve. The Son(Jesus before he was a man for lack of a better name).
Adam still was the one that sined and a pre-incarnate Jesus(for lack of better term) or The Son. banished him from the Garden.
But yes then Jesus actually took on the human body and paid the price for all past, present and future sins.

[wil]

ok back to the books for me to keep up there...onto other previous incarnations? with noah? with abraham? are you refering similarly to when they were talking to G-d, they were not but talking to the Son? Is this the line of thought?

[Faithfulservant]

Yes..They couldnt have been walking and talking face to face with the Father..