Ace,

I don't think anyone could answer you on this one, but I would like to know to. He would have to be someone who came from God, but not born of flesh.

"Melchizedek is not found on the register of the only line of legitimate priests"

"The author of Hebrews clearly did not want anyone to elevate him to the level of the Son of God."

Brandon...i like your answer,it makes more sense using what they call reason. thinking. like you just did

Right. If he was without descent (having no mother or father) it would follow that he would not be registered in any line of priest since other priests were descendent from Men.

So you are correct, there would be no line of descent from Aaron, nor anyone else, as stated in the passage.

In that you state that Jesus himself became a priest of the Melchizedek line lends even more credibility that Melchizedek was not born of Man, and whose "reign which will last forever" is congruent with the original passage as literal, not figurative (having neither beginning of days, nor end of life).

Re: the statement "it says now consider how great this MAN was." (7:3 "...but made like unto the Son of God:") Jesus was ALSO a man, correct? But how was Jesus made?

It appears the author of Hebrews, if they did not want anyone to elevate him to the level of the Son of God, would not go out of his way to say "but made like unto the Son of God."

But it goes out of its way to elaborate the case. So why mention it at all? It's like you (or Christians?) have a vested interested in Hebrews being wrong. Why?

@Aces

I am going to have to agree with Karl man.
I mean John 3:16 says His ONLY begotten son.
And if you look at Hebrews, the author mentions a lot of heroes of the faith, all who were men, mortal normal men. Hebrews never points to a man who is equal or greater than Christ he just uses the story of Melchizedek to draw a comparison.

And here is another thing to think about. Genesis says Melchizedek was the King of Salem. You accurately translated the word Salem, it does mean peace, but could it possibly mean King of Peace, or is it far more likely that it means he was the king of the city of Salem (likely Jerusalem) which is what most scholars think? Because if you hold that he was the KING of Peace, the you are actually elevating him to a level above Jesus, the Prince of Peace.

No, not what I was thinking at all. I was thinking more along the lines of 'how did he get to be King since Kings were typically by birthright if there is no record of his birth?'

And if he in fact was the king of Jerusalem, would he not still be ruling today unless he was overthrown.

Maybe not ruling, but still alive.

And if he was overthrown or killed would their not be a record of this? Yes there would be, and the writer of Hebrews would have probably known about it. Because he would have been the king of jerusalem way before the Lord gave the promised land to His people.

Now that's a good point!

So if he wasn't on the thrown, he either was overthrown (but how could you possibly overthrow a son of God), he stepped down (which as far as I know was never seen in the OT, kings either died or were overthrown), or he died. The most logical thing to conclude would be that he was a man, not a son of God. Because if he was then he would probably still be on the throne today.

Sounds reasonable. Not that he wouldn't have decided to leave and "walk the earth" (Ref: Quai Chang Caine) but rather that his line of priests should still exist ("these priests reign forever, they are without beginning or end") so where are they? Has the Catholic Church usurped it as their own, by any chance?

Point being, if he was just a man, and he really did perish, all that "like unto the Son of God" talk was for what?

I mean think about it, if a son of God was set on a throne then there would be no way you could hope to unseat him from that throne. And if God set up a son of God on the throne that would be completely opposite of everything He stands for. Humility, the least of these etc. If God wanted it done that way then Jesus would have never died on the Cross and he would be the ruler of the world on a worldly throne.

Another thing is that he would have to be part of the trinity, which would then be no longer a trinity.

True that.

There are just too many things wrong with the idea that he was a son of God. John 3:16 would be a lie.

Agreed. So the words attributed to Melchisedec in Hebrews must not be the literal truth.

Well let me ask you this, how can anyone be without a mother or father? Even Jesus had a mother. See the no mother father thing just points to the fact that they had no record of a beginning for him, him being born, not that he literally had no mother or father. It is not possible to be a human man without being born.

Agreed, saving an immaculate creation like Adam and Eve.

The reason Jesus has no beginning isn't because he had no mother and father (because Mary was His mother) it is because he is God and was with God since before time. He is was and always will be. To literally say that another has no beginning is saying that that person is God. Hebrews was not in anyway saying that.

And the without end thing is easy to explain too.
To go with a Disney analogy here, think about Simba or Aladdin. (Yes i know they are cartoon fairytale but follow me haha) Are they ever recorded as dying? No they are not, this is why they are still alive in the imagination of people, even adults. To us they never died, why? Not because Simba and Aladdin couldn't die, we know that they could one was a lion and the other just a normal human. We know they could die, but the writers didn't write their death so they live on forever in our imaginations. I guess you could use Amelia Earhardt as an example too, she was real and yet remained alive in peoples imaginations until it was obvious that she had to be dead due to age.

An imperfect example sure, but effective. Melchizedek was never recorded as dying so he lived on in the minds of the people who knew his story and how their great ancestor Abraham tithed to him. It doesn't mean he never died, just that no one has any record of his death.

Good analogy. I accept that as the case.

Jesus on the other hand will literally live and reign forever. The author was just putting it in a way that they would understand by comparing His reign to that of Melchizedek's

Of course He was a man, who had a mother. Born of a virgin. So to take what the author of Hebrews said as meaning Melchizedek just can into existence without a mother would be foolish, since even Jesus had a mother. Well then you could speculate that he might not have had a father, but if that were so don't you think the author would have said, without father? Instead of without mother or father? But he does say that and if you read it in context and look at the entirety of scripture the only logical conclusion to come to is that he was a man, a mortal man, not a son of God.

I like your example better. With God, any magic will do.


It is just a comparison. Like unto the Son of God, not but made a Son of God. or WAS a Son of God. He said LIKE.
Melchizedek was a foreshadowing to Jesus, the OT is filled with them. His reign as king and priest was meant to be something that pointed to what Christ's reign was going to be like, only Christ's reign is far better.

Okay, you've convinced me.


We are not trying to say Hebrews is wrong by any stretch of the imagination. We are trying to show you why your translation of Hebrews is wrong.

There was once a man who told me that the non-believer can not understand the Bible.

I am sure you are correct. My translation, remember, was "as spoken" that is, as literally spoken. But you have shown that you can't take things for what they actually say, when it comes to biblical verse.

It was a pleasure speaking with you. Consider my query well answered. Thank you.

...if there is one thing this website has done...

There was once a man who told me that the non-believer can not understand the Bible.
They can read it just like the believer but will not have the undrstanding of it.
I am not dissing anyone...just stating that which I have heard and now understand

Melchisedec - Another sinless begotten son?
Melchisedec was not decended from Adam, nor was he ever born, nor shall he ever die. So where is he and what is he if he is not another of god's sons? This is just a curiosity since he is obviously still alive and was directly fathered by the Creator.

@Aces

Man you are taking what I said and running all sorts of directions with it. Sure people try and make the Bible say whatever they want but that doesn't mean that it actually says it. [ I certainly agree with that. But I took the bible for what it actually says, and you showed it may not actually mean that. ] That passage was to be taken literally. Literally as a comparison. That is what the context was, a comparison. [ A comparison to something that wasn't there. Recall you went to another source to form an opinion that is not stated in the context of the original text. ] And to understand anything we have to understand it in the context of which it was written that is why it is always helpful to research the time period and stuff. [ Agreed, but you must also consider that any explanation that does not equal the actual words as written must necessarily be opinion, not fact, because any author could have just as well written what he meant, not necessarily what another concludes. ] That's what I did and found that it most likely was referring to no records of birth or death, not actually not born and did not die. This makes complete sense, Mel kind of just appeared and disappeared in Genesis leaving no information about him other than what is found in those passages. [ And I have agreed to you conclusion that is what it "most likely" means, in spite of the fact that the actual text specifically goes out of its way to say, "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Can this be said of any other man? ] We know he was a King and a Priest of El Elyon (God Most High). An that is it, but every earthly king ever mentioned in scripture was a man who was born and then died. So it is safe to assume and conclude that he was born and then died, just that noone had record of it. [ And none were like unto the Son of God. ] The writer of Hebrews was playing of the legend of Mel. Mel will forever be a mystery to everyone, why? Because we know nothing about him. [ Except that he was like unto the Son of God. ] Hebrews was using the legend to draw a comparison to help people understand Jesus a little more. [ As in, Jesus was born, Mel has no record of being born? As in, Jesus was the Son of God; Mel having no birth or death record was like Jesus who had both? If this is a comparison of the two men, so far it is only that both were like the Son of God. ]

Yes there are a bunch of different people who think differently, but if you take into account all scripture, the time it was written, how it was written etc. this seems to be the only logical conclusion.

As for the Bible being full of contradictions, I most certainly do not see that it is. 99% of the contradictions I have ever heard come from people who take verses out of context, or either are uneducated in scripture.

[ Ah, that was why I gave the 23,000 denominations example. It is a dis-confirmation of your "out of context or uneducated" example. All those people are ALSO Christians, and they too must be taking things "out of context or uneducated" when their conclusion does not equal yours! ]

I do not and will not claim to know everything about scripture or know all truth, but I do do my research and read things in context and do my best not to let crazy theories pop into my head. I take scripture at its word and try not to impose myself or what I would like it to say on what I believe it says

Ah, that was why I gave the 23,000 denominations example. It is a dis-confirmation of your "out of context or uneducated" example. All those people are ALSO Christians, and they too must be taking things "out of context or uneducated" when their conclusion does not equal yours!

The "spirit of God" (according to all of them) is their guiding light in their particular understanding, and yet they all contradict each other in interpreting its meaning. What does that tell you?

The "context" often supplied by those with emotional attachments to the subject is generally according to whatever passages they find that AGREE with what they already believe. This is called confirmation bias. You believe you have the right context. They believe they have the right context. Neither of your "right contexts" agree with what is "actually written"! What does that tell you?

While discovering ways to explain away contradictions and inconsistencies, you must ask yourself "why aren't these texts written with complete harmony in every facet without flaw?" If this book was written by a God ("the Word of God" literally) WHY must you find ways to account for error?

Was Mel really "like unto the Son of God?" Then it should be so, or it shouldn't say so. Is there really a solid dome above the earth called a firmament? Were plants really flourishing before there was a sun? Shouldn't a work by God be perfectly true?

But why the exaggeration for a "comparison" that has no value? If Mel was an ordinary man, why the necessity for a comparison with Jesus in the first place?. For what? And who cares?

was the need to lie (for a comparison??), greater than the message of the truth? Or is it possible the writer of Hebrews "thought" he was writing the truth?