Arcadia Discussion Zone

hotspur isn`t Lovuian. hotspur is from the latest London based movie and L.

is in Texas!

Oh I agree with you and I'm sure that 99% of the Forum would too.
This genre is beset with them in all shapes and sizes
Some folk are more experienced and better placed to know about them than others..............!

TD

Wow, that was one very interesting thread. I believe it's the longest thread in Arcadia history (correct me if I'm wrong).
Everybody seems to have gotten what they wanted off their chest as regards this subject and it made for some interesting debate. The Order Of The Chocolate Starfish in my opinion had some good input but were lacking in common sense and reverted to side tracking the debate. The bloodliners held up pretty well to the usual bombardment of abuse from TOOT-CS.
So it's :-
Bloodliners 1-0 TOOT-CS.

Not checked on the length of the thread Dave but even IF, heaven forbid, you were wrong I'm not sure that you'd accept a correction.
Not sure either how we can conclude that the 'Bloodliners' have won the discussion given the yawning logical disconnect
All we can conclude is that you have displayed an unhealthy scatological (look it up) preoccupation which it doesn't take a student of Freud to analyse.
It does however tell us the level of your argument.

How's the beard coming along?

TD

I like the way you keep score Dave! You can work in my stadium anytime.---Bill

Too much intellectual and posh words for me TD. I don't think that this is some sort of argument of how one can confuse the issue using a number of words which we've never heard before. The only person confused by the use of such words is yourself when you try to fathom why on earth you felt the need to use them. In plain understandable English and not in some super human intelligent dribble please.

So sorry Dave, I thought I was using plain understandable english!
Let me know which particular ones you're struggling with and I'll see if I can draw you a picture.
TD

I haven`t seen this movie yet, but it cetainly has caused a controversy.

Shame it seems to have ended - I just thought that the Melchizedek tie up may have got a bigger response.

Melchizedek always gets a response. "Melchizedek" -

Byzantine version.

It may be past the education of TOOT-CS, mind you having said that, a box of matches confuses the starfish people.

Wow, I'll have to go back and look for that one.

TCP

I like the old Saturday Night Live spoof, where Chevy Chase hands Death the keys to the Volvo and asks him to move it.

TCP

I don't think one ought to look at these as being equitable. There was a sacerdotal role to kingship - offering sacrifices on high holy days, etc. - but this role was not entirely comparable to the temple priesthood. Melchizedek, whose name meant "king-priest" or "righteous king" and probably was not a proper name per se - was King of Salem, or Urusalimum ("Abode of Peace", aka Jerusalem) long before David's or Aaron's lines were established. I don't interpret a separate lineage of priests emanating from Melchizedek, but rather a tradition of priestly functions inherent in kingship that augmented the roles of the temple priests. Or, there may have been no separate body of priesthood in Jerusalem prior to the foundation of the Davidic kingdom, and the distinction between the two roles was an entirely Jewish construct. After all, it was Solomon who built the Temple and installed the Aaronic priesthood in it.



Where do you see this concern? Separation of church and state is a much more recent innovation.



Wasn't it Paul who was evangelizing Gentiles? What would they have cared about the technicalities of a Jewish messiah's qualifications and role?



I really don't think that the dominant wing of the newly-formed religion had much interest in Jewish lineages. In fact they tended to marginalize the Jews.



Not to the Church, which stressed that Jesus' kingdom "was not of this world", not a temporal kingdom.




How so? Are there not passages in the Old Testament to show that the Hebrews were once polytheistic (did you really mean "pantheistic"?) and then henotheistic before becoming monotheists? Do we really have to re-evaluate anything to explain that? It seems like the best evidence is in the OT itself.



Well, my own research over the years has brought me to the examination of Sauniere's relationship to a different "bloodline", this one flesh-and-blood, and their power play for temporal and political rights which, while tinged with a high degree of the "sacred", aren't about a race of gods at all. But it's been shouted down here so I don't readily share new findings with the group. I guess it's not sexy enough to suit most tastes.







Well, I'd say that any king of the Davidic line who ruled over Jerusalem would indeed be a successor to Melchizedek in both the spiritual and temporal sense of that role. But I don't think this is an indication per se of a purely sacerdotal lineage.

TCP

Good old Castle Anthrax. Original SNL with Chevy -

that was the best.

Isn't there a distinction based on applicability.

The Levitical priesthood were guardians of the Law of Moses - this being related to the first covenant between God and the Jews.

Jesus as priest in the order of Melchizedek was the symbol of God's new covenant with the whole of humanity (at least as far as Paul is concerned).

Tim,
And just when I thought this thread was dead ....

But don't we have:
2000BC Abraham (or is it at that stage Abram - pre covenant?) meeting up with Mechizedek - who is already a 'priest of G_d'?
Genesis 14
18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
19And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
20And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

Melchizedek appears to be a title as you say - but appears to be a priest-king.

King hood didn't exist within the 'tribes' at that time and didn't occur until a thousand years later, as until that point 'G_d' is their 'king'
Melchizedek is still of obvious importance as he then resurfaces in Psalms (Davidic) -
Psalm 110
1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
2The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
3Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
4The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
5The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
6He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.
7He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.

So here we have what appears to be a non Levite order? I'm not sure of the use of 'order' here as it implies presumably a 'type' or a 'group'?

We then have Talmudic sources that imply that Melchizedek was in fact Shem (Shem the 'righteous king'), third son of Noah.

Coming closer to the time of Jesus, then don't we have a group that talks of Melchizedek in the same terms as Jesus (http://www.gnosis.org/library/commelc.htm)., 2 Enoch (http://sonnen.tripod.com/enoch8.html) seems to give a slightly different history to Melchizedek, but he is still a 'priest' forever. And the Essenes then have their 'teacher of righteousness' - Melchizedek line?

Then we have Hebrews (written by Paul?), that make Jesus of this order. Paul is seriously trying to equate Jesus with this 'order' (see below for quotes from Hebrews). But does Paul misundertstand Melchizedek and make this person 'divine', either intentionally or unintentionally (http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.or ... izedek.htm)? Irrespective, the order of Melchizedek, is obviously as important in the OT as the later Levitical priesthood, and it appears to have stood the test of time, appearing at 1000 year intervals thereafter. There are explanations showing that Melchizedek is an ancestor of Levi - so it is the same priesthood (http://www.donmeh-west.com/melchi.shtml). I'm not sure I quite follow that, as if that's the case, why the not quote the latter Levitical priesthood (why didn't Paul use 'Aaron' in Hebrews? Ditto David in Psalms).

So, what I was getting at here (after all that) is that this 'jesus' is quite a threat to all concerned. He is of a different priesthood to the established order - a priesthood that is far older than the Levitical order. Jewish Priesthood not too happy. He is a King, from a line of Kings that existed before the tribes even thought about 'royalty'. Jewish Royalty under threat. He has just been made 'divine' - making him a 'Caesar' . Rome pee'd off. To me (being simple), I could see that such a person could be seen as a complete threat to all the parties involved in the running of 1st century Palestine, and that if a bloodline did exist then it would be seen as an ongoing threat. Do you not think that a viable view?

Hebrews:

1. Hebrews 5:6
As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Hebrews 5:5-7 (in Context) Hebrews 5 (Whole Chapter)
2. Hebrews 5:10
Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Hebrews 5:9-11 (in Context) Hebrews 5 (Whole Chapter)
3. Hebrews 6:20
Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Hebrews 6:19-20 (in Context) Hebrews 6 (Whole Chapter)
4. Hebrews 7:1
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;
Hebrews 7:1-3 (in Context) Hebrews 7 (Whole Chapter)
5. Hebrews 7:10
For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
Hebrews 7:9-11 (in Context) Hebrews 7 (Whole Chapter)
6. Hebrews 7:11
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 Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Hebrews 7:10-12 (in Context) Hebrews 7 (Whole Chapter)
7. Hebrews 7:15
And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Hebrews 7:14-16 (in Context) Hebrews 7 (Whole Chapter)
8. Hebrews 7:17
For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Hebrews 7:16-18 (in Context) Hebrews 7 (Whole Chapter)
9. Hebrews 7:21
(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
Hebrews 7:20-22 (in Context) Hebrews 7 (Whole Chapter)


Bible quotes are from Biblegateway.

PS you also say:
Separation of church and state is a much more recent innovation.
Is that correct? I thought that the state and priesthood was separate, with the king answerable to G_d via the priesthood? In Jewish history that appears to be the case as a King wasn't created until after the priesthood was created - G_d was their king until Saul. And the priesthood was then hereditary wasn't it - so unless a Levite was made king, they were separate. I thought that in Britain, the only time that the King became 'joined' to the Church was with Henry VIII - whereafter the monarch was both the head of the Church as well as head of state? Wasn't that the point of that break - ie that Henry VII was answerable to the Pope?

Wasn't it Paul who was evangelizing Gentiles? What would they have cared about the technicalities of a Jewish messiah's qualifications and role?

I would assume because he had to promote a 'god' to compete with the legacy of the Egyptian, Greek, Romans gods that had spanned millennia. He had to establish a comparable King-god.

I really don't think that the dominant wing of the newly-formed religion had much interest in Jewish lineages. In fact they tended to marginalize the Jews.
I don't see that - don't two of the main Gospels go to great lengths to show a complete Jewish lineage? Isn't the point that Jesus is shown as being a bone-fide descendant of David? (And it could be argued that David saw himself of the line of Melchizedek given Psalm 110?). Although why a son of G_d (which is where I think the story gets so confused), needs a better lineage is beyond me - maybe as if Julius Caesar could be proclaimed a god, then god hood held no kudos any more - so an older 'authentic' lineage was sought?

I know this will sound stupid after posting all this, but I'm not convinced that a bloodline is what this (RLC) is about (I think that Melchizedek is involved somehow). Just that if a bloodline is being put as a reason for 15th century painting anomalies, the above (IMHO) gives a more viable alternative to hide the bloodline than if Jesus was 'G_d' (I still find that a somewhat strange concept to get my head round).

PPS Look into Melchizedek and Freemasonry if you haven't already. Why does such an insignificant character even feature in Masonry?

I guess that would depend on how one interprets the word "order" - upper-case "O" or lower-case "o".

Certainly calling Jesus a priest in the manner of Melchizedek makes a clear distinction from the Levite/Aaronic kohanim, which was restricted to a tribal affiliation to which Jesus did not belong. However, in temporal terms he wasn't an actual reigning king either, i.e. his kingdom "was not of this world." Therefore the allusion is metaphorical, not actual.

TCP

The word melchizedek is most likely derived from a combination of the Hebrew words melchi {or meleck} which means King Zedek translates to righteousness or Justice. and was a common Trans-cultural word of the ancient Middle East. For instance In Phoenician mythology Sydik, is the father of the angels of the divine presence. So using the two root words for his name/title we can assume that Mechilzedek is the King of righteousness/justice.

TCP quote


However, in temporal terms he wasn't an actual reigning king either, i.e. his kingdom "was not of this world." Therefore the allusion is metaphorical, not actual.

Well being Father of the angels of the divine presence as the Sydik or Zedek ...King of the Angels is a kingdom "not of this world" but then some religions believe the Kingdom of Heavenly Jerusalem is real ...not an allusion not a metaphor

Don't the Jews believe in Heavenly Jerusalem ...there has to be a King and Prince of that
Just a discussion point
jlockest very interesting point

your right this genealogy ...bloodline means something because we recite it over and over every Christmas at my church
both lines

I think your point about priest kings can be seen in history of Europe where the prince of a land also became its bishop
A Prince-Bishop is a bishop who is a territorial Prince of the Church on account of one or more secular principalities, usually pre-existent titles of nobility held concurrently with their inherent clerical office. Thus the principality ruled politically by a prince-bishop could wholly or largely overlap with his diocesan jurisdiction, but not necessarily; several lost their actual see (the city itself), which could obatin the status of free imperial city. If the see is an archbishopric, the correct term is prince-archbishop; the equivalent in the regular (monastic) clergy is prince-abbot.

Prince-bishoprics were most common in the feudally fragmented Holy Roman Empire, where many were formally awarded the rank of Reichsfürst ("Prince of the Empire"), granting them representation in the Reichstag (imperial Diet). The Germanic tribes inside the Empire had strong and powerful dukes (originally, war-rulers), always more looking out for their duchy's "national interest" than for the Empire's.

They were finally dissolved in most countries by Napoleon Bonaparte, with the downfall of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1806. However in some countries outside of French control, such as Austria and Prussia the institution continued, and in some cases was revived; a new, titular type arose.


The ultimate Prince Bishop is the Bishop of Rome, i.e. the Pope, universal head (Supreme Pontiff) of the Roman Catholic Church. His claims to territorial power were bolstered by the fraudulent early-Medieval document Donation of Constantine, and the authentic Donation of Pepin, establishing the Patrimonium Petri which was further extended as the powerful Papal States. Pope Pius IX was the last of the true, sovereign Prince-Bishops, divested of territorial powers when the Papacy was forced to surrender the rule of Rome in 1870 to the reunited kingdom of Italy, which was supported by liberal-nationalists. The Pope was however made Head of state again of the specially created Vatican City, a small enclave in Rome, by the (later favorably amended) Lateran Treaties with Benito Mussolini's Fascist Italy.

The Spanish Catalonian Bishop of Urgell, who no longer has any secular rights in Spain, still is one of the two co-princes of Andorra, along with the Head of State (presently President of the Republic) of France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince-bishop

Sorry, I got distracted by flying insects...



Yes to all, precisely. Melchizedek was a temporal king (of the city that would one day become the seat of the House of David) and priest of the same god worshipped by Abram/Abraham.



The tribes didn't exist in Abraham's time; they derived from Abraham's grandson Jacob and were nomadic. City-states had kings. Recall that Abraham was himself a city boy, hailing from Ur of the Chaldeans - which historians and archaeologists say could not have existed for several centuries after Abraham was said to have lived, Ergo it's possble that Abraham's home town was Ur-Usalamim (later Jerusalem) making Melchizedek Abraham's sovereign lord and priest of the same cult embraced by Abraham.



Yes, Melchizedek was still of obvious importance as an historical figure; but no, "order" here does not refer to a group, as in the Jesuit Order or the Order of Malta, but rather is a comparative term, i.e. "in the manner of." Both the original Hebrew of the OT references and the Greek of the NT references make this clear.



That would be an interesting prospect.



Well, again, there's no "line" referred to here. What we're looking at is a comparison between Melchizedek, who was a temporal king and priest, and Jesus, who by Paul's estimation was a heavenly king and priest "in the manner of Melchizedek" - an obvious distinction from the Levitic priesthood to which Jesus did not belong (and which did not accept him), but not intended to be taken as an indication that Jesus ran a temple or ruled a physical kingdom.



No, I don't think Paul misunderstood this, I think the misunderstanding comes from a more modern or recent misinterpretation of the word "order" ("manner") to mean "Order" ("organization") when the NT was translated into 17th century vernacular English. If you consult a lexicon this distinction is clear. We don't use the phrase "in/on the order of..." much in our modern parlance. In King James' time it would not have caused confusion or misinterpretation.



I'd have to disagree with your conclusions here. True, the Levitic Zadokites (Sadducees) did claim a lineage of priestly authority from Melchizedek, but again, the Levitic priesthood was a closed society comprised of Levite descendants of Aaron (i.e. not all Levites qualified as kohanim). If Jesus didn't qualify by birthright then I can't imagine why Paul would have used "Aaron" in his Epistle to the Hebrews.



Sorry, no. I don't think this is a viable view. There were a lot of attributions laid on Jesus taken from the OT to conform to Messianic prophecy and put forward by his apostles, but I don't think they're meant to be taken literally, only metaphorically. The Apostles and early followers of Christ were determined to show that Jesus did meet the qualifications on a metaphorical level, as he certainly did not meet them on a literal, temporal level. It was not a very persuasive argument to 1st century Jews living under Roman rule since those qualifications were meant to be literal.



Simple - Aaronic priests weren't kings. Melchizedek was both a king and a priest, which is the argument the early Christians were trying to make for Jesus.



Yes, you're right of course that state and church (or temple, in the case of ancient Judah) were separate institutions. What I was referring to was that they functioned interdependently, or were at least meant to (history is replete with examples of power struggles between temporal and spiritual authorities). The model of independence of church from state (and vice-versa) is more recent.



Ah, but there's the rub - Jews weren't expecting their Messiah to be a god, but a flesh-and-blood human who would deliver them from foreign domination and restore the ancient kingdom of Israel. Proclaiming Jesus to be the long-awaited Jewish Messiah wouldn't put him on par with foreign gods.



Yes, but wasn't there also a long and tragic history of the church vilifying the entire Jewish people? We're talking about Gentile converts to Christianity here, not Jewish. To the Jewish converts Davidic lineage was necessary to portray Jesus as the Messiah of Jewish prophecy; it was a vital qualification because a descendant of David was prophesied to restore the Kingdom of Israel. No Davidic lineage, no messiah, and obviously the claim didn't make much of an impression on the Jewish population after Jesus was killed and the Romans were still there. It was the Gentile converts who re-crafted the qualifications for messiahship (messiahhood?) to re-focus on spiritual dimensions which would actually minimize the importance of Davidic descent and place the emphasis on Jesus being the only begotten son of God himself.



"Of the line" doesn't necessarily imply a bloodline.



Well, I wouldn't call your insights "stupid" at all; I might not agree with some of your conclusions but all in all you've put forward a well-organized set of ideas.



Probably because they've gone to great lengths to craft an "ancient" lineage for themselves.

TCP

I agree with what you say - it is what I was saying except I think we have to be more precise about his status as a king.

Jesus as Melchizedek and priestly heavenly king was a Pauline construction; according to Paul, he was the sacrificed saviour god of humanity; this was the "Good News" for the Gentiles. It was the construction adopted by the Roman Church and progressively embellished upon.

The Nazorites/Desposyni, being the Jewish "Christians", believed Jesus was the prophesied Messiah and Davidic hereditary temporal king of the Jews; they also thought him a man and not a god. This was the construction rejected by the Roman Church.

I'd agree to a point. Gentile converts found significance in the "dying-and-rising god" motif that is anything but Jewish. But Jewish converts also professed Jesus' death and resurrection; and they bent over backwards to re-cast the parameters of Messianic prophecy in order to argue that Jesus fit the terms.

TCP

I'm not sure what you mean by Jewish converts.

From what I understand, there was a socalled Jewish "Christian" church which was headed up by Jesus' brother James - the Nazorite church. As far as I can tell they did not believe Jesus was god or was resurrected.

The paper linked by Lovuian (apparently my sock puppet master according to the redoubtable Thomass), I thought was very interesting.

Jewish people who converted to Christianity from Judaism.



James headed the church in Jerusalem, but it wasn't called the Nazorite Church nor were their beliefs based in Nazorite doctrine (which was a form of ascetic Judaism from which Jesus may have emerged). In as much as we can today attempt to understand what the early church believed, there are passages in the NT which said that the Apostles preached the Resurrection and I'm not familiar with anything that says James did not do so. Also I can't really see James and Paul arguing over the necessity of Gentiles to follow Mosaic Law if they weren't on the same page about the Resurrection.

TCP