ECT Melchizedek and M.A.D.

Heterodoxical

New member
So what they, the MAD community ignores is OT prophecy saying that Jesus would be establishing a church after the order of Melchizedek. What do we know of Mel? He existed before a Jew ever walked the earth. he existed before any Jewish law was ever written. In His church He mediated to God for mankind, maybe individually, maybe as a whole it's not clear. He was what Jesus is now. And Jesus is now, in the same way, after the order, as Melchizedek was.

So if you have a church that runs as God ran the church before He wrote the law, why does obedience enter into it for anyone?

Since Mel was before JEW or GENTILE existed when Paul said there is no Jew or Gentile, it now makes more sense, right?
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
It is interesting that Genesis 14 follows Genesis 12, where God promised Abraham that he would make of him "a great nation" through which all families of the world would be blessed.
 

Heterodoxical

New member
It is interesting that Genesis 14 follows Genesis 12, where God promised Abraham that he would make of him "a great nation" through which all families of the world would be blessed.

How is that interesting? It's just how it is?

Abe was the line God chose to have the Christ come from. The line got more and more narrow as it went. The Christ was to be the holy of holies in that system. To be holy and holier, there had to be laws. "Laws to make the sins increase".

The law's purpose was to identify who the Christ was when He showed up.

It was never given to the Gentiles. Just the Jews, to set them apart. If gentiles had it too, they would NOT be set apart. That is why Gentiles that feared God and lived with the Jews only had SOME of the laws they kept.

The law was fulfilled when He died on the cross, HE was identified as the Christ and that death was the reason He was here.

After that, He established a Church fashioned as Melchizedek's was. Taking us BACK TO ABRAHAM'S time before Jews or Gentiles existed.

Thus in His church, there are no Jews or gentiles.

There are about 5 Paulian references there, that M.A.D. has to ignore to hold their views, AS I HAVE HEARD THEM PRESENTED.....

I have no doubt somewhere there are much more educated adherents to M.A.D. theology.

As I see it, the Melchizedekian argument alone addresses the Hebrew Roots Movement, as well as M.A.D.
And no one from either has yet rebutted it in 5 years.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
How is that interesting?

Because God's plan was for all twelve tribes of the nation Israel to be the priesthood under Christ.

And, I see at least 144,000 of them in Revelation which are kings and priests.

How can that be the same church in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile?
 

Heterodoxical

New member
Because God's plan was for all twelve tribes of the nation Israel to be the priesthood under Christ.
Can you show that the tribes were a priesthood under Christ and then explain how it works with Christ being the High Priest as Melchizedek was???? Please?

I think you got issues with where you try to take that.

And, I see at least 144,000 of them in Revelation which are kings and priests.
Never studied what apocalyptic literature was, I get it. How narrow that makes your studies when you gotta take it all literally like that.

How can that be the same church in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile?

How can it be like Melchizedek's when there ARE separations of race that didn't exist at Mel's time?

I've presented my arguments above, if you think they are wrong, show the errors, don't just pretend there were no arguments made by me to support my claims and dismiss them all with questions that ignored the arguments. That's hardly fair.

Melchizedek had no Jew or Gentile.

Christ's church fashioned after Mel's.

They are of a similar bent.

And Paul said there is no jew or Gentile. I thought you worshipped His teaching or something in the M.A.D. cult?
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So what they, the MAD community ignores is OT prophecy
Not so.

saying that Jesus would be establishing a church after the order of Melchizedek.
Nothing about Mel establishing a church.



Since Mel was before JEW or GENTILE existed when Paul said there is no Jew or Gentile, it now makes more sense, right?
Sure enough, there was no nation of Israel during Mel's time.

But God did indeed separate a group of folks into a separate nation - Israel.
And according to the law that Israel was to live by, they could have no priest that wasn't a descendant of Aaron. Later, more specifically, Levi (a descendant of Aaron). And later, Zadock (a descendant of Aaron).

As long as Israel stayed bound by the law, no one (as Mel) could be their priest.

In other words, the law had to go away or be changed before any Israelite could accept someone like Mel to be their priest. They had to live as though they were bound by no law.

And thus, Paul makes the distinction of living by faith without law (no difference between Jew and Gentile), and that of living by faith with law (for Israel only).
 

Heterodoxical

New member

Is so.

Nothing about Mel establishing a church.
No one said Mel established a church for today.



Sure enough, there was no nation of Israel during Mel's time.
You are more honest than most. :)

But God did indeed separate a group of folks into a separate nation - Israel.
And according to the law that Israel was to live by, they could have no priest that wasn't a descendant of Aaron. Later, more specifically, Levi (a descendant of Aaron). And later, Zadock (a descendant of Aaron).

As long as Israel stayed bound by the law, no one (as Mel) could be their priest.

In other words, the law had to go away or be changed before any Israelite could accept someone like Mel to be their priest. They had to live as though they were bound by no law.

And thus, Paul makes the distinction of living by faith without law (no difference between Jew and Gentile), and that of living by faith with law (for Israel only).


And I addressed this in my post.

The jews were set apart for a reason.
I explained the reason.
The reason came to exist and to pass.
The OT PROPHECY of Christ's Church being after the order of MEL'S shows not even the Jews expected it to stay the same.

For you to imply it should, in the face of that reasoning and scripture, is just plain not very honest of you.

Do you guys realizing, contradicting someone doesn't make you right? it's not an argument?

And there is nothing compelling for ANYONE to believe another's view just because they say NU UH?

You CAN discuss, and I would love to discuss, so please DO discuss not just contradict.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How can it be like Melchizedek's when there ARE separations of race that didn't exist at Mel's time?
Separations did already exist at the time of Mel.

BTW, "race" is rather a poor word to use. The separations were by language and families.
Remember the tower of Babel?

I've presented my arguments above, if you think they are wrong, show the errors, don't just pretend there were no arguments made by me to support my claims and dismiss them all with questions that ignored the arguments. That's hardly fair.
Oh stop. You are getting arguments.

Melchizedek had no Jew or Gentile.
Perhaps you would like to share who all Mel did have.
All nations?


I thought you worshipped His teaching or something in the M.A.D. cult?
"Worshiped" (spelled correctly) is another poor word to use.
His teaching is the teaching of Christ.

But if you already see that living by faith with the law, and living by faith without the law is a clear distinction, then you are on your way to being MAD.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Interesting to note that the priesthood of the nation of Israel that was promised to be established paid tithes to Mel in Abe, even though the priesthood of Israel did not yet exist.


Hebrews 7:9-10 KJV
(9) And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
(10) For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
 

Word based mystic

New member
Forgive my ignorance. I am new here.

All this talk of MAD.??

Maybe I have a different context for MAD or not quite sure what the major theme or doctrine MAD is.

please inform me in very short summary
What MAD is or represents
and for its opponents what is the problem of MAD

Short summary please.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Forgive my ignorance. I am new here.

All this talk of MAD.??

Maybe I have a different context for MAD or not quite sure what the major theme or doctrine MAD is.

please inform me in very short summary
What MAD is or represents
and for its opponents what is the problem of MAD

Short summary please.
MAD stands for Mid Acts Dispensation.

Showing the transformation of the gospel given to Paul by Christ - faith without works vs. faith with works.
The difference between grace and debt.
 

Heterodoxical

New member
Mid Acts Dispensationalist.

Only the teaching of PAUL matter to a Gentile. The rest holds no bearing their salvation. And in some mysterious way, not found in the bible without eliminating some verses of Paul's as well as those books NOT of Paul's teaching, you end up with a different Gospel being taught.



Forgive my ignorance. I am new here.

All this talk of MAD.??

Maybe I have a different context for MAD or not quite sure what the major theme or doctrine MAD is.

please inform me in very short summary
What MAD is or represents
and for its opponents what is the problem of MAD

Short summary please.
 

Heterodoxical

New member
Interesting to note that the priesthood of the nation of Israel that was promised to be established paid tithes to Mel in Abe, even though the priesthood of Israel did not yet exist.

That's how metaphors work.

Interesting that Adonai is SPIRIT and not flesh, but has a fleshy right hand to sit beside.

Hebrews 7:9-10 KJV
(9) And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
(10) For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Does the M.A.D. theologian accept Hebrews????
 

Heterodoxical

New member
We get MAD doctrine from Christ's apostle Paul, not from someone 50 years ago.

has nothing to do with what I said.

Mad theology is 50 years old. It's an interpretation of SOME of Paul's teachings, not all, and didn't exist before. So somehow you guys were specifically selected by GOD to be endowed with special information that the 1900 years before us failed to have and went to hell.

It's a little far fetched.
 
Top