“So he may be the same metaphysical entity as Melchizedek”
Hmmmm
I have problems with that statement. It is God who created the universe, man, etc. He is the Triune God so I don’t know that you can put Mel in the same category as Jesus.
(thanks for the belly button info btw 
What is BAC?
Born Again Christian
Maybe I missed something. Where did you get the original Greek from for 7:3? Are you sure the Greek you read wasn`t backwards translated from the common verse?
I have a Greek New Testament (Nestle-Aland, 1995). The whole NT was written in Greek. There isn’t any mystery about the original Greek texts. We have several extant manuscripts. The “common verse” is the Greek that I posted.
Thanks.
Is it just me, or have the Avatars become rather more successful of late?
Diogenes(and others), read these links and let me know what you make of them.
and here,(from this link)
"Now those who still would believe that Melchizedek is/was Christ will say " What about Hebrews 7:3 "?
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"
The Greek verb aphomoioo is translated as made like here. Aphomoioo always refers to two distinct and separate entities . This falls in line with our previous realization of the other words denoting two completely separate individuals . The Levitical priesthood was based on lineage ( a priest had to be a Levite , a descendant of Aaron and this beyond any doubt.). Let us refer to the reforming of the Levitical priesthood in Nehemiah 7:64.
" These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy , but it was not found : Therefore were they , as polluted , put from the priesthood."
The concept of Hebrews 7:3 is not that Melchizedek did not have a literal father or mother but rather that no record of his genealogy is found in the bible. In the bible even silence can speak volumes. Of course we know that Jesus Christ did have a father and a mother ( see Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23 -28 ). "having neither beginning of days , nor end of life " also refers to the bibles silence on such matters but has a second meaning in that according to Numbers 4:47 a priest could only serve in the priesthood from between the ages of 30 to 50 years old. He was not born into the priesthood ( no beginning of days ) nor ended his life in the service of the altar but retired at the young age of 50 . In the case of the high priest his service ended at death but we see that Melchizedek was called the priest of the most high God not high priest ; although he could have been. "
And the following; (here)
(There`s more in the link if you scroll down.)
"The New Analytical Greek Lexicon says that kata means “after the fashion or likeness of.”
HEBREWS 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, 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 [agenealogetos]1, having neither beginning of days nor end of life2, but made like [aphomoiomenos] the Son of God, remains a priest continually3. (NKJV)
The belief that Melchizedek was Christ rests on three erroneous assumptions about Hebrews 7:3, shown by the superscripted numbers in the passage above.
The first is the argument that since Melchizedek is said to be without father, mother, and genealogy, he has to be eternal and therefore the Son of God. However, many have failed to see that the author does not use the terms “without father” (apatoor), “without mother” (ametoor), and “without genealogy” (agenealogetos) literally in this passage. "
I agree that the passage in question is figurative, that the inferences above are perfectly reasonable and that it was not intended to potray Mel as immortal or divine but was just referring to his lack of geneology and possible staus as a non-hereditary priest.
The phrase “Son of God” is used often in Hebrew scripture simply to refer to someone who is especially righteous or favored by God, so that doesn’t necessarily imply divine staus either…in fact it definitely did not as it was applied to ancient Jewish priests.
I have no problem at all with your interpretation of the passage, in fact, I agree with it. I was taking exception only to the translation proffered by the Peshitto which inserts an explanatory phrase ("…written in the geneologies") directly into the translation rather than offering it as an annotation or commentary on the side. The Peshitto is probably correct in drawing that inference but I prefer it when the text is translated as directly as possible and then the inferences are identified as inferences.
A more interesting question is who were the “sons of god” (or “Nephilim”) who came down from Heaven and mated with human women in Genesis 6?
“Peshitto is probably correct in drawing that inference but I prefer it when the text is translated as directly as possible and then the inferences are identified as inferences.”
Very well, that would make sense to me too.
Most of my references call 1st century common Greek, “Koine.” Just FYI.
I was under the impression that Matthew wrote his Gospel both in Greek and Hebrew at the same time. Any takers?
Thanks for the original Greek, I don’t know anything about that. I have 3 Bibles which say:
New American Bible 7:3
Without father, mother or ancestry, without beginning of days of end of life …
KJV
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of dayes nor end of life …
Good News Bible
There is no record of Melchizedek’s father or mother or any of his ancestors; no record of his birth or his death.
I don’t doubt there must be some degree of interpretation with translations, considering vagueness of language and change over time. But there must be a Greek word for record, if it was used in the original why doesn’t it appear in all 3 translations. Some translations are so interpreted they show to bias of the tranlator and some people prefer to believe the obvious error.
According to Encyclopedia Britannica Hebrews is written in “extremely sophisticated and culturede Greek, the best in the New Testament.” I stumbled across this last year and have never heard it mentioned before. I would think Bible scholars would have noticed and the anomaly would attract attention.
On the subject of Enoch, there are two ancient texts which are not included in the official Bible. THE BOOK OF ENOCH and THE BOOK OF THE SECRETS OF ENOCH. Somebody had to edit the word of God. LOL!
Dal Timgar
“Koine” means “common.” That was my point.
An early Christian writer named Papius wrote that Matthew had compiled a sayings gospel in Hebrew but no such gospel has ever been found. The Gospel of Matthew was composed entirely in Greek, it’s not a translation and it wasn’t written by an apostle. It quotes extensively from Mark and relies on the Greek Septuagint rather than Hebrew scripture. It’s also a narrative gospel not a sayings gospel.
It’s possible that a sayings gospel was compiled, translated into Greek and became what is now called the “Q” Gospel, a hypothetical Greek source of sayings which is present in both Matthew and Luke. If the Greek author of Matthew used Q as a core to wrap his narrative around, it may have been known that the apostle Matthew had compiled the sayings and that may have given rise to the second century tradition which accorded that gospel’s authorship to the apostle (The G of M does not actually name its own author).
<<“Koine” means “common.” That was my point.>> Well, der! That’s why I posted the word.
Thanks for the Matthew info.
As for the Mel = Jesus question, we seem to have dropped squarely into the land of speculation. It’s fun to talk about it, though.