Was Melchisedec the Pre-incarnate Christ?

[Dor]

Yes when people walked, talked, ate with, wrestled and on and on was with the Son before he became a human and was named Jesus. (not as a previous human incarnation)

[Faithfulservant]

Its not to say He hasnt put on flesh before though.. even angels put on flesh to walk among men and we dont know that they are angels... so why not the Almighty God. But He was Actually born into this world as the Man called Jesus Christ who is also God.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Here's another part of the Wiki entry:

Name and titles

Melchizedek's name can be translated (from Hebrew) either as Zedek is my king or as My king is righteous. The former, which treats Zedek as a proper noun, is the translation favoured by most biblical scholars, and refers to a Canaanite deity with that name. In Genesis, Melchizedek is also referred to as king of Salem (generally believed to be ancient Jerusalem), and priest of El Elyon. Though traditionally El Elyon is translated as most high God, and interpreted as a reference to Yahweh (by tradition) or El (by some scholars), other scholars believe that it refers to Zedek - regarding El Elyon as referring to a most high god, and using Melchizedek's name as the indicator of who the deity was. [1]
If the majority of scholars are right in taking the name as a reference to Zedek, then it would imply that Zedek was the main deity worshipped at Salem (i.e. Jerusalem) at that time. It is certainly the case that Jerusalem is plausibly referred to as city of Zedek (ir ha-zedek) in the Book of Isaiah[2], as well as home of Zedek (neweh zedek) in the Book of Jeremiah[3] and as gates of Zedek (sha'are zedek) in the Book of Psalms[4], though it is also true that in each of these cases zedek is traditionally translated as righteous (as in city of righteousness).[5]

[edit] Biblical Narrative

In the Tanakh, Melchizedek brought bread and wine to Abraham (then called Abram) after Abraham's victory over the four kings (led by Chedorlaomer) who had besieged Sodom and Gomorrah and had taken Abraham's nephew Lot prisoner. Melchizedek is also described as blessing Abraham in the name of El Elyon (see name and titles section for identification of El Elyon), and in return for these favours, Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe, from the spoils gained in the battle.[6]
Textual scholars view the Melchizedek narrative (Genesis 14:18-20) as a fragment from a once independent tradition concerning Jerusalem, that the Yahwist inserted awkwardly into the surrounding narrative concerning the battle. Scholars believe that it would be more historically realistic for Melchizedek himself, as the king of Jerusalem, to have been involved in the battle, and to have had a legitimate right to the portion of the spoils by virtue of this, rather than just by virtue of the favours given to Abraham as the Genesis narrative would have it. Scholars believe that the Yahwist inserted Abraham into this tradition to symbolically portray the king of Jerusalem as being inferior to Abraham, by it being Abraham who gives a portion of spoils to the king rather than the other way round.[7] Of course, Abraham's actions could have indicated deference toward a superior; he apparently was not coerced into giving anything to Melchizedek.

Chris

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by 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?

I wouldn't exactly call these incarnations, for that would imply having a physical human body. Rather it would be appearances of Jesus in a spiritual body or form of some sort.

Some other examples:

1.) Joshua 5:13-15 - Captain of the Lord's Hosts. Joshua worships this Being. If this was an angel, he would have rebuked Joshua in the same manner as the angel rebukes John in Revelation 19:10. Furthermore, this Being tells Joshua to take off his shoes for he is standing on holy ground, reminicent of God telling the same to Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3.

2.) Genesis 18 - It says right off that the LORD [YHWH] appears to Abraham in the plains of Mamre. Three men approach and Abraham runs to fetch food for them which they do eat. Then the LORD asks where Sarah his wife is. That's when the LORD makes the promise to Sarah that she will have a child.

Then the men prepare to go toward Sodom, which the LORD is going to destroy. In vs 22, it says,

"And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD."

Now it might casually appear that three men left to go to Sodom and that Abraham is merely standing before an unseen God, as one might imagine someone looking up to the sky as they talk to God. But look at Genesis 19:1:

"And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom:..."

What happened to the other one? I thought there were three men in Genesis 18. Could it be that Abraham was talking to God in the form of a man at the end of chapter 18?

3.) Daniel 3 - Nebuchadnezzar tosses Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego into the fiery furnace for not worshipping his golden idol. He has it heated up seven times the norm. But when Nebuchadnezzar looks into the furnace he says in vs 24-25:

"...Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

4.) Judges 13 - The parents of Samson meet the Angel of the LORD. It's better to see the entire context on this one:

"And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.
Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing:
For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.
Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name:
But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.
Then Manoah intreated the LORD, and said, O my Lord, let the man of God which thou didst send come again unto us, and teach us what we shall do unto the child that shall be born.
And God hearkened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came again unto the woman as she sat in the field: but Manoah her husband was not with her.
And the woman made haste, and ran, and shewed her husband, and said unto him, Behold, the man hath appeared unto me, that came unto me the other day.
And Manoah arose, and went after his wife, and came to the man, and said unto him, Art thou the man that spakest unto the woman? And he said, I am.
And Manoah said, Now let thy words come to pass. How shall we order the child, and how shall we do unto him?
And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware.
She may not eat of any thing that cometh of the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing: all that I commanded her let her observe.
And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, I pray thee, let us detain thee, until we shall have made ready a kid for thee.
And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread: and if thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD. For Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the LORD.
And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, What is thy name, that when thy sayings come to pass we may do thee honour?
And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?
So Manoah took a kid with a meat offering, and offered it upon a rock unto the LORD: and the angel did wonderously; and Manoah and his wife looked on.
For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground.
But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God." - Judges 13:3-22

5.) Genesis 32:22-31 - A similar incident happens to Jacob when he wrestles a man all night. The man does not reveal his name:

"And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

[Prober]

Originally Posted by Dor

Yes when people walked, talked, ate with, wrestled and on and on was with the Son before he became a human and was named Jesus. (not as a previous human incarnation)

WOW! You're totally trippin' me out! Never thought of that concept before. I'll have to examine.

It does make a lot of things make sense.

WOW!

[wil]

Ok now, I'm just trying to keep up... I surely think my bible thumpin fundie literalists could be pullin my leg as they take me on an esoteric trip through the old testament...but you wouldn't do that would ya?

So our current line is everytime anyone walked, talked, heard, saw, was with, wrestled with G-d it was actually the Christ portion of the Trinity..because Jesus the Christ said he was the only one who has seen G-d, therefor since he doesn't lie all those other instances were actually him...

But we are taking this another step and indicating that his only 'life' here was as Jesus as in that trip he was born, died and resurrected... (which Mel fills this bill as well, yes?)

a. Have I got the concept right yet?
b. How commonly accepted is this thought do you believe in Christian circles?

[Dor]

Yes. Jesus was only born as a human one simple little time about 2000 yrs ago to Mary.

How common is it? Who knows.

He said no man had seen or heard the father. Well Adam and Eve definately hid from someone, Moses definately heard someone, Abram definatly ate with someone, Jacob wrestled with someone. Joshua talked to someone and on and on.

You know dang good and well I do not think Jesus can or would lie.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Dor

Yes. Jesus was only born as a human one simple little time about 2000 yrs ago to Mary.

How common is it? Who knows.

He said no man had seen or heard the father. Well Adam and Eve definately hid from someone, Moses definately heard someone, Abram definatly ate with someone, Jacob wrestled with someone. Joshua talked to someone and on and on.

You know dang good and well I do not think Jesus can or would lie.

No man had seen or heard the "Father", but they certainly seen and heard the "Son"...makes perfect sense, until now. But I know you can answer this one. Who was talking from the heavens when Jesus came out of the river, and the Spirit appeared in the shape of a Dove before witnesses?

Do you mean no one had seen or heard the Father, to that point in time?

edit: or...did all the witnesses hear simply thunder, and only a few heard a voice...even so the original question would apply.

[wil]

It seems this line of thought is far from conventional. (Makes sense it would appeal to me then, yes?)

It causes us to change the old testament to fit the new paradigm...ie Jesus said, Jesus doesn't lie, therefor....and then a new line of thought exists...

All those folks that thought they saw G-d are now mistaken, corrected, or are they is it just that this interpretation indicates that when G-d crosses the boundary of the heavenly plane and the earthly one and is visible with our eyes in this light...it is the Christ we see.

The book of Enoch...out or in...would that be Christ with him too? if so, guess so...

So the unseeable, unknowable needs to wrap itself in something (burning bush etc. for us to see and that something when in human form is the Christ...

In trying to get my mind wrapped around this one...which really seems a stretch mostly because it is coming from not my 'what if, let's explore' friends, but from my 'this is the way it is' brothers and sisters... so what really confuses me now is we can take and modify, interpret to this point...but contemplating the thought that it wasn't Christ, but their higher selves, that they talked with, wrestled with, walked with is out of the question? Even if their higher selves is their Christ self? I see this thinking sooo very right next to my understanding that I can't identify the line between them that makes this plausable, acceptable, required even (as otherwise Jesus would have been telling an untruth..) yet my thinking is unacceptable, herecy, blasphemous?

Thank you so much for your patience with me here.

[Dor]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

No man had seen or heard the "Father", but they certainly seen and heard the "Son"...makes perfect sense, until now. But I know you can answer this one. Who was talking from the heavens when Jesus came out of the river, and the Spirit appeared in the shape of a Dove before witnesses?

Do you mean no one had seen or heard the Father, to that point in time?

edit: or...did all the witnesses hear simply thunder, and only a few heard a voice...even so the original question would apply.

Jesus is not talking to or about mankind in general. Nor is He talking to His disciples, friends and followers, though undoubtedly some of them are with Him. He is addressing a gathering of Jews, some of whom are trying to kill Him because He had called God His Father.
Throughout His discourse, Jesus is actually introducing and revealing God the Father to them. The Jews had not known God the Father previously. They and their forefathers knew Yahweh to some limited extent, but not God the Father. All of their dealings with God had been through the Logos, who became Jesus Christ. They had never seen the Father, and they had never heard His voice.
Notice that Jesus does not say, "No man has ever heard my Father's voice, nor ever will." Taking this verse at its face value, all it says is that the Jews had had no experience with the Father.
The Gospel accounts of the Baptism and the Transfiguration was of course the Father. The people being addressed in John 5 were not at either event.

[flowperson]

Dor...thanks for the clarification on the Mormon use of the Melchizedek title and its meaning. So it is used with regard to the rank and file as opposed to the heirarchy? That is interesting.

Juan...As you know I don't view the bible as an historical work but rather as a compendium of literature, that is and was divinely inspired, but a collection of works that points to certain truths rather than rendering them to us as literal truths. In short it is always open to interpretation in every ensuing generation. Great literature, such as the Bible, cannot be fixed in time but must grow in meaning with the needs of humanity in the present. Thanks for your interest in my approach.

Chris...Thank you for your very interesting analysis from Wiki on the origins of the Zedek concept. So if I read what you posted correctly, the Zedek name is likely specifically connected with the oldest place names for Jerusalem. The ancients placed great value and importance in place names as this was one of the first conditions used to facilitate the changes from nomadic communities into permanently placed communities.

As I mentioned elsewhere, if it is true, as some scholars believe, that the portable tabernacle from the desert was housed inside of the first Jerusalem Temple, then this would be another indicator of the Hebrew tribe's transition from nomadic status to permanence in this specific place since they believed to be nearest to their G-d in this place, and not just in any particular stucture.

As I said earlier there must have been something very special to the ancients about the mount upon which Jews, Christians , and now Muslims have built such a great part of their histories and traditions. Evidently, the spiritual presence of the Zedek Deity was so dominant and prevalent in this place that it took precedence over all others, especially so with the onset of the Melchizedek priesthood.

Wil et all... as Juan observed my approach is different from traditional interpretations of the Deity phenomenon throughout time, but as you all have observed, there is some sort of consistent pattern to all these contacts with humanity over time as described in the Bible. Yes, I believe that Jesus lived in the flesh 2,000 years ago, but after death his spirit likely became the first time traveler, going backwards and forwards in time to accomplish G-d's ultimate plans and purposes through the actions of those in whom He chose to dwell. As I said, it's pretty crazy on the face of it, but it works for me. Kinda' reminds me of one of my favorite TV programs of all time, Quantum Leap.

flow....

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by wil

It seems this line of thought is far from conventional. (Makes sense it would appeal to me then, yes?)

It causes us to change the old testament to fit the new paradigm...ie Jesus said, Jesus doesn't lie, therefor....and then a new line of thought exists...

All those folks that thought they saw G-d are now mistaken, corrected, or are they is it just that this interpretation indicates that when G-d crosses the boundary of the heavenly plane and the earthly one and is visible with our eyes in this light...it is the Christ we see.

The book of Enoch...out or in...would that be Christ with him too? if so, guess so...

So the unseeable, unknowable needs to wrap itself in something (burning bush etc. for us to see and that something when in human form is the Christ...

In trying to get my mind wrapped around this one...which really seems a stretch mostly because it is coming from not my 'what if, let's explore' friends, but from my 'this is the way it is' brothers and sisters... so what really confuses me now is we can take and modify, interpret to this point...but contemplating the thought that it wasn't Christ, but their higher selves, that they talked with, wrestled with, walked with is out of the question? Even if their higher selves is their Christ self? I see this thinking sooo very right next to my understanding that I can't identify the line between them that makes this plausable, acceptable, required even (as otherwise Jesus would have been telling an untruth..) yet my thinking is unacceptable, herecy, blasphemous?

Thank you so much for your patience with me here.

Im not quite sure how your twisting this around in your head.. so Im just going to say that the bible was written about Jesus... the OT is leading up to the gospel of Jesus Christ. It sets the way for an acceptance of Jesus as our Messiah.and showing us how to be free from a condemning law and how we are justified by faith.

The joy for some us Christians in reading the OT is looking for Jesus in it.. Even the levitical books.. oh my goodness...all the laws on sacrificing and priesthood.. doesnt anyone realize that we accepting Christ as Lord and Savior of your life puts US in the priesthood? That we are told to be holy as God is holy..what makes for holiness is sacrificing we are told how to sacrifice in the NT under the new covenant...

There are no "higher" selves in my bible.. no "christ" selves other than our born again new creation status.. We are all sinners born again by the grace of God. We are dead in the flesh and made alive in the Spirit.. my bible says that we are dead unless we accept the gift of salvation... and that means accepting Christ as the Way the Truth and the LIFE. The OT people were justified by faith because they accepted God with Faith.. The same way we are justified by faith because we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Your thinking is blasphemous to me because you are leaving out the diety of Jesus Christ... You are replacing my God with yourself... You are worshipping another god...Yourself. But your a sinner like Im a sinner and I love you and continue to pray for you and others that I have come to know on this forum.. because thats what Jesus told us to do.. Love everyone as He has loved me. How can I do less....I live to please Him.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

... doesnt anyone realize that we accepting Christ as Lord and Savior of your life puts US in the priesthood? That we are told to be holy as God is holy.....

Namaste FS, see, this is where I am stuck poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe, toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.

You say we are to be holy as G-d is holy...I see that Christ is holy as G-d is holy (ie one in the same) I say higher self or Christ self as something to be attained...I don't see the difference.

You say you look through the old testament to see Christ, I look in you to see Christ. I see us as expressions of G-d sometimes heavily vieled curtains closed, but inside their somewhere is the presence, is Christ waiting, waiting, waiting to come out.

I don't worship another G-d, I don't worship myself or others. It is so complete so all encompassing, I just don't see the difference.