Talk:Melchizedek

message: The Book of Jasher ISBN: 1-55517-914-2  Page 41 Chapter 16:11 
" And Adonizedek king of Jerusalem, the same was Shem, went out with his men to meet Abram and his people, with bread and wine, and they remained together  in the valley of Melech."
This states that Adonizedek was Melchizedek was Shem the son of Noah.  A study of the geneologies will show that Shem outlived Abraham.
Disagree, a study of genealogies does not show Shem outlived Abram. In fact both extended and short Genesis, can, and do, have him die before Abram. In long extended Genesis it is obvious that 500 years after the Flood will not reach Abram with figures of 135+130+134+130+132+130 as grandpa Nahor'a birth. So this eliminates Shem (by reconstructions accepted as Gentile secular facts). Now the short chron is where Shem dies when Abram is 150 (a contrast to dying 60 years later after Abram) so Shem dies before Abram who was born when Terah was 130 and scriptures verifies Terah died at 205. Though some will say this 205-year life is (70+135) as in living 135 (75+60) after Abram's birth (as if Terah dwelt in Haran 60 years after Abram left Harran), the evidence against this is in almost all chronologies having Terah die when Abram is 75 (whether Terah he be 145 or 205). Further, the Masoretic 205 is astronomy (208 of 360-day of 13-year Mars 6 orbits of 780 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. It implies Abram is proclaimed The Son on Terah's death bed leaving Ur and going to Harran. (I must admit the temptation for an ancient chronologer is there if you know of the 137-year blessing by Shiloh /Arpaxad's son Shelah; as if Terah recognized these 135 years as 137 of 360-day so that Jasher has Abram come back to Harran Syria to get the blessing at death. Unfortunately the formula is 137 Julian are 139 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.  BUT all long chrons have extended-Shem die a minimal of 540-590 years before Shem-Melchizedek dies. (Add 600 replace 159 (29+130) with 149 (79+70), or add 600 and replace Terah's 130 with 70. 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 500 years and 600 years. Noah 500 to children, 600 to Flood. Shem 500 of his postFlood children until he dies at 600. Nimrod dies at age 500 in the year 600 after Noah (short chron 600 after Flood; long chron 600 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. Japanese (3060bc +1200 to 1860bc +1200 to Era 660bc versus Jewish Demetrius and Jewish Eupolemus who pivot 1200 and 600 on 1843bc 25 years after 1868bc. The 8 before 1860bc is due to 600 after Flood being 608 of 360-day, and the 17 before 1843bc is due to postFlood 1200 Julian are 1217 of 360-day. Thus 1860bc bridges the gap dispute of a Melkizedek 1868bc (Shem) and Melkizedek 1843bc (Abram) both being given Nimrod's death year 600 reckoned as 1200. Discussion (charts)? rschiller@wi.rr.com 75.86.172.174 (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004 thread refactored - it was factored wrongly at the head of the page

message: I fail to see any evidence that this is most bible scholars. All non-Christian?  all non=Jewish?  all non-Moslem? Has the writer of this article been devoted to Shinto scholars of the Hebrew Bible as the majority!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elijah Michael (talk • contribs) 03:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Bible Scholars

message: 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 18:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian reference 

message: 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 00:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Jgardner: Instead of voicing her concern see removed it without explanation after she just finished saying that she doesn't know anything about this subject.KAJ 07:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: DOM is at least as relevant to Melchizedek as Morman teaching about Melchizedek which is in this article.  Their Bible includes the Genesis verses about Melchizedek and is named after that Biblical character. A micronation named after the Biblical character deserves a reference here. Harvardy 05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominion of Melchizedek 

message: 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. at least there shuld be a link or reference to the site. http://www.crystalinks.com/melchizedek.html. 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.com]
:When it comes to copyright, permission does not exist unless given explicitly.  And everything automatically falls into copyright if it is produces as the original work of an author.  So if we're copying stuff without citation or permission, it needs to be removed swiftly, lest we expose Wikipedia to possible litigation. 
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. Mitchell Powell (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Testament/New Testiment 

message: An anon added a "See also" section referring to Paper 93 of The Urantia Book. 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.org website (and the Urantia article here) and discovered that this is in fact an established, er, thing. 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." -EDM 08:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urantia 

message: 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.  the sections describing Melichizedek as a person should be moved to this article. Many parts of these articles seem to have directly copied and pasted from each other.Wrad 20:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: As it is, I think this Article has a lot of good info, but that it could be organized better.  Other Biblical characters, such as David, are carefully organized to shows the facts and points of view of different religions.  I think we have the info, just not the organization. Wrad 01:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: I deleted a paragraph interpreting the Dh in terms of Heb.7 - i.e., questioing the theories of scholars concerning the passage in Genesis on the grounds that Hebrews says something to the contrary. The author of Genesis can hardly have been aware of the opinion of the author of Hebrews, and the line of thought is frankly unscholarly (tho I can see that if you believe that God inspired both Genesis and Hebrews, then it's QED, but that line of reasoning is not open to biblical scholars). Anyway, the paragraph doesn't belong in a section discussing scholarly theories about the origins of the passage in Genesis. PiCo 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Heb. 7 

message: Where does the reference to "Aaronic priesthood" come from.  There is no discussion of the meaning of this term and there is no link for further information about it.  What is Aaronic priesthood and why is its relation to Melchizedek priesthood important.  This sounds like a reference to LDS belief, but it is not clearly marked as such.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.184.211 (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the view you're referring to might be an LDS doctrine, the comparison and contrast of the priesthood of Malkizedek and the priesthood of Aaron is a central theme anonymously written New Testament book of Hebrews.  Aaron, being a descendent of Levi the grandson of Abraham, is the ancestor in the biblical story of all Jewish priests (Kohanim).  Melchizedek, however, is called a priest by the Biblical account although he was several hundred years before Aaron or Levi.  This, in conjunction with the Psalm 110 reference to "a priest according to the order of Melchizedek," is why the two concepts are referred to as linked.  Hope that helps, Mitchell Powell (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aaronic priesthood 

message: This isn't quite true. The yud is the hiriq compaginis expressing a genitive relationship (see GKC [Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar] section 90l), an archaic form sometimes seen in poetry and names. For example, in Ps 110:4, the other verse relating to Melchizedek, we get, "You are a priest forever according to the _order of Melchizedek_ (divrati melchizedek)." The name should be translated, "Zedek's king" or "King of righteousness." (We would leave Zedek untranslated probably only if we assume that it refers to the Phoenician or South Arabian deity of that name, cf Skinner, Genesis 267-8). The same is true for the name Adonizedek (Lord/Prince of Righteousness), and for a good deal of names throughout the Bible (e.g. Melchi-el [deut 8:16], Hani-el [num 34:23]).
So what prevents the reverse. If Zedek is my king (Righteous is my king), why not the god Molech is right? Molech the righteous one. I have yet to see where linguist translate properly, i.e. how does Abbi Nu Melki Nu mean our father out king when still today the Kurds in Turkey tell me Nu is Noah so it must be Father Noah King Noah. I am not defying a change in who is meant by the expression, but rather that origin began in relating everything our father Noah does as if it to be what our God wants. 75.86.172.174 (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fairly common mistake especially among those who know modern Hebrew to misinterpret the hiriq compaginis as the first person possessive. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Melchizedek's name can be translated (from Hebrew) either as Zedek is my king or as My king is righteous." 

message: I am not an expert nor I want to start any sterile debate. The Bible (from greek  βιβλία = biblìa, plurale di biblìon, means books) is a common definition of two books one is a sacre book of the Hebrew and one of the Christian religion. If this is accepted (being consolidated), Tanàkh and Bible are derived from the same sources BUT are not the same book. Nor is the Bible derived by Tanakh which was an oral tradition. Therefore to unilaterally state that the Christian Bible is the Hebew Tanakh is a mistake. you can draw plenty of litherature from univrtisty and vatican itself . To mention one and not the other would be therofore a mistake and inaccurate.
Specifically from the Vatican web page www.vaticano.vc  "Nelle traduzioni in lingua moderna della Bibbia, specialmente cattoliche, sono compresi alcuni libri e passi che si riscontrano nella antica traduzione greca, detta dei LXX; questi libri vengono generalmente chiamati «apocrifi» o «deuterocanonici». " transaltion: "In the modern translation of the Bible, specially Catholic, are included books and passes , derived from the old greek translation, named of LXX, books generally sail "deuterocanonical". The Lone RangerHit me with a good one! 22:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Bible is not Hebrew Tanakh 

message: I hope you'll consider favourably my latest edit. The material from Salibi is still there, and I've tried to present it in a way that seems less like a personal synthesis. PiCo (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i think that User:Benson Verazzano edit  about not to say general agreement among modern scholars was correct. Actually in these issues you can find all and the contrary of all, and to decide which is the scholar school to be worth to represented the majority is a POV. The same base scheme of pentateucal sources is not shared by all, not even the existence of the same separate sources. We could move that sentence in section "Textual criticism", stating that "Many scholars that follow the Documentary hypothesis agreed that Genesis 14 is not derived from any of the usual pentateuchal sources...". A ntv (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm agreeable to moving that sentence to the "Textual criticism" section, but it was my understanding that it is in fact generally understood (not completely agreed) that Genesis 14 doesn't "belong" with the rest of Genesis. Speiser and others are cited in the footnote. This is something separate from whether one accepts the documentary hypothesis - Van Seters, for example, does not accept the hypothesis, yet he does accept that Genesis 14 is foreign to the rest of Genesis. I'm sure we can come to an acceptable form of words. I'll have a try later. But I'd like your views on the larger edit I made - do you approve? PiCo (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Dear Benson, I suggest you to provide some sources that consider the M.'s Genesis passage to be not a addition.A ntv (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to see some source that doesn't believe Gen.14 to be an adition - it's very much the standard belief. PiCo (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In matters of interpretation like this, the default position must be that opinions vary, and they nearly always do. Therefore if someone wants to assert a "standard belief" the burden of proof is on them to prove that it exists. This whole argument is bit of a storm in a teacup, but it seems to me that Benson's formulation is preferable since it asserts less, and I can't see any good reasons to object to it. After all, there are certainly people around who believe that the whole of Genesis was written by Moses. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: there seems to be some input from early dikduk works indicating a difference between the way the word "מעשר" (tith) is nikkuded (in the genesis story).. it may be noteworthy for the above discussion--חודר לעומר (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edits 

message: I notice that after PiCo's recent edits there was a drastic reduction in the number of uses of template:bibleverse. Was this an accident, or is there some reason to avoid it? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an accident. I'm not familiar with the template. Please put it back. PiCo (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of bibleverse 

message: After examining Hebrews, I see no mention of the Temple of Jerusalem. Why is the Temple of Jerusalem mentioned in the Melchizedek in the New Testament section? Is the section writer injecting interpretation? An encyclopedia article ought to simply describe the facts: Exactly what does the text say about Melchisedec? No more no less.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.203.13 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To find the Temple in Hebrews, you'll have to look for the word Tabernacle.  The Tabernacle is the name given to the structure put up by Moses in which the Jewish system of centralized worship was first established.  In referring to the Mosaic laws of priestly regulations, the writer of Hebrews repeatedly refers to the Tabernacle, speaking as though it were still in existence, whereas in fact the practices instituted for the tabernacle were being carried out in the Temple, which served the same general purpose.  So therefore, arguments all throughout Hebrews for the replacement of the tabernacle which had been gone for a thousand years are in effect arguments for the replacement of the entire Temple system.  A first-century religious reader of Hebrews (or second-century, depending on your view of New Testament authorship) would in all probability grasp this point clearly, especially a reader who had the education to understand the Old Testament references throughout the book.  I hope this helps, Mitchell Powell (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melchizedek in the New Testament section POV? 

message: based on the nikkud of the name in the original text, may i purpose changing the page name to Malchi-Tzedek?--108.6.69.139 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: opposed. As per WP:COMMONNAME the page shall have the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.A ntv (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although English-language sources commonly spell with the segol sound, i have not found a hebrew text without the patach sound on the "mem".  but WP:COMMONNAME is the accepted usage here at wikipedia.  In any case, nice of you to suggest.--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor name change 

message: I've placed an "incomplete" box in the article as i see a bit of excess (repetitious material) and some sentences that could use more explanation (take "zohar" for example, what is upper and lower world in kabbalah usage?)..--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ive gone ahead and made some changes (and sentence moves) to the "Midrash" commentary section to include "torah commentaries" not mentioned and hope they are welcome, i'd like to return to the page s/t this week to touch up a bit though so i've placed an "incomplete" tag--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  incomplete 

message: I'm going to create a separate article about "Melchizedek in the The Urantia Book" and leaving a short-wording section about it, as the other sections on "M. In later literature". If the same strategy is used for "Melchizedek in the New Testament", which is surely not a Fringe theory, it shall be convenient also for "Melchizedek in the The Urantia Book" (WP:Fringe). A ntv (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do, go for it. You could do one on Melchizedek in Mormonism at the same time - that section is not much more WP:Weight than the Urantia one. .......I have just reordered the article to separate out Judaism and Christianity, and therefore see no need for Melchizedek in the New Testament, but plenty of OR/POV/muddle/mix remains.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved material to Melchizedek in the Urantia Book. A ntv (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Urantia Book 

message: The article reads "William F. Albright has proposed that "king of Salem" is a corruption of an original text which he reconstructed as: "And Melchizedek, a king allied to him"
Does indeed the Samaritan Pentateuch have a spelling of שלמו?--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sholem or Shlomo? 

message: article quotes an opinion that msr "could perhaps also mean just portion" -this statement is untrue as "maasar" (as sourced from the word עשר -ten) means a tenth in every and all biblical sources.  ill give till tomorrow for any feedback b/f i delete it (again)--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While it would seem to be an outlying view, outlying views are acceptable if sourced. And this is sourced, which plenty of the other outlying content in this article isn't. What does worry a bit though is the ref saying that the argument is applied from Arabic. An appropriate counter source would be "the Oxford Hebrew Dictionary lists no such use" etc. Before moving the content to the author's own entry a reliable Hebrew dictionary is needed.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I afford you the honors of the content removal?
#Maasar never means a morsel in hebrew!--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even in English (a language I know rather well) it is possible to be surprised by words used in previously unencountered senses. Our knowlege of Biblical Hebrew is based on a finite corpus of ancient documents, so there must have been words, phrases and usages in it of which no evidence now survives. Salibi only suggests that msr might mean "portion", since that is a small semantic shift that allows the whole sentence to make sense. The fact that msr is not attested elsewhere with that meaning weakens the hypothesis but does not destroy it. (In fact if it were so attested, it would make Salibi's interpretation practically certain.) In the article we're recording what Salibi proposed, not requiring you or anyone else to agree with it. It would be reasonable to insert a remark such as "not otherwise attested in Biblical Hebrew" in the article. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: a statement such as "not otherwise attested in Biblical Hebrew" sounds fair enough, although it does seem mr. Salibi pulled this one out of his hat 
cheers with beers--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error removal 

message: Upon doing some work to the "Psalm 110" paragraph I feel that keying in the original hebrew text would be beneficial in explaining the various components of the text.. is this acceptable here at Wikipedia?--חודר לעומר (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be more use at he.wikipedia  Here on en.wikipedia if there's something relevant/important it would require a verifiable English source. With 100s of English versions if there isn't one that makes the point chances are that the point is WP:OR. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact what you've done using the JPS 1985 version is good enough isn't it? If there's a Jewish commentary explaining why JPS and Septuagint/KJV are different here then by all means.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  May I suggest that perhaps all material in this par. not immediately related to this article be placed by Psalm 110?--חודר לעומר (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew texting 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melchizedek&curid=8285608&diff=637955911&oldid=637942934 Good removal. Belongs in the bio of the writer or in the book. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Urantia

message: The revision I found had this text: 
:The Epistle to the Hebrews, along with Josephus interpret the name "malki" as meaning "the king", and "tzedek", meaning "righteous(ness)" or "justice". This interpretation is upheld by modern scholars because in the Dead Sea Scroll 4QAmram 2.3 is found the opposite name Melchi-resha ("king of evil") for a chief angel of darkness. 
:Based on the detail that the word "malki" appears to contain a first-person singular possessive pronoun, connoting a meaning of "my king", the Ramban opines that the name implies "my king is tzedek", based on the notion that the city of Salem is associated with the attribute of "tzedek" (righteousness).
Clearly this was based on poor understanding on the part of whoever put this together.
You do not need to take recourse to the Epistle of the Hebrews or Josephus to establish that the name combines malik "king" and tzedek "righteousness": this is completely undisputed and straightforward.
Therefore, there is also no need to take recourse to unnamed "modern scholars" who "uphold" this. 
The question is, rather, the presence of the possessive suffix, as Hebrews 7:2 explicitly states the translation of the name is "βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης", i.e. "king of righteousness", omitting translation of the possessive pronoun. 
What we need is not evidence that "malik" means "king" or "tzedek" "righteousness", but that some "modern scholar" has explicitly argued that the original name does not, in fact, contain the possessive pronoun.--dab (𒁳) 08:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it by using references. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Possessive suffix

message: Cut as WP:UNDUE:
:Salibi (1985) suggested that the name is a corruption of an Arabic phrase  ʾlwk ṣdq meaning "mouthful of offering" (a reference to the food offered to a guest). ["Arabic dictionaries cite ʾlwk ṣdq (vocalised ālūk ṣidq, literally 'mouthful of offering'). as an archaic euphemism for 'food', especially food offered to a guest."]
The implication is to say that the king (whether of Sodom or of Salem) brought out food, then blessed Abram and El Elyon. ''
afaics, this is WP:FRINGE literature with no shred of credibility. 
Salibi (1985) apparently wanted to build a case of an "Arabian origin of the Hebrew Bible", and consequently made up Arabic etymologies for everything (which is extremely easy because of the close relation of Hebrew and Arabic and the consonantal script). Unless we have some evidence that this book met with anything like a charitable reception, I see no reason to mention it here. 
--dab (𒁳) 08:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Salibi (1985) 

message: I don't see the value of this section since it only says that in two other traditions Melchizedek is of no importance...  — PaleoNeonate — 13:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed.  — PaleoNeonate — 13:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In other traditions 

message: Article needs an edit to clarify statements like "Reference between the messhiac and Melchizedek appears in subsequent biblical verses: ", in lede, and make clear the distinctions between teh bible text and the interpretations of it by various exegetes and sects.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is also not lead material...  Some of the claims appear to be made later in their respective sections, where they belong.  Others appear to not be in the article.  —PaleoNeonate – 22:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe, OR 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Melchizedek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140822184924/http://days.pravoslavie.ru/en/Days/20120522.htm to http://days.pravoslavie.ru/en/Days/20120522.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hebrews 7:3 says that Melchizedek was without mother and father, without beginning or end, a priest forever. ("Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever", NIV, but every translation is similar). The surrounding verses make clear that this is meant as a literal statement of facts about Melchizedek (which is what makes him worthy to be compared to Jesus later).
This article doesn't even mention this line. Priesthood of Melchizedek mentions it only in passing, in the middle of a paragraph, to explain why some Christians believe Melchizedek was Jesus (not just a Christophany, or a typos of Christ, but literally him).
But the line is not only important to that small minority viewpoint, it's central to why Melchizedek is important, and mysterious, to all Christians. (And, for that matter, it's also part of why many Jews, Muslims, and atheists reject the NT as the inspired word of God.) Leaving it out is like leaving the virgin birth out of an article about Jesus, and mentioning it nowhere else except a subarticle about Mariology, buried in a paragraph about the Thomistic perspective. --157.131.168.209 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interpretation. Here's a source that disagrees which suggests it means his parents are unknown. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

text: 157.131.168.209, You can find yourself some reliable sources about that (or at least stating that some Christian believe that) and improve the article yourself. A ntv (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrews 7:3 

message: With His 23 Elders(1 to come Who is HERE;) surrounding His Throne and Him being ONE 152.97.157.190 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  HeistheAbbaFather