Is Melchizedek Jesus in Hebrews 7 ??

BigAk

Junior Member
:salam2:

I was debating with some christian guy today for a long time.. During the discussion I refuted his notion and claim of the divinity of Jesus based on the fact that he has no father. He said Jesus has no father therefore, he must be devine.. I said if this is the case, how about Melchizedek in Hebrews 7:3 ??.. Then the guy baffled me by saying that Melchizedek is Jesus in this verse... Can anyone shed some real light on this subject please?? I hated that I stumbled on this one.

Thank you very much :)


Hebrews 7
1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.
4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. 5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; 6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. 8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
 

Zafran

Muslim Brother
salaam

"Jesus has no father therefore, he must be devine"

thats crazy logic - if he uses that logic what about Adam and Eve pbut. They both didnt have a father or mother.
 

Rashadi

Junior Member
I was once watching a debate with the late Sheikh deedat (may Allah have mercy on his soul) and this same verse was brought up and the pastor did not say that was Jesus(as). Every debate I have seen where this verse was brought up has always been avoided and I have yet heard any Christian claim that is Jesus. Looking at the verse, one can see that it can't be Jesus because Christians have 2 geneologies for Jesus in two different gospels. If this Jesus(as), Christians would have to accept a major contradiction in order to squeeze him into that verse. There are many verses that are ambigious in the Bible and to even try to get something out of it is difficult to begin with. I don't see how the person mentioned in the verse is Jesus(as) and if anything, this is not the description of any human, including Jesus(as). The guy you are debating is making his own interpretation.

The simple fact that Jesus (as) was a human, with human nature and needs is enough to refute the divinity arguement. The Jews have been reading their scripture far longer than Christians and the Jews know full well that there is none other than God. Jews do not believe God to be human or in anyway comparable to his creation. The christian idea of Jesus being God is no different from a Hindu or a pagan believing in their man gods. If Christians indeed worship the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus (pbut), they have to come to accept the fact that God is not man, nor a trinity but He is rather one and unique with no equals.

the book of numbers in the Old Testament makes it very clear "God is not man that he shall lie, nor the son of man that he shall repent"(NUMBERS 23;19). This would contradict the Christian claim that Jesus(as) is God since he was clearly a man. The Christian idea of jesus is God and the trinity comes from the simple misconception that God had no choice but to come down and get crucified in order to atone for sins. They believe that this "sacrifice" that God needed couldn't be an ordinary human but had to be someone divine, and that is why they will always argue that Jesus is God. The whole concept of the trinity was written, and affirmed in the 4th century and took a long time and a lot of fighting in order to make it official. The Council of Nicea had adopt wordfs outside of the Bible in order to make this concept and it was only then that God became known as "father, son and holy spirit". This is of course a false concept to begin with because we know that God is the owner of everything and He don't have to "sacrifice" nothing nor does He have any needs. He can forgive, punish, guide and have mercy on us without no scarifice or a divine sacrifice.

In order to understand their false claims, one has to understand why they believe this and how this all came about. I would be more than happy to assist in anyway in this subject because I have done some very hard research on this issue and have learned over the years as to why the Christians believe in the things they say and what the keys to all of it is. I also learned of the verses in the Old testament which Christian quote in order to prove their whole concept of the atonement, blood sacrifice, and the trinity. None of the verses they quote are actually in support of their theories but it is their twisted and unjust style of using them.

Please, feel free to contact me my brother and I be more than happy to help you in anyway, inshaAllah.
 

BigAk

Junior Member
:salam2:

Thank you brother Rashadi for all your help.... You have answered my questions as usual and satisfied my curiosity.... I think we both are on the same page in trying to spread Islam and utilize what tools Shaik Deedat has left for us for this task and journey.

Two days ago, I have spent three hours debating with this guy and subhana Allah, despite all my attempts to show his things in black @ white, he still could not see...

he posed a few things though that I need some help with... I will be posting a seperate thread for that insha Allah... Look for it and your help is appreciated. :D

.
 

Salem9022

Junior Member
Just to let you know Melchizedek = Malek Sadeek, that wasnt his actual name. That was just a title given to him. and no Jesus isnt that man. because Jesus wasn't born during Ibraheem alaiysalaams time.
 

BigAk

Junior Member
Just to let you know Melchizedek = Malek Sadeek, that wasnt his actual name. That was just a title given to him. and no Jesus isnt that man. because Jesus wasn't born during Ibraheem alaiysalaams time.

:salam2:

Thank you brother Salem.. The guy's argument also was the quote from Jesus saying "before Abraham was, I am".... Go figure!!!!.. LOL

I think we can refute this by showing that Melchizedek did not have a mother nor geneology while Jesus did have a mother.... and a geneology according to their scripture.

.
 

Salem9022

Junior Member
:salam2:

Thank you brother Salem.. The guy's argument also was the quote from Jesus saying "before Abraham was, I am".... Go figure!!!!.. LOL

I think we can refute this by showing that Melchizedek did not have a mother nor geneology while Jesus did have a mother.... and a geneology according to their scripture.

.


Even though I dont like to Qoute the Bible because I consider it to be a *!*!*! book. I will qoute you this.

This is according to christian from the mouth of Soloman in Proverbs.

Proverbs 8:

23 I was appointed [d] from eternity,
from the beginning, before the world began.


24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth,
when there were no springs abounding with water;


25 before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,


26 before he made the earth or its fields
or any of the dust of the world.


27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,


28 when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,


29 when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if they believe that their God was there before Abraham then thats noting. According to their own religion Soloman was there even before Jesus and the creation of the world according to proverbs 8.

Also you shouldn't debate a christian on these matters because you wouldn't get anywhere. I used to do that. You have to debate a christian on terms of Tawheed - Monotheism. Like for instance how can christianity be considered a Monotheistic religion when they worship a God-Man like previous God-mans Krishna, Mithra etc. How can christianity be considered a Monothesitic religion? and since the consept of God in Christianity and Pagan religions of the past are the same, should we assume those Pagan religions were Monotheistic as well like Christianity?

Something like that. Discussions with Christians and other people should all ways be centered around Tawheed and Monotheism. Because it clears lots of differences. For Instance a dicussion with a Jew should never be centered around wheather or not Prophet Muhammad is a Prophet or if he is mentioned in the Torah. That is a very useless discussion because first the Torah is a curropt book and we don't take our religion from the torah to begin with, but yet Muslims want to go to it when Allah said its a curropt Book. A dicussion with a Jew should also be centered around Tawheed. Because Jews deny Tawheed. According to the Jewish religion, everything is Part of "God" Astughfur'Allah, because they believe their God is "Omni-present" (everywhere) so their "Gods" Spirit is inside everything even the dirtiest thing like pile of poop or something. As we know the God of Islam is not "everywhere"(omni-present). And I asked them if the Jewish God is everywhere then What Constitutes their Worship if their God is in everything. Whats the difference in Worshipping a Tree, Rocks, Jesus, Moses, Graves, and a Pile of poop, if their gods "spirit" is in all of these things. This is the belief of God in the Jewish religion. I actually had a discussion with a Jew about who his God is, they got so mad because they couldn't answer my question, that they bounced me from a chat room.

And so Like I said our discussion with the Kuffar should never be these useless discussions, it should always be in Tawheed.
 
Top