bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Forum related how to's?  Post your questions to the membership.


.

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: JUDE 1:9--Help?  (Read 8621 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kat

  • Guest
Re: JUDE 1:9--Help?
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2009, 01:03:24 PM »


Hi Lorine,

The Smith's Bible dictionary has a bit of information on Jewish tradition of Melchizedek.

The "order of Melchizedek," in Psa_110:4, is explained to mean "manner" = likeness in official dignity = a king and priest. The relation between Melchizedek and Christ as type and antitype, is made in the Epistle to the Hebrews to consist in the following particulars: Each was a priest, (1) not of the Levitical tribe; (2) superior to Abraham; (3) whose beginning and end are unknown; (4) who is not only a priest, but also a king of righteousness and peace.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Heb 7:1  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;
v. 2  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;
v. 3  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.

v. 11  If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

v. 15  And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest,
v. 16  Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
v. 17  For he testifieth, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

Melchizedek is foreshadowing Christ, and as a preview of Jesusí priesthood he is used to show that there is another line of priests which is greater than the Levitical priesthood.  So this shows the superiority of Jesus as the High Priest over the Levitical priests and uses Melchizedek to substantiate this point.

So in Hebrews Paul presented Melchizedek as like Christ in that he is without father, without mother, without genealogy, "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God" (verse 3).  Now I don't believe this is saying that Melchizedek literally did not have father or mother, but his background was mysterious and this was not known about him.

There is a few mentions of Melchizedek in Ray's tithing paper.  Here are the excerpts where he is mentioned.

http://www.bible-truths.com/tithing.html ------------------------------

Gen. 14:20, "And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he [Abram] gave him [Melchizedek king of Salem, the priest of the most high God, Ver. 18] TITHES of all [all the goods of war, Ver. 16]."
v
v
In this, the first mention of tithing in the Bible, Abram gives to Melchizedek (a priest of God who was also the king of the city of Salem) a tithe of the best of the booty taken in war. Notice that this was not wheat, corn, wine, oil, or cattle from Abramís personal possessions, but rather booty taken from conquered nations.
v
v
There is nothing stated here that would cause us to conclude that Abram (later changed to Abraham) ever tithed on a regular basis on his own person possessions. Although Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe of the booty of war, he told the king of Sodom that he would take none of it for himself.

In this same account recorded in the seventh chapter of Hebrews, we learn that the priests of Levi, from the family of Aaron (although far inferior to the priestly order of Melchizedek) also receive tithes from the people according to the law.
v
v
Now in order to be a priest one not only had to be of the tribe of Levi, but he also had to be of the family of Aaron. In fact, if one could not trace his genealogy back to the family of Aaron, he could not be a priest of God. This is the whole point of Hebrews seven. Jesus Christ is a priest for the eons of the rank of Melchizedek because Melchizedek predated the law which stated that only sons of Aaron could be priests. Therefore Melchizedekís genealogy is not given in the Scriptures, and Christ, who according to the flesh is of the line of Judah, can and will be Godís High Priest in the Kingdom of God.
------------------------------------------------------------

hope this is of some help.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

Logged

indianabob

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: JUDE 1:9--Help? Melchizedek??
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2009, 01:37:33 AM »

Lorine and Folks,

Some have supposed that Melchizedek may be Shem the ancestor of Abram who according to the genealogy in Genesis lived longer than Abraham.  Curious speculation if anyone is interested.

Indiana Bob
Logged

Pamela

  • Guest
Re: Michael
« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2009, 10:40:25 PM »

Hello Daywalker

I am relatively new to Ray's website and this is my first forum post.

A question comes to mind regarding the following verse:

Revelations 12
And a battle occurred in heaven. Michael and his messengers battle with the dragon, and the dragon battles, and its messengers. And they are not strong enough for him, neither was their place still found in heaven.

If Jesus is Michael would he not have been strong enough?

Warm regards to all,
Pamela
Logged

Dave in Tenn

  • Administrator
  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4141
    • FaceBook David Sanderson
Re: JUDE 1:9--Help?
« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2009, 11:10:34 PM »

Hi Pamela.  It wasn't Michael who wasn't strong enough or didn't prevail...it was the dragon.

Rev 12:7-9  And there came war in the heaven; Michael and his messengers did war against the dragon, and the dragon did war, and his messengers, and they did not prevail, nor was their place found any more in the heaven; and the great dragon was cast forth--the old serpent, who is called `Devil,' and `the Adversary,' who is leading astray the whole world--he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him.  (YLT)

So Michael was "strong enough".
Logged
Heb 10:32  But you must continue to remember those earlier days, how after you were enlightened you endured a hard and painful struggle.

mharrell08

  • Guest
Re: Michael
« Reply #24 on: November 04, 2009, 08:51:57 AM »

If Jesus is Michael would he not have been strong enough?


Also one side note:

Ray does not teach that Jesus is Michael, though he does state that 'MAYBE' Michael is Jesus or symbolic of Jesus.

Email reply from Ray (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,3232.msg24050.html#msg24050):

Dear Roy:

    We need to be careful about using words like "mere" when referring to such as Michael the ARCHANGEL.  The "ANGEL OF THE LORD" mentioned so often in Scripture is more than mere!  Likewise Jesus is in every meaning of the word, a "Messenger--Angel" of His Father.  If ARCH- signifies the very highest, (and we have no other being called an ARCHangel in Scripture except Michael [which means LIKE GOD]), then just maybe Jesus IS THAT ARCHANGEL.

    God be with you, Roy,

    Ray


The reason I point this out is because Hebrews 1 makes a distinct difference between Christ and His angels...I'll ask Ray directly this weekend if he's free, or see if Dennis can ask him. Either way, I'm sure he can provide more insight than the short paragraph above.


Thanks,

Marques
Logged

daywalker

  • Guest
Re: Michael
« Reply #25 on: November 04, 2009, 04:31:09 PM »

If Jesus is Michael would he not have been strong enough?


Also one side note:

Ray does not teach that Jesus is Michael, though he does state that 'MAYBE' Michael is Jesus or symbolic of Jesus.

Email reply from Ray (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,3232.msg24050.html#msg24050):

Dear Roy:

    We need to be careful about using words like "mere" when referring to such as Michael the ARCHANGEL.  The "ANGEL OF THE LORD" mentioned so often in Scripture is more than mere!  Likewise Jesus is in every meaning of the word, a "Messenger--Angel" of His Father.  If ARCH- signifies the very highest, (and we have no other being called an ARCHangel in Scripture except Michael [which means LIKE GOD]), then just maybe Jesus IS THAT ARCHANGEL.

    God be with you, Roy,

    Ray


The reason I point this out is because Hebrews 1 makes a distinct difference between Christ and His angels...I'll ask Ray directly this weekend if he's free, or see if Dennis can ask him. Either way, I'm sure he can provide more insight than the short paragraph above.


Thanks,

Marques


Hey Marques,

I would love to hear more from Ray on this topic... thanks in advance!


Daywalker
Logged

XxMYKLxX

  • Guest
Re: JUDE 1:9--Help?
« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2009, 04:43:53 AM »

I usually see Michael as a warrior, with battle gear..satan under his foot there is an angel that chains him in the bottomless pit. When he is released, and can't go back to heaven.. He'll show up.. in the flesh/ or through a person?
Logged

Pamela

  • Guest
Re: Melchizedek
« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2009, 09:16:49 AM »

As an ex-Worldwide Church of God member, I previously understood Melchizedek to be Jesus and Hebrews 7 was a record of him reclaiming his previous position...

v. 2  ...first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

...that only Jesus can be called King of righteousness because: Romans 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;...

v. 3  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.

...that this verse indicated immortality...that Melchizedek was 'made like unto the Son of God' because he had not yet been born of Mary...

v. 11  If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

...and that this verse by stating the lack of perfection of the Levitical priesthood, implied perfection of the priesthood of Melchizedek.
Logged

mharrell08

  • Guest
Re: JUDE 1:9--Help?
« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2009, 11:08:36 AM »

I usually see Michael as a warrior, with battle gear..satan under his foot there is an angel that chains him in the bottomless pit. When he is released, and can't go back to heaven.. He'll show up.. in the flesh/ or through a person?

Rev 12:7-9  there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him

Hello XxMYKLxX,

You seem to be interpreting the above verse as literal...though the book of Revelation is a book of symbols [Rev 1:1]. Heaven is a realm, not a place...Satan is a spiritual being, so he always is in the spiritual realm, though he influences the carnal mind here in the physical.

No where in scripture is it ever stated that Satan 'shows up in the flesh'. When Satan is released from the bottomless pit [Rev 20:3] he will be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone for 'the eons of the eons' [Rev 20:10 CLV].

Have you read Ray's Lake of Fire series yet? Ray goes over a multitude of scriptures teaching about the Lake of Fire and the symbols used in Revelation.


Hope this helps,

Marques
Logged

mharrell08

  • Guest
Re: Melchizedek
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2009, 11:45:23 AM »

As an ex-Worldwide Church of God member, I previously understood Melchizedek to be Jesus and Hebrews 7 was a record of him reclaiming his previous position...

v. 2  ...first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

...that only Jesus can be called King of righteousness because: Romans 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;...

v. 3  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.

...that this verse indicated immortality...that Melchizedek was 'made like unto the Son of God' because he had not yet been born of Mary...

v. 11  If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

...and that this verse by stating the lack of perfection of the Levitical priesthood, implied perfection of the priesthood of Melchizedek.


Hello Pamela,

Melchizedek is not Jesus and Jesus is not Melchizedek...he was only a 'shadow/type' of what Christ truly is. There are no scriptures which claim Jesus 'reclaimed' any position.

1. There are many passages where someone is referred to as 'righteous'...but this is only in the relative, not in the absolute. Similar to Jesus stating 'seek the Kingdom and it's righteousness' [Matt 6:33] which is relative because the absolute is 'none seeketh after God' [Rom 3:11].

Basically, no one in and of themselves is righteous...only through the grace of God is one righteous or in right standing.

2. Hebrews 7:2 states one 'like' the Son of God...Jesus IS the Son of God, never referred to as 'like' or 'similar'. Melchizedek's priesthood was continually because he had no son ['no descent'], not because he was immortal. Remember, Christ only has immortality [1 Tim 6:16].

The fact that he was not born of Mary has absolutely nothing to do with being the Son of God...only regarding Jesus did the Father state 'this day have I begotten you' [Ps 2:7, Heb 1:5]. Jesus is the Son of God because He is the Son of the Father [2 John 1:3].

3. No, there was no perfection of Melchizedek's priesthood implied...the writer of Hebrews states a priesthood 'should rise' [there would be no need to 'arise' a new priesthood if Melchizedek's was perfect] and one 'after the order' [in similar fashion...'a priest continually'].

Remember, 'all these things happened unto them for examples' [1 Cor 10:11] as well as 'These are the words which I [Jesus] spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me' [Luke 24:44]. Christ is the spiritual fulfillment of all the shadows & types of the OT, including Melchizedek.


Hope this helps,

Marques
Logged

Lorine

  • Guest
Re: JUDE 1:9--Help?
« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2009, 11:41:10 PM »

 ???
Could this Melchizedek, the King of Righteousness possibly be similar
to the Man that went to see Abraham before the destruction of Sodom. Gen. 18:1 says "And the Lord appeared unto him". Verse 2
"And he lifted up his eyes and looked and, lo, three men stood by him." Verse 3 "And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy
sight, pass not away from thy servant." Verse 22 "And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord." Verse 23 "And Abraham drew
near, and said, wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?"  Verse 25 Abraham said "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Verse 26 "And the Lord said" Verse 33 "And the Lord
went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham, and Abraham returned unto his place." Chapter 19:1 "And there came two angels to Sodom."
My thought is regarding this man that stayed and communed with Abraham after the other 2 left. Abraham called him Lord, and the Judge of all the earth. Was this man God in human form. Could this be the same as Melchizedek?
Lorine
Logged

mharrell08

  • Guest
Re: JUDE 1:9--Help?
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2009, 02:31:33 AM »

My thought is regarding this man that stayed and communed with Abraham after the other 2 left. Abraham called him Lord, and the Judge of all the earth. Was this man God in human form. Could this be the same as Melchizedek?
Lorine

Hello Lorine,

The angel in Gen 18 is a messenger from God, and represents Him...but He is not God in the flesh. Jesus was not made in the flesh until after John the Baptist was born [John 1:14].

Email reply from Ray (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,4925.msg38376.html#msg38376):

The "change in the law" had nothing to do with putting the tithing law under the Melchizedek priesthood!  Where di you ever come up with that.  Maybe it is YOU, Peter who needs to "research all sides of it Scripturally."

The "change in the law" had to do with Christ being now our High Priest, although He did NOT becomes a priest after the line of Levi/Aaron which was what THE LAW stipulated.  Melchizedek was the HIGH PRIEST of the Canaanites (call the priest of the most high El--god, the Canaanite god Baal).  This priest had the power and authority to TAX Abraham a tenth of all the spoils of war under his jurisdiction.  Heb. 7:6 should read: "Yet he [Melchizedek] who is not of their genealogy has TITHED Abraham...." (See, Concordant Literal New Testament).  Who do you mean Melchizedek "tithed" Abraham? He TAXED him.  Jehovay God Almighty never requested ten percent of the pagan junk from war.  Since when would God or HIS high priest desire the pagan gold and silver of Sodom. Give me a break.  Was Abraham more righteous than GOD, in that he would not even touch the pagan belongings of Sodom? Did God say, "Oh, but I WANT IT, and I want 10% of the BEST of the spoi ls?"  It's almost blasphemy.


And we know that Christ IS of the geneology of Abraham seeing that He is the seed spoken of in the promise [Gen 22:18, Gal 3:8]. Again Melchizedek is a shadow/type of Christ but not the reality.


Hope this helps,

Marques
Logged

G. Driggs

  • Guest
Re: Melchizedek
« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2009, 08:08:27 PM »


Remember, 'all these things happened unto them for examples' [1 Cor 10:11] as well as 'These are the words which I [Jesus] spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me' [Luke 24:44]. Christ is the spiritual fulfillment of all the shadows & types of the OT, including Melchizedek.


Hope this helps,

Marques

What I thought was very fascinating was the fact that the prophets of old knew their lives (as it was revealed to them) were shadows, types, and examples for the Elect.

1Pe 1:10  The prophets searched very hard and with great care to find out about that salvation. They spoke about the grace that was going to come to you.
1Pe 1:11  They wanted to find out when that salvation would come. The Spirit of Christ in them was telling them about the sufferings of Christ that were going to come. He was also telling them about the glory that would follow.
1Pe 1:12  It was made known to the prophets that they were not serving themselves. Instead, they were serving you when they spoke about the things that you have now heard. Those who have preached the good news to you have told you those things. They have done it with the help of the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into those things.

Isnt that something? This was (good) news to me just recently.

Peace, G.Driggs
Logged

Pamela

  • Guest
Re: Melchizedek
« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2009, 11:52:37 PM »


Hello Pamela,

Melchizedek is not Jesus and Jesus is not Melchizedek...he was only a 'shadow/type' of what Christ truly is. (...etc)

Hope this helps,

Marques

Hi Marques

Previous teaching that has not been corrected can really mess one up.

Grateful thanks, Pamela
Logged

G. Driggs

  • Guest
Re: Melchizedek
« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2009, 02:07:24 AM »


Hi Marques

Previous teaching that has not been corrected can really mess one up.

Grateful thanks, Pamela

Hi Pamela, very good and truthful point you make. I think all of us has brought with us some hay and stubble (previous teaching) from Babylon which needs to be burned. I probably still have more that needs to be burned that I may not be aware of. I think it is going to be a lifetime process, one day at a time.

Peace, G.Driggs 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.074 seconds with 27 queries.