The Book of Messages: Writings Inspired by Melchizedek
None of us likes to be ridiculed. Few are able to withstand popular opinion even when they know it is wrong, and it is difficult to comprehend the magnificent courage displayed by Abraham in his profound obedience to Jehovah, in the midst of his surroundings.http://solutionsexplorer.org/a-critics-view-on-doctors-medical-fraternity.php
The Salem Religion in Mesopotamia - The Melchizedek Teachings in the Levant
For his insistence upon the worship of the only true and Living God, he was persecuted and his life sought. Several hundred years had passed since the flood, and people had multiplied and spread over the face of the earth. The civilizations of Egypt, Chaldea, Assyria and the petty nations of Canaan, had been established. In the midst of this scattering the true worship of the Father was nearly lost. Sacrifice instituted in the days of Adam and continued in the practice and teaching of Noah, in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of Man, had become perverted.
They are mentioned in the book of Abraham, remarkable young women about whom I am anxious to know more. It was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.
Chaldea was a great distance from Egypt, yet there was mourning in Egypt when the Lord broke down the altar and smote the priest. Petersen wrote:. Only a most unusual event could have caused such extensive and distant reactions. The seed of Shem, Ham, and Japheth began to populate the earth, and it so continued for more than four hundred years, when Abraham, who received theocratic power from Melchizedek, went down into Egypt.
There he found a descendant of Ham, reigning as Pharaoh, whose government was patterned after the patriarchal governments of old, but which was devoid of priesthood and revelation, and hence, as far as worship is concerned—a worship prescribed, mandated, and commanded by pharaoh—had turned to idolatry. As men multiplied they organized first in the family group, then into tribes and eventually into nations.
The greater powers would naturally occupy the most favored spots. Stronger tribes would overcome the weaker and force them to join the national government, or else they would be subdued and treated as slaves, or placed under tribute. As the patriarchal order was handed down from father to son so also would the political authority be perpetuated with the same claims to authority. At times in the past, the power and authority to act in the name of the Lord was bestowed upon only a few worthy males and withheld from all others.
Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness. The famine in the land was most likely caused by drought, a prolonged period of dry weather during which crops wither and animals die from lack of feed.
See also Helaman — The Bible and the book of Abraham both identify the strange land as the land of Canaan see Genesis ; Abraham It is not the same land possessed by the people of Canaan as recorded in Moses —8. Canaan and his household originally inhabited the land located in the lowland toward the Mediterranean coast of Palestine.
Canaan sometimes refers to all the country west of the Jordan River, from Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south. This is the same land that Joshua parceled out to the twelve tribes of Israel see Joshua 14— To learn more about the land and people of Canaan, see Genesis —21 ; —4 ; —2, 8—9 ; and Joshua The Lord honored them, nourished them, watched over them with a jealous care, until they became a great nation in the land the Lord had given to their fathers.
Notwithstanding this tender care and the instructions and warnings this people received from time to time through their prophets, they failed to comprehend the goodness of the Lord and departed from him. Even those who are not his literal seed shall receive their eternal blessings through him and the covenant God made with him. He was promised the land of Canaan as an everlasting inheritance for him and for his seed.
All these things are part of the Abrahamic covenant. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Abraham thus covenants for himself and for his seed that he and they will serve the Lord Jehovah, who in turn promises them eternal increase. It is that Abraham and his seed including those adopted into his family shall have all of the blessings of the gospel, of the priesthood, and of eternal life. The gate to eternal life is celestial marriage, which holy order of matrimony enables the family unit to continue in eternity, so that the participating parties may have posterity as numerous as the sands upon the seashore or the stars in heaven.
The Abrahamic covenant enables men to create for themselves eternal family units that are patterned after the family of God our Heavenly Father. Abraham desired the blessings of the fathers—the right to administer in the Melchizedek Priesthood.
He was a rightful heir, and because of his righteousness he became a high priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood see Abraham The Lord promised him that his posterity would also be rightful heirs of the priesthood. The same keys of the priesthood given to Abraham have been restored to the earth in the latter days.
Abraham left Ur for the land of Haran see Abraham —4. Abraham and his family left the land of Haran for the land of Canaan see Abraham ; note that Genesis says that he was 75 years old when they left Haran. Abraham and his family lived in Egypt see Genesis — Abraham settled in Hebron in the land of Canaan and the Lord appeared to him again see Genesis Abraham rescued Lot and met with Melchizedek see Genesis The Lord again appeared to Abraham, confirming his covenant with him see Genesis Abraham obeyed the command to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice to the Lord; the Abrahamic Covenant was reconfirmed see Genesis Abraham died and was buried with Sarah in Hebron see Genesis — The scriptures reveal numerous occasions when the Lord spoke or appeared to Abraham.
- About the Foundation.
- About Us | Melchizedeks;
- Marketing Secrets For Web Designers (Smashing eBooks);
- Hebrews MSG - Melchizedek, Priest of God - Bible Gateway.
- Sleeping with the Soldier.
Thus far the book of Abraham told about:. A vision of God, an angel, and the voice of the Lord while Abraham lay on the altar see Abraham — An appearance of the Lord while Abraham prayed in the land of Haran see Abraham — Before Abraham went into Egypt see Abraham After he returned from Egypt and settled in the land of Canaan see Genesis — When he prayed for offspring see Genesis When he was ninety-nine years old see Genesis When he pled for the residents of Sodom see Genesis — Near the time Isaac was born see Genesis — When he was commanded to offer Isaac as a burnt offering see Genesis —2.
In fact both extended and short Genesis, can, and do, have him die before Abram. So this eliminates Shem by reconstructions accepted as Gentile secular facts. Now the short chron is where Shem dies when Abram is a contrast to dying 60 years later after Abram so Shem dies before Abram who was born when Terah was and scriptures verifies Terah died at Further, the Masoretic is astronomy of day of year Mars 6 orbits of day. It has to do with the word Mar or Mars meaning The Son, and so Marduk of the temple is the son of the high priest father.
Unfortunately the formula is Julian are calendar years. Further, although Jasher says Terah was 70 for Abram, Jasher uses the same Flood year as Ussher, and the same birth year as Terah, and then merely gives Abram the 70 instead of Haran. Yet Jasher still makes Haran as a first born when Terah is 39 3x Mars so Abram is born in his 32nd year.
This indicates that death of Haran is the only way Abram got the firstborn right. BUT even grandson LOT did not get it because clearly Haran and Nahor and Sarai were all half-siblings to a second wife that Abram was firstborn of legal first wife, and only son of her. My study of not genealogy but other chronologies indicates Melkizedek is a title of longevity given to postFlood Noah before Shem built Salem. When Noah died, this title got divided between passive Shem and activist Nimrod.
The indications of this is the two math figures they all share, that of years and years. Noah to children, to Flood. Shem of his postFlood children until he dies at Nimrod dies at age in the year after Noah short chron after Flood; long chron after Noah's death. Compare the Era of oriental calendars and one keeps getting years that the death of short chron Shem as long chron Salem Melkizedek , and the death of Abram. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Shem gave his title to Abram to stop those who will honor Nimrod after Shem dies before Nimrod.
I submit three chronologies. The 8 before bc is due to after Flood being of day, and the 17 before bc is due to postFlood Julian are of day. Thus bc bridges the gap dispute of a Melkizedek bc Shem and Melkizedek bc Abram both being given Nimrod's death year reckoned as Discussion charts?
Major revision of article. I added a detailed historical section. Such would be consistent with any of the standard spelling transliterations that include vowels, with the 1st and 4th vowels matching and the 2nd vowel distinct from the 4th.
- Navigation menu!
- 21st Century Adult Cancer Sourcebook: Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) - Clinical Data for Patients, Families, and Physicians.
- From the SparkNotes Blog.
- Common Table?
I know the citation is from the LDS pronunciation guide, but I do not think that should be taken as authoritative and it may well be a typo itself. At the moment, this sentence is POV e. Bible literalists will not consider it a mystery. Because biblical literalism is a fringe view with no evidence. NPOV policy applies to differing mainstream viewpoints that are supported by evidence.
If we begin with a view that anything religious or pro-supernatural is necessarily without evidence, any view expressed by believers in the historical claims of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Bahai, etc. Going the anti-religious route is something that Wikipedia intentionally sets out to avoid. If there is conflict between a traditional interpretation of a religious group and the consensus of modern scholars, that should be noted.
In fact, if the scholarly community doesn't support a religious interpretation, we could say something along the lines of, "The majority of scholars are of the view that no individual matching the Biblical description of Melchizedek could ever have existed. We can't cater to the religious, but neither can we pass judgment as wikipedia, that is; individually we all pass some sorts of judgment on the religious views of various groups. And while we're at it, it seems that people are always beating on what they call biblical literalism.
Other than people who have no familiarity with the Bible, everyone , believer and non-believer alike, holds some parts of the Bible to be literally true and some not to be. For example, no one will deny the Biblical claim that cattle have hooves. And no one will deny the figurative nature of Jesus' calling King Herod a fox, or John the Baptist calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers. So people who hold that Melchizedek was a historical figure aren't necessarily "literalists" per se, but rather religious people whose interpretation of the Bible leads them to believe that this is a historically accurate account.
No one takes all the Bible as figure or all as literal truth. That's just a gross oversimplification that allows us to pigeon-hole the views of others. I fail to see any evidence that this is most bible scholars. All non-Christian? Has the writer of this article been devoted to Shinto scholars of the Hebrew Bible as the majority!! What is this section? It seems to be solely one man's completly surmised account of an occurance, which could have many historical explanations.
It ought to be a paragraph long at the most and suplemented by other historian's views. Or at the very least this stuff should be explained: What evidence is there that Melchizedek refers to an 'El-elyon' rather than Yahweh Who is also refered to as El throughout the bible, anyway. Why would an 'outside source' be inserted into the bible?
I think this article is in severe need of cleanup. Mauger -- just a thought -- it could be possible that the Dead Sea Scrolls that reference Malkizedek are copies of Biblical texts, as many of the Dead Sea Scrolls were. POV, really: Hebrews has nothing to contribute to the historical discussion unless for example you believe Hebrews to be the inspired word of God. Is there a point here that's worth salvaging and reinserting in NPOV form? Melchezedek is the son of Seth his mother is Edokla, he is one "born of the Word" as per John 1 v1. What is Melik-Sadaksina doing on this page?
Shouldn't it be on its own page? If people believe Melchizedek was this other guy, then perhaps we should cross-reference them. Otherwise, I don't think it belongs here at all. Jgardner , 14 July UTC. I believe the link to Dominion of Melchizedek and other things with references to Melchizedek are highly relevant.
Please voice your concern if you don't think so. Jgardner , 7 September UTC. I think there should be a link to the DOM and their Melchizedek Bible, ev en if not directly relevant to the original Melchizedek. I don't see anyone objecting to it on the talk page. I don't mind at all. Wrad , 28 March UTC. The last part of the section on the Old Testiment and the section on the New Testiment are cut and paste straight from another website of essays from a person.
It may be copyright. Could someone let me know if the etiquette for editing. Shoud these sections go in the order of the article or the order they are inserted. TY [mauger gmail. As for editing, the general principle on Wikipedia is "Be Bold," tempered, of course, by respect for the goals and policies of Wikipedia. If you make an edit in good faith, without reason to believe you're violating Wikipedia's policies, you'll be fine. In so doing, he or she possibly inadvertently deleted some information including categories and links to other language wikis.
Never having heard of The Urantia Book, and thinking that the new section read like one of those breathless flyers that is pasted on telephone poles, I then deleted the entire section and restored the earlier version. Then I went and read the linked "Paper 93" and the rest of the urantia.
So I restored as much of the information as I felt belonged in this encyclopedia entry. Apologies to the anon for hastily calling the addition "utter nonsense"; following this investigation I would upgrade the characterization to mere "crank. The entry referenced above was extremely incomplete and potentially confusing. I replaced it with a paragraph very briefly summarizing some of the key concepts from The Urantia Book related to Melchizedeks and, specifically, Machiventa Melchizedek, the Melchizedek said by the book to have been a supernatural associate and inspiration to Abraham during a major part of his lifetime.
This seems reasonable in view of the vast amount of inconsistent and confusing beliefs of various religions about Melchizedek, as presented earlier in the article. You may think it's "crank" but it at least makes a degree of historical and cultural sense. LDM [ldmjr comcast. I think that the article Melchizedek Priesthood Christianity should be merged into this one. There needs to be one article about the Priesthood, and one about Melchizedek himself, in my opinion. Many parts of these articles seem to have directly copied and pasted from each other.
The Book of Moses
Wrad , 26 March UTC. I just erased most of the duplicated information on the other website. I don't know if much else needs to be done. Pursuing the subject of Jesus' priesthood still further, the author of Hebrews gives his own explanations concerning the necessity for a new type of priesthood to replace the older one associated with the tribe of Levi. Again he regards the question of duration as important.
The office of priest was hereditary among the Levites; when a priest died, it was necessary for him to be replaced by another, whose right to the office was determined by whether he was a descendant from that particular tribe.
- Elements of Supervision: Teaching, Reflections, & Resources!
- Works of George Washington Cable.
- Same Page (How the Light Gets In Book 1).
- The Bible is Inspired And so are other religious writings (Wait What?!)?
- The Adventures of Marco and Carla: The Dark Castle.
- 1. The Salem Religion in Mesopotamia.
- Buzzing Communities?
Because it was generally recognized that Jesus came from the tribe of Judah, one that was not designated as a tribe from which the priests were chosen, it could be inferred that Jesus' right to the priesthood was based not on physical descent but "by the power of an endless life. The author finds support in his interpretation of a passage from Psalms , which reads, "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever. This conviction is illustrated again in the assertion that the services performed by the Levitical priests were a part of the system referred to as the Old Covenant.
In contrast, the priesthood of Jesus belongs to the New Covenant. Mention of these two covenants is made in a reference to the passage in the Book of Jeremiah in which the prophet contrasts the idea of obedience to a set of external laws with the type of conduct that is motivated by the right desires and purposes within an individual. The former constitutes the basis of the Old Covenant, the latter the basis for the New Covenant.
The author of Hebrews tells us that the imperfections of the Levitical priesthood were due, at least in part, to the attempt made to regulate conduct according to the requirements of the Mosaic Law. The failure of this attempt was one of the reasons that made a new and different type of priesthood necessary, which, the author holds, was accomplished in the priesthood of Jesus in accordance with which Jesus became a minister of the New Covenant.
The work of Jesus the high priest is further elaborated in the author's conception of the heavenly sanctuary. The writer holds that the tabernacle made by Moses and used by the Israelites during their wanderings in the wilderness was a kind of miniature copy of the true tabernacle, or sanctuary, that exists in heaven. He bases this belief on a statement found in the Book of Exodus describing the instruction that God gave to Moses concerning the construction of the tabernacle.
The statement reads, "Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you. The Hebrews author, believing that these services were intended to foreshadow things to come, contends that the work of Jesus as high priest is now declared to be the reality that fulfills the meaning intended by the ancient services.
Following his resurrection and ascension to heaven, Jesus enters into the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary and offers his own blood in atonement for the sins of humanity. These references to the Old Testament in Hebrews are significant because they indicate the author's belief that in the events associated with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the stories related in the Old Testament find their true meaning, especially with reference to those portions of the Old Testament that deal with the priests and the sacrificial system of which they were a part.
The discussion concerning faith, toward the close of Hebrews, is in harmony with this same point of view. Enumerating a long list of Israel's heroes, the author maintains that it was by faith that all of these heroes' mighty works were accomplished. His conception of faith is then identified with a belief on the heroes' part that at some future time, Christ would appear and do those things that have now been accomplished.
Hebrews holds a unique place in the literature of the New Testament. It presents interpretations of Jesus and of the entire Christian movement that are decidedly different from those found in other writings. The letter's author sees Jesus as the great high priest of the Christian religion performing services analogous to the ones carried out by the Levitical priests of the Old Testament. In other portions of the New Testament, Jesus is regarded as a prophet, but only in this letter is he considered a priest.
About the Book
This designation is significant: The prophets usually represented a point of view that in many respects was the very opposite of that of the priests. The prophets were the great social reformers; the priests, whose work occupied a very prominent place in the lives of people whose religious heritage was in Judaism, attended to the offering of sacrifices and the performing of ritualistic requirements that were necessary in order to obtain forgiveness of sins.
With the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the cessation of priestly activities, it seems probable that some individuals felt the need for something to be substituted for the priests' activities. Perhaps considerations of this kind influenced the author of this letter. At any rate, he interprets Jesus' death on the cross in a manner that not only meets the requirements of Judaism but goes beyond them.
The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews has led some people to refer to the letter as the classical example of the New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament.