Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Melchizedek, who was he?


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#41 Mataeis

Mataeis

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 21 May 2012 - 05:08 PM

Volgaddon, very good points, and I will attempt to explain. The documents for the new testament bible that we get a majority of our translations from are either writtin in greek or aramaic, not hebrew, so the word deriviation may not have been parush as much as it may have been pharis or pharsis which do mean mean of pharsia/persia (the language the speak in Iran/Aryan/Persia is 'Farsi/'Parsi, the spelling differences are due to the fact that in Farsi the concenance and vowels are somewhat interchangeable, not too much unlike the semetic languages where the vowel pronunciation is also somewhat interchangeable).

So the point MAY still stand as we do not know for sure which deriviation was being used for Pharisee. Assuming that there was no written Hebrew precursor to the New Testament documents we have (with the exception of SOME dead sea scrolls) the primary word usage was the Aramaic (Jesus would have presumably been able to speak both as Aramaic was the primary language in the reason he was in as well as the fact that he himself was a Jew, however, being the sun of God may mean he would have been able to speak all languages/depending on how you look at it I guess), and the deriviation only could have been Pharis/Pharsis and not Parush :huh:?:o:confused:;)?

But, for kicks and giggles, lets say that is was Parush. So they were seperated, but what were they seperated from? The Saducees? The Essenes? The Gentiles? The Scriptures?? Or, perhaps, why not Israel, their original homeland becuase they had been stuck in Babylon and Persia for so long? In which case, my point MAY (as the only thing I am claiming to do is seek knowledge/truth/enlightenment, not necissarily profess it as I truly believe I know nothing), once again, stand on its own two feet.

As for the Pentateuch you mentioned, if I remember correctly??? (Must dooo moooor reaseeerrrch *convulses in seizure upon the floor*:D), regarding the named angels, many Jews viewed it as a babylonian/mithraic/zorastrian heresy (well, at least in the case of a saducee point of view) and was left out of the Torah for this reason..?. Named angels really dont appear in the old translations of the Torah (Let alone the Pentateuch) All other references I can think of to Angels are either after the occupation of Israel or have a very close proximity to Melchizedek and Abraham (Malachi Zedek who may have actually of been Zarathustra who openly proffessed about the Angels of God=or so my blatantly awesome and semi heretical theory is suggesting, I really dont take myself that seriously, and neiether should you guys), the exception of this (at least the only one I can think of) being the Angel of 'Death' in regards to the plagues of Egypt. Its almost always an 'Angel of the Lord'.

I would like to point out, that even after bringing up this fact about Angels in the old testament, the Saducees rejected them outright, at least, in regards to NAMED angels as the old testament does not name them and the saducees only excepted ABSOLUTELY literal interpretation of the Books of Moses. The Pharisee's, however, believed in the NAMED angels which dont really make their debut until during/after the occupation period.

Sorry for the mixup on the whole Angel thing, I went back and put in an edit note so as not to confuse others as to what I meant.

Edited by Mataeis, 21 May 2012 - 05:32 PM.


#42 Mataeis

Mataeis

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 21 May 2012 - 05:55 PM

Melchizedek is a sacred title, as Jesus the Christ is a sacred title, where honor is bestow on to a person of high caliber.

For years, I thought it was Shem but after considerable research, study on this topic, and sincere prayers, it was not Shem. Think about who occupied the land before Abraham arrival? Look at the D&C reference and the notable gaps of passing the priesthood. This same tribe also pushed the Egyptians out of the northern part of the kingdom when Abraham left the land of Canaan due to famine. We do know, the children of Canaan were still present in the land but governed by another tribe of Semites. This helped both Abraham and Joseph in accomplishing the Lord's work.

You may need to look at one of Shem’s children name Aram and his lineage for that answer. He was also blessed besides Abraham. Many lands were name after him and his children.


Now this really cuaght my eye, continuing with my previously stated hypothesis, the people of Aram (Aram meaning multidude/Hebrew, High Exalted Father/Armenian, calm or noble?depending on pronunciation in farsi)- those who were in the land of canaan before Avrahim, were the possible progenitors of the Assyrians, Armanians, Arameans and the Aryans. The Aryans being the main group I would like to point out as they covered the area from babylon to india. Zarathustra was an Aryan, and would probably have had a direct lineage to noah through Aram.

#43 volgadon

volgadon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1486 posts

Posted 21 May 2012 - 05:59 PM

As for the Pentateuch you mentioned, if I remember correctly??? (Must dooo moooor reaseeerrrch *convulses in seizure upon the floor*), regarding the named angels, many Jews viewed it as a babylonian/mithraic/zorastrian heresy (well, at least in the case of a saducee point of view) and was left out of the Torah for this reason..?. Named angels really dont appear in the old translations of the Torah (Let alone the Pentateuch) All other references I can think of to Angels are either after the occupation of Israel or have a very close proximity to Melchizedek and Abraham (Malachi Zedek who may have actually of been Zarathustra who openly proffessed about the Angels of God=or so my blatantly awesome and semi heretical theory is suggesting, I really dont take myself that seriously, and neiether should you guys), the exception of this (at least the only one I can think of) being the Angel of 'Death' in regards to the plagues of Egypt. Its almost always an 'Angel of the Lord'.

I would like to point out, that even after bringing up this fact about Angels in the old testament, the Saducees rejected them outright, at least, in regards to NAMED angels as the old testament does not name them and the saducees only excepted ABSOLUTELY literal interpretation of the Books of Moses. The Pharisee's, however, believed in the NAMED angels which dont really make their debut until during/after the occupation period.

Sorry for the mixup on the whole Angel thing, I went back and put in an edit note so as not to confuse others as to what I meant.


None of the sources indicate that the issue was named angels. That angels do have names could be shown in the Pentateuch, even though it might not record the names of the angels.

#44 volgadon

volgadon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1486 posts

Posted 21 May 2012 - 06:16 PM

Volgaddon, very good points, and I will attempt to explain. The documents for the new testament bible that we get a majority of our translations from are either writtin in greek or aramaic, not hebrew, so the word deriviation may not have been parush as much as it may have been pharis or pharsis which do mean mean of pharsia/persia (the language the speak in Iran/Aryan/Persia is 'Farsi/'Parsi, the spelling differences are due to the fact that in Farsi the concenance and vowels are somewhat interchangeable, not too much unlike the semetic languages where the vowel pronunciation is also somewhat interchangeable).

So the point MAY still stand as we do not know for sure which deriviation was being used for Pharisee. Assuming that there was no written Hebrew precursor to the New Testament documents we have (with the exception of SOME dead sea scrolls) the primary word usage was the Aramaic (Jesus would have presumably been able to speak both as Aramaic was the primary language in the reason he was in as well as the fact that he himself was a Jew, however, being the sun of God may mean he would have been able to speak all languages/depending on how you look at it I guess), and the deriviation only could have been Pharis/Pharsis and not Parush ??

But, for kicks and giggles, lets say that is was Parush. So they were seperated, but what were they seperated from? The Saducees? The Essenes? The Gentiles? The Scriptures?? Or, perhaps, why not Israel, their original homeland becuase they had been stuck in Babylon and Persia for so long? In which case, my point MAY (as the only thing I am claiming to do is seek knowledge/truth/enlightenment, not necissarily profess it as I truly believe I know nothing), once again, stand on its own two feet.


The derivation from Paras or Parsi leaves you with a substantial problem. You would need to show that your Parsim are a different group from the Perushim known to us from other Jewish sources in Hebrew.
What had they separated themselves from? Most likely from those Jews who did not observe the samerules of purity as they did. It is odd for a group to begin designating themselves as Persian quite a few generations after they had returned from the Babylonian captivity, as did the Sadducees.

#45 volgadon

volgadon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1486 posts

Posted 21 May 2012 - 06:37 PM

Malachi Zedek who may have actually of been Zarathustra


You can't separate Melchizedek into Malachi Zedek. Malachi is mem-lamed-alef-chaf-yod. Melchizedek is mem-lamed-chaf-yod-tzadi-daleth-qof.

#46 Mataeis

Mataeis

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 07:14 AM

You can't separate Melchizedek into Malachi Zedek. Malachi is mem-lamed-alef-chaf-yod. Melchizedek is mem-lamed-chaf-yod-tzadi-daleth-qof.


THis is new to me, most scholars of Hebrew that I have met at UVU and BYU and the internet, yes I know the internet is not the greatest of sources but it can point you in the right direction, says that actual name is MOST likely Malachi/Melechi/Melekhi the Just/Rightous=Zedek/Sedek. This hypothesis would make the word melchizedek a bastardization and a confused term of the aforementioned name. I also lived with a Messianic Hebrew family (Jews that believe that Jesus was the Messiah), for an entire year, that believed the same way.

But there is also the moderate chance that they are wrong, no ones perfect. Even they say that there is no hard evidence only conjecture becuase the problem is in the linguistics of Hebrew itself, I did mention earlier that the pronunciation of concenance and vowels is somewhat interchangeable, a bad scribe may easily have missed/added a single character, which may be why there is a school of thought that says his historical name is actually Malachi-Zedek (for instance, the difference between the words woman and fire is a small dot, the hebrew were a wise people :D)

As for the etymological problem with the word pharisee, this may also simply be a confused term. The individuals writing the Aramaic may have used a similer sounding, but incorrect word for the Hebrew term. This would support your interpratation.

Problem with this hypothesis is that it easily works both ways, What if the Hebrew writers were using a similer sounding, but wrong, Hebrew term for the Aramaic word?

I honestly dont know which would be more likely. To make either claim as an absolute one I would believe to be wrong and not very good scholarly work. There is little hard evidence (that I have had access too, you having more being based directly in Isreal) that could support either claim FULLY.

You do make a good point though in your comment about what they may have been 'seperated' from though. But I would tentatively claim, again, there being no hard evidence, that they considered themselves seperate for the persian reason.

Now this could be becuase they were harkoning back before the macabee rebelion to the percieved theology of their forefathers, a theology the Saducees rejected (a zorastrian styled theology, heh, heh, sorry, had to push it.) or it may be becuase some of them actually did come from persia (synogogues have been found in Iraq and I would assume they could be found in Iran also/but we may not know that until after their current regime falls). Even the Essenes and Ossenes fit closer to the Pharisee and Zorastrian Theology than the Saducee.

I just simply disagree with your counter offer, but I do concede that you may be right.

There is also the possibility, as there are many examples of this in the old and new testaments, that it may actually a pun/hebraism. For instance when peter is told by God that he will be his rock (paraphrasing) the words used would have looked something to the extent of Peter, you will be my peter (Rock, you will be my rock) which is actually quite puny. . .

This could mean that both terms may actually be right? This would be a third path meaning that both our theories may be correct, but I stated that in an earlier rebuttal.

I would like to point out that I also never said the hypothesis was perfect, I may be wrong on the whole Angel thing too (but this shouldnt be the sticking point, as the other parts of the Theory may still stand), Im only as good as my education afterall, however, I do love the debate and welcome it with open arms. :P

Please add anything else you wish volgadon, I welcome your insight.

Edited by Mataeis, 22 May 2012 - 07:33 AM.


#47 Mataeis

Mataeis

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 07:35 AM

The derivation from Paras or Parsi leaves you with a substantial problem. You would need to show that your Parsim are a different group from the Perushim known to us from other Jewish sources in Hebrew.
What had they separated themselves from? Most likely from those Jews who did not observe the samerules of purity as they did. It is odd for a group to begin designating themselves as Persian quite a few generations after they had returned from the Babylonian captivity, as did the Sadducees.


This will help me substantially with my thesis, thank you

#48 Mataeis

Mataeis

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 10:09 AM

You can't separate Melchizedek into Malachi Zedek. Malachi is mem-lamed-alef-chaf-yod. Melchizedek is mem-lamed-chaf-yod-tzadi-daleth-qof.


To continue the discussion of the Etymology of the Name

Melchi-Tsedek
Malk-i-sedek

Maybe Michel instead of Malachi, or Melek?

Michael=Who is like God

Malachi=Messenger of God

Melk=Applied meaning of king (by Josephus- not very well liked amongest the Jews)
Its impotant to note that Melk is not a full word in Hebrew

Melk-i-el (to make it a full word)= Michael?

Melk-i-zedek= Who is like Righteousnous?

Melek = My father is King

Melek-(i)-Tsedek = My father is King of Righteousnous not 'King of Righteousnous

or

Meleki- Tsedek = Mesenger of the God of Righteousnous

Malach, Melek, Malachi and Meleki, are somewhat interchangeable in Hebrew Linguistics and Pronunciation

To fully understand the language (so I have been told), one has to know its context to know the meaning behind the spelling.

Edited by Mataeis, 22 May 2012 - 02:00 PM.


#49 volgadon

volgadon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1486 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 04:14 PM

[quote name='Mataeis']To continue the discussion of the Etymology of the Name

Melchi-Tsedek
Malk-i-sedek[/quote]

That pronounciation doesn't make any difference, essentially.

[QUOTE]Maybe Michel instead of Malachi, or Melek?[/QUOTE]

Only if you were willing to commit unwarranted violence to the text. Otherwise there is no call to change the letters around.

[QUOTE]Michael=Who is like God[/QUOTE]

Out of the question. It calls for changing the order of the letters and adding an extra letter.

[QUOTE]Malachi=Messenger of God[/QUOTE]

As I've already mentioned, Malachi and Melchizedek are spelled differently. The root of Malachi means angel, whereas the melchi in Melchizedek is from the root for king.

[QUOTE]Melk=Applied meaning of king (by Josephus- not very well liked amongest the Jews)
Its impotant to note that Melk is not a full word in Hebrew[/QUOTE]

You are right, melech means king, but it is a full word in Hebrew.

[QUOTE]Melk-i-el (to make it a full word)= Michael?[/QUOTE]

See above.

[QUOTE]Melk-i-zedek= Who is like Righteousnous?[/QUOTE]

That would have to be mi-ke-tzedek.

[QUOTE]Melek = My father is King[/QUOTE]

Missing any component for father. My father is king would be Abimelech.

[QUOTE]Melek-(i)-Tsedek = My father is King of Righteousnous not 'King of Righteousnous[/QUOTE]

That would have to be Abimelechtzedek, an impossible construct.

[QUOTE]or

Meleki- Tsedek = Mesenger of the God of Righteousnous[/QUOTE]

Back to where we started.

[QUOTE]Malach, Melek, Malachi and Meleki, are somewhat interchangeable in Hebrew Linguistics and Pronunciation[/QUOTE]

Melech and mal'ach are not at all interchangeable. Even in the Modern Hebrew pronounciation, which is usually less distinct than older forms of Hebrew, there is a difference.

[quote]To fully understand the language (so I have been told), one has to know its context to know the meaning behind the spelling.[/QUOTE]

I hope I'm not too shabby at it, or else most of my life as an Israeli would be a waste of time.

#50 volgadon

volgadon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1486 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 04:38 PM

THis is new to me, most scholars of Hebrew that I have met at UVU and BYU and the internet, yes I know the internet is not the greatest of sources but it can point you in the right direction, says that actual name is MOST likely Malachi/Melechi/Melekhi the Just/Rightous=Zedek/Sedek. This hypothesis would make the word melchizedek a bastardization and a confused term of the aforementioned name.


If that is what they teach in UVU and BYU then oy-va-avoy. To be perfectly blunt, if they teach that they are wrong. The actual name is most likely exactly as it is written. It is logical, requires no textual emendation, fits the context and has a similar form attested outside of the Bible. I laso was unable to find a credible source supporting the idea that Melchizedek is a bastardisation of Malachizedek.

I also lived with a Messianic Hebrew family (Jews that believe that Jesus was the Messiah), for an entire year, that believed the same way.



That is nice. Back in Israel a family of Messianic Jew was good friends and neighbours of mine. Perhaps a bit of biographical information, I was born and raised in Israel, and had lived there most of my life. We started Bible class in 2nd grade, so hopefully 11 years is equivalent to at least a couple of beginner classes at college.

But there is also the moderate chance that they are wrong, no ones perfect.



More than a moderate chance.

Even they say that there is no hard evidence only conjecture becuase the problem is in the linguistics of Hebrew itself, I did mention earlier that the pronunciation of concenance and vowels is somewhat interchangeable,


Very little to do with vowels. For it to read malachi one has to add an extra consonant.

a bad scribe may easily have missed/added a single character, which may be why there is a school of thought that says his historical name is actually Malachi-Zedek



I know of no manuscript which has Malalchi-Zedek. If there were, then the case would be slightly stronger.

(for instance, the difference between the words woman and fire is a small dot, the hebrew were a wise people )


More than a small dot. An entire letter: heh.

#51 Mataeis

Mataeis

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 05:32 PM

maybe I just missunderstood. So then, to get this straight, Lord knows I done want to make this mistake again, the root word would be Melechi -Tsedek? So my spelling of it in the form of Malachi is what would be wrong?

And yes, you would be appalled by some of the professors here in utah valley.

Thanks man

Edited by Mataeis, 22 May 2012 - 05:38 PM.


#52 volgadon

volgadon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1486 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 05:40 PM

maybe I just missunderstood. So then, to get this straight, Lord knows I done want to make this mistake again, the root word would be Melechi -Tsedek? So my spelling of it in the form of Malachi is what would be wrong?

And yes, you would be appalled by some of the professors here in utah valley.


The root word is mem-lamed-chaf. Pronounciation can vary. Spelling it as Malachi would relate it to the word mal'ach, which root is mem-lamed-alef-chaf. Two very different words.

#53 Mataeis

Mataeis

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 06:00 PM

The root word is mem-lamed-chaf. Pronounciation can vary. Spelling it as Malachi would relate it to the word mal'ach, which root is mem-lamed-alef-chaf. Two very different words.


Not quite sure you answered my question. So then, Melechi is not the same as Malachi?

Would Melech or Melechi be how one would pronounce mem-lamed-chaf as a singular word on its own?

Im thinking that I maybe just copied what I heard down wrong, but I do remember it distinctly as Malachi= but that may simply have been a pronunciation error/ thus I wrote it down incorrectly (as you can see in my earlier posts, I can hardly spell english, let alone hebrew)

Dude, I totally need your email, your schooling my professor and you dont even know it. Your living my dream, I just do this currently as a hobby.

Edited by Mataeis, 22 May 2012 - 06:06 PM.


#54 volgadon

volgadon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1486 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 08:43 PM

Dude, I totally need your email,


No problem. Just sent you a PM.

#55 mtman318

mtman318

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 11:05 PM

Personally, I'm convinced that Shem and Melchizedek are one and the same. And I agree with the following Ensign explanation of D&C 84 posted earlier, especially if the verse in question is read with the two following it:

"On the other hand, there is a case for their being two distinct personalities. Many persons believe D&C 84:14 is proof that there are perhaps several generations between Melchizedek and Noah. The scripture says, 'Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah.'

"If it does turn out that Shem and Melchizedek are the same person, this scripture should prove no stumbling block, because it could be interpreted to mean that priesthood authority commenced with Adam and came through the fathers, even till Noah, and then to Shem."

Also, one of the more obscure definitions of "even" is "or more exactly" (taken from the Encarta Dictionary via Microsoft Word). Hence, the passages could possibly be reworded as "Melchizedek received it through the lineage of his fathers, or more exactly, from Noah to his fathers, including Enoch, Abel, etc," or maybe, "through the lineage of his fathers, starting at Noah..." These interpretations seem more plausible also when you compare verses 14-16 with the more precisely worded verses 6-12.
"If the Church wasn't true, the missionaries would have destroyed it years ago..." -J. Golden Kimball (or at least attributed to him)

"Don't you kids know anything!? The Serpent of Rehoboam? The Well of Zohaph-zadar? The Bridal Feast of Beth-jebuharazeb?" -Ned Flanders




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

IPB Skin By Virteq