Pages

Thursday, July 31, 2008

No Mother or Father

Although Candy allowed some comments this week she didn't allow all and she deliberately manipulated others.

In the Mary Collins thread toward the end, loyal Candyite Amanda wrote this as her way of explaining that Christ had no mother:



Another thought came to me as I was making supper (meatloaf and potatoes in the oven now smelling WONDERFUL!!!) As another commenter asked recently, about this fellow Melchisedec. Melchisedec was used repeatedly as an illustration of Christ.


" ...even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 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; 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."
-Hebrews 6:20-7:3-


That's pretty strait forward!
Well, it's not quite that "strait" forward. Father William G. Most gives this commentary on the book of Hebrews:

Also the way the Epistle comments on Melchizedek as being without 
father or mother or end of days, is homiletic freedom.
 

Four kings had attacked five kings, including the king of Sodom. 
The four took spoils, and took Lot, nephew of Abraham as captive. 
When Abraham heard of it he gathered 318 of his retainers, and set 
out against the four kings, and defeated them. On his return the 
King of Sodom met him and suggested Abraham keep the goods, but 
give him the people. Abraham refused to keep anything, seemingly 
because of an oath he had taken when Melchizedek, king of Salem, 
met him. Melchizedek brought out bread and wine. Was that just a 
refreshment for Abraham, or was it meant as a sacrifice? Later 
Christian writers understood it as a sacrifice.

His name is taken to mean either King of Peace (Salem) or King of 
righteousness (sedeq). These are plausible etymologies.

Abraham gave him a tenth of all the spoils of the military 
expedition.

Melchizedek is described as without father or mother, without 
genealogy. Genesis indeed does not give any lineage for him. Thus 
he foreshadows the Son of God, a priest forever.

Then our author exclaims: How great is Melchizedek - Abraham gave 
him tithes, recognizing his superiority. The descendants of Levi 
received tithes too in later times, as the offspring of Abraham. 
Yet Melchizedek, who has not the same genealogy as them, received 
tithes from the father of the chosen people, Abraham. Further, 
Abraham received a blessing from Melchizedek - but one receives 
blessings only from a superior, not from an inferior. So again, 
Melchizedek, type of Christ, is superior to Abraham.

In fact since Levi who was to come from Abraham, was still in the 
body of Abraham, we can say that Levi too paid tithes to 
Melchizedek - and so the levitical priesthood is less than that of 
Melchizedek.

Amanda is trying to say that her verse is saying Christ had no mother, but it is really referring to Melchizedek.

I did write a comment pointing that out.  However, Candy did NOT allow that comment although it too was respectful.  Instead she lets Amanda have the last word on that. She also lets Amanda have the last word on my link to Catholic Answers which explains the Catholic perspective on the title Mother of God.


Elena out of a LARGE amount of quotes and references, only 1 or 2 were from the BIBLE. I really couldn't care less what such and such catechism or so and so person says, I am a follower of CHRIST (and the Bible says He is the Word-God's Word is the Bible- made flesh) not man, so I really don't care one little bit about what man has to say on the matter. And none of that addressed my point of dividing God into separate pieces. So....no, I didn't find that helpful in the least.

Yea...quotes from pesky men like the early church fathers.  Whatever. 


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

8 comments:

Kelly said...

I considered leaving a comment pointing out that that passage was talking about Melchesidek, but I thought the hour where Catholics were allowed to leave comments had probably expired.

Perplexity said...

I left a comment asking if Kelly or Elena had anything further to say after Amanda's...that was not posted, obviously. I am too "connected" to this site for her to consider anything I'd have to say. In fact, she didn't post a single one of my comments throughout the evening. I think because I followed one of you, for the most part, and referenced what one of you said in most of my comments. I wasn't always as gracious as all of you are, but I wasn't nearly as flat out antagonistic as many of the other ones she allowed through in order to play her games. Eventually, someone came along and said on Candy's comments "notice how all those Catholic comments stopped after..." referring to a specific comment that supposedly "shut down the Catholic argument" or whatever. Of course they stopped, because Candy stopped posting them - not because anyone stopped submitting them.

It is infuriating that she plays such games while functioning with her perfect Christianity as a shield. Of course one can appear perfect to her online friends when one controls what is, and is not, contained in a conversation, in its entirety.

As I've said many times before, I am glad this site is here to clarify and explain and take the misinformation out of Candy's interpretation of a church and belief system she clearly does not understand.

Elena said...

I left a comment on Amanda's. She may not post it either, but at least she will know that her proof text verse didn't exactly make her point.

Milehimama said...

My Navarre Pentateuch also comments on Melchizadech, saying that the sacrifice was also an important way to show that Yahweh was not just the God of Abraham and later, the Jews; also, that He was universal and personal (not tied to a place or time or people).

I don't even try to comment. She has never published any of them, even before I started commenting here or on the other Candy

russkellyphd said...

The “historical” Melchizedek of Genesis 14 was NEGATIVE FOR ISRAEL:

(1) Melchizedek received tithes because of a long-standing spoils of war Semitic Canaanite law.

(2) Melchizedek received tithes because he was the governing priest-king of Abraham and the region he traveled through. ,

(3) Melchizedek worshiped El Elyon, the very common title for pagan Baal. Israel did not worship God using this name until 1000 years later—after King David captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites,

(4) Melchizedek worshiped Salem (Shalim), goddess of the dawn, and Zedek (Tsadeq) (Jupiter) god of justice—two very common lower gods in the Canaanite pantheon (research under ‘Phoenician gods’),

(5) Melchizedek honored El Elyon as the “god of the nations” known to Gentiles; Melchizedek did not know God as YAHWEH, Abraham’s covenant God (Deut. 32:8).

(6) Melchizedek had no recorded genealogy to prove that he was an Israelite or Levitical priest, therefore, he was not qualified to be a priest,

(7) Melchizedek had no recorded birth or death, therefore, had no legal proof that he could be the father of a priest in Israel

The “typical” Melchizedek, Jesus, was a POSITIVE FOR ALL NATIONS:

(1) Jesus received tithes as proof that he was greater than Abraham; [Since Jesus was also the seed of Abraham, does that prove that Melchizedek was greater than Jesus? Of course not!]

(2) Jesus received tithes because he was “like” the Son of God, “typical”,

(3) Jesus, who was Israel’s YAHWEH, re-interpreted Melchizedek’s Canaanite title to become the title for the true God Most High,

(4) Jesus is the true God of Peace whom Melchizedek thought that he worshiped; Jesus is the true God of Righteousness whom Melchizedek thought that he worshiped

(5) Jesus’ New Covenant transcends Israel’s Old Covenant and reveals the true God as “God of the Nations,” “Most High God,” and this Semitic Canaanite NEGATIVE of Melchizedek becomes a POSITIVE for Jesus,

(6) Like the historical Melchizedek Jesus, on his God-side, had no recorded parents because he was Eternal God; however, unlike the historical Melchizedek, Jesus on his human-side, both his mother’s and his father’s genealogical record is in the Bible,

(7) Jesus, on his God-side is Eternal; however, unlike the historical Melchizedek the Bible records both a birth and a death for him.

Other considerations:

(1) The nature of Abraham’s the tithe was only pre Mosaic Law; it was not pre-Canaanite law. It is easy to prove that non-Israelites all around the Semitic world gave spoils of war tithes long before the Mosaic Law existed.

(2) Therefore, the very common declaration that Abram gave it “voluntarily” is unbiblical—it is not stated in the Bible.

(3) The percentage of Abraham’s spoils of war tithe is not from the Mosaic Law. Numbers 31:21, 26-29 described an ordinance from the Law which limits the spoils of war tithe to only one 1000th (.1%) instead of one tenth (10%).

(4) Whereas, the “historical” is only such “by interpretation,” the “typical” is such in reality.

(5) Whereas, the historical Abraham returned 90% to the King of Sodom, the typical, Jesus, would never consider such action.

(6) Whereas, the historical Melchizedek was only “made like the Son of God,” the typical, Jesus, WAS the Son of God.

(7) Concerning Levi’s tithe to Melchizedek: First, even if Melchizedek were a true priest of Yahweh, Levi would normally give a true tithe of only 1%, that is, one tenth of one tenth, to the priests; therefore his gift is only typical. Second, according to Numbers 31, Levi’s spoils of war tithe to the Aaronic priests would only be .1%, that is, one part in a thousand; therefore, his tithe through Abraham is, again, typical.

(8) Since Hebrews 7:13-14 excludes the historical Melchizedek, then Levi never did pay tithes through Abraham to the “historical” Melchizedek! He paid them to the “typical” Melchizedek, Jesus Christ. It is wrong to use Hebrews 7’s description of the typical Melchizedek in order to change the literal meaning of Genesis 14. Hebrews 7:13, “For he of whom these things are spoken pertains to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar,” cannot possibly “literally” change Genesis 14 because Hebrews 7:14 says Jesus came out of Judah (which is not true of the historical Melchizedek).

(9) The typical Levi paid tithes to the typical Melchizedek, that is, Jesus Christ—every time he forwarded his tenth of the tithe to the priests. This is because Jesus is the true High Priest of all believers with no genealogy because he is eternal.

Milehimama said...

Sorry, baby hit publish!

Anyway, she has never published my comments, even before I started commenting on the Candy Correction sites, and even when my comment was completely unrelated (we use the same homeschool history book, and I asked if she used the activity guide, for example.) I'm pretty sure it's because my homepage is very obviously Catholic, but I don't know that for sure.

She HAS seen me comment on others sites, and felt the need to call me a liar in the comments on other peoples blogs, however! It seems we frequent the same bloggy circle.

Kelly said...

Dr. Russ Kelly, Ph.D.,

Wow, that is very lengthy and very interesting. Is this information based on a particular source?

I know that some scholars speculate that Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah. Do you agree or disagree?

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD said...

My PHD was on the subject of tithing. I researched all sources I could find and have material from almost all major denominations.
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
Author of Should the Church Teach Tithing?