But the reader understands that even though that is what the author of Hebrews said about Melchizedek, his point is entirely rhetorical. Of course we know Mel is not an eternal being, which is why the author compared Mel to Jesus, because Jesus is also not eternal. Are you saying the divinely inspired author of Hebrews is wrong because he contradicts trintiarianism repeatedly throughout the book?
If the writer had missed the elements of the Triune God, you might have a point. However, you miss even obvious points made about Melchizedek. So the writer is not wrong in relating Melchizedek beyond the constraints of beginning and end, just as the divine Son, in fact, has no beginning or end. It should be obvious that the mention of no beginning only serves to reflect that aspect of Christ's divinity; it does not have to be a factual attribute of Melchizedek. The (potentially) contrived attribute is all the more significant here when not factual of Melchizedek. The obvious details have to be distorted by unitarians to convince themselves of the obvious meaning, as you have continued to do here. Unitarians have blatant rejection of the obvious to make their arguments.
