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.
This is correct ~but the Lord Jesus was also called the Son of God, and with that title, makes him "equal to God", and thereby, he was God manifest in the flesh just as Paul said in 1st Timothy 3;16. Even Jesus' enemies understood him making himself equal with God by him confessing that God was his Father, and he was indeed according to Luke's gospel.
Read more carefully
Saying you are the son of God does not make you God.
True, yet Jesus is the only begotten Son of God in the manner in which he was begotten. His flesh was conceived by the power of the Highest; mine by my earthly father, and I bear his fallen image, and Jesus was the express image of His Father, His likeness without a sinful nature!
Then you believe is that God is a non-eternal being in a human priesthood like Melchizedek?
You do realize that Melchizedek isn't an eternal being right? The writer of Hebrews was making a rhetorical point on a geneological techniciality. Melchizedek doesn't have a well-documented genealogy. Hebrews 7:3 says "Without father or mother or genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life..." but Melchizedek has a father, mother, a geaology, a birthday, and a time of death. All just like Jesus. But it's not documented so in a legal sense Melchizedek must still be alive. Same with Jesus.
I did.
Are you your father because you bear his image?
That sounds like desperate pleading on behalf of a lost argument you started. I remind people that unitarians reflect hyper-literalism. They cannot understand analogies. You missed the nuance that the addition of the idea of an undefined beginning only is needed to create the sense of eternally existing to relate to Jesus' eternal existence. This eternal existence otherwise is not something obvious or likely about Melchizedek. In other words, if not added as an analogy toward Jesus, the point of no beginning would not have been added.
Elohim
Humasn are elohim in the Bible, too. Not a very good argument.
Here is the problem with the unitarian position
Indeed. So true. The unitarians undo what Hebrews seeks to accomplish.
Exactly
Do the Bible say that Melchizedek is a man?
The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.
Yes. I am not sure if it explicitly says "Melchizedek is a man" in that exact language, but yeah he's a human of course.
May I know what verse that says he's human.?
