Mataeis

Members
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Mataeis's Achievements

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. This will help me substantially with my thesis, thank you
  5. 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 ) 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. Please add anything else you wish volgadon, I welcome your insight.
  6. 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.
  7. 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 ?: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*), 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.
  8. This is a very interesting thread. I myself am currently studying up on ancient semetic religious beliefes as well as babylonian, persian and hindu doctrines. First of all, I am a Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, so this should belay my bias upfront. I have an intersting hypothesis as to who Melchezedek was/is. As I believe that Melchezedek was translated (ascended to heaven without dying) I do not believe he could have been Shem, as I am under the impression that he did actually die. A also do not believe in reincarnation or that God the father would have come directly to Earth (as the scriptures show that God typically sends messengers in his place, with very few exceptions) specificaly to have Avrahim to pay tithes to him and show him the sacrament. Avrahim also shows no inclination to say that Melchezedek was anything more than an extremly righteous high priest of God, in other words, he was definitely a man, albeit a near perfect man The fact that he is not mentioned to have a lineage though can be for several reasons. One possibility being that it was intentionaly left out. Here is where my LDS bias comes in. I would like to point out, that for many decades now, there have been many Theologins and Scholars that have tried to say that Judaism, Christianity and Islam have stolen/adopted many beliefes from a little known world religion (at least, it could be considered a world religion in its hay day) called Zorastrianism (not to be confused with the cult of Mithras, which was a heresy under Zorastrianism). These scholars may have actually have been on to something, in a way at least. First let me give some background knowledge and conjecture. I will start at the time of Jesus. We all know who the Pharisees and the Saducees were, but there was also a group called the Essenes/Hasidim as well. The word Pharisee originates as the word Pharis, which is the Aramaic term for "of Pharis/Persia". In other words, the Pharisee were a sect of Judaism from persia. The pharisee believed in the ressurection, a judgement of the soul, and in the angels of heaven. The Saducees however, did not, they only believed in the most literal interpretation of the books of moses, which makes no mention of angels, heaven, a hell or anything of that sort. The essenes did believe in much of what the pharisees did as well, but with some twists and extremes. I would like to point out that the saducees were not incorrect in their beliefes as they were going dirctly upon what the LORD had given them. So then why did the Essenes and the Pharisees differ from them? So here is some info on the Zorastrin/Mhazdaist religious beliefes, and the LDS members reading this can confirm this through the LDS institute of religions book of world religions (not the actual title) as well as a 1971 general conference talk (easily found in the Ensign archives) given on the faith. The date of origin for the faith is highly contested. The adherents, as well as the writings of Plato, place the faiths start date in the year we would consider to be around 6000 bc. Many scholars scoff at this record and instead claim that it was a misprint and what Plato meant to say was essentially 600 bc. Since that point, 600 bc became the widely accepted view of its origin. However, current studies of the linguistics used in this faiths oldest surviving text denotes a date of at least 1500-1300 bc. Which makes the origin of the faith at least 700 years older than the “scholars” said it was. It began when a man, by the name of Zarathushtra (greek; Zoraster, Egyptian; Zorokothora, Parsean; Zartoshtra), seeks out spiritual enlightenment, by fasting on and off for thirty or so years and doing a lot of praying, in what we would now call bactria afganistan. He goes through a ritualistic cleansing and bathing in a local holy river, while he is doing this, he is visited by an angel, the angel tells him that he is the servant of Ahura Mhazda (farsi for Lord of Wisdom). He is then taken up and shown many visions of heaven and given many rules that man should live by. In Zarathushtras day, his people worshipped a pantheon of deities called Daeva. When he receives his enlightenment from the One True God (Ahura Mhazda) he is told that the Daeva should not be worshipped because they are evil malighned beings trying to make man chose evil deeds and thoughts over good ones. This is, etymologically speaking, where we get the word Devil. In fact, a villain is revealed to Zarathustra by the name of Angra Mainyu (Evil/Angry Spirit) who is Ahura Mhazdas chief adversary, he even goes so far as to give a title very familiar to madern day Christians, the title being “The Prince of Lies”. Zarathushtra, being called of this deity as a prophet, goes on to preach this new religion with little success until he becomes sanctioned by a king. Later, the religion becomes the primary religion of Persia through the act of proselytization, as he establishes a priesthood via the converts of former Daeva priests who converted to the knew religion, these preists are then sent throughout the known world, there is evidence that the religion reached as far as present day Armenia (as the primary deity of worship in pegan Armenian religion goes by the name of Ormazd). Primary key tenants of this religion are 1. Belief in a singular God, who has an adversary that has existed as long as he has. 2. Belief of Yazatas (Angels) as guardians of man and messengers of God (EDIT NOTE: All Zorastrian Angels were mentioned by SPECIFIC names, usually denoted by the Job they performed) 3. Belief that the Soul and Body would be reunited (The resurrection) at the final renovation (judgement) of the world 4. A belief in a Paradisae, used with the symbolism of the sun for the most righteous who practice Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds 5. Those who do not quite make it to this heaven, will enter into one of three degrees of damnation, likened unto the moon, the stars and a place completely devoid of light. 6. A strong belief in eternal marriage is also posited amongst this religion. But only those marriages performed by the priests in the fire temple were counted as eternal. 7. Finaly, a belief in a Saiyoshyant (Mesiah/Savior) would come to the earth and purify man (although, depending on the period in this faith, they have been known to believe in up to 3 saviors) Zarathushtra also taught that blood sacrifice was to be stopped, as he himself abhorred the practice, and instituted a tithe system in its place. He also preached against the use of opiates and mind altering substances such as Haoma drink (druged wine, closest English description) in priestly ceremonies. Many of the traditions of this religion also teach that Zarathushtra did not die, but was, in fact, lifted up to heaven. However, there are also others that say he was killed, and some claim he died peacefully at 77. This religion, assuming the date of the origin of this faith is at least at 1300 bc, would be the first to teach of angels and the resurrection, a heavenly paradise and a concept of hell very dissimilar to the oblivion afterlives of the Greeks and Babylonians. Ok, so here is the connection, none of the above doctrines were present in Jewish scripture (EDIT NOTE: in regards to NAMED angels, the hebrew faith did not write down the names of angels until the occupation, as the name was seen as sacred much as the name of God/Yavhevavhe/Yahwe was writting as LORD/Adoni) until the Persian occupation of Israel. And later, these doctrine become enforced by Jesus, with the perceived exception of eternal marriage, when He is asked by the Pharisee as to which man would have a particular woman in the afterlife as she was widowed and remarried, Jesus said neither, not because there is no eternal marriage but because either, she or the men were not living a celestial marriage. Jesus makes the claim that his priesthood order is after the order of Melchezedek. And the doctrine he enforces is Persian in its origin. But even still, later in Gnostic scripture known as the Pistis Sophia, Jesus teaches the Apostles about Zorokothora Melchezedek and the mysteries of God through the use of his priesthood. So here is the hypothesis, what if Zarathustra was Melchezedek? As we currently believe that Avrahim existed around 1800 bc, it is not to much of a stretch to say that the Mhazdaist faith may have also existed at the same time as the OLDest SURVIVING document of Zarathushtras Gathas purport back to at least 1300-1500 bc. what if Melchezedeks lineage was left out becuase he was actually a foreigner and no one really knew? The life story of Zarathustra is also somewhat, very tentatively, reinforced by what Alma says about Melchezedek in the Book of Mormon Alma's sermon in chapters 12 and 13 teaches the principle that God will provide men access to certain mysteries of God (Alma 12:9—11). The first verse of this sermon sets the theme for the entire discourse. Alma says that many know these mysteries as priests (Alma 13:1), but they are laid under a strict condition of secrecy (Alma 12:9) that can be lifted only by the diligence and repentance of the children of men (Alma 12:9—11; 13:18; cf. Alma 26:22). The plan provides all mankind a chance to know the mysteries in full (Alma 12:10), by humility (Alma 12:10—11; 13:13—14) and through the ministrations of properly ordained priests (Alma 13:16; cf. Mosiah 2:9; Alma 26:22) (John W. Welch: "The Melchizedek Material in Alma 13:13-19", for more info on churches view of Melchezedek). The similarity being the humility and pious search for truth that the Mhazdaists believe Zarathustra went through, and that Alma obviously believed that Melchezedek went through. Yes, I know this is all speculation, and moderate portion of this ‘evidence’ is highly circumstantial. But very fun none the less.