I am sorry I am so confusing.
When I said "I was challenged on my beliefs after the suggesting that Melchizedek and Jesus might be one in the same."
It is poorly worded... as this was not me suggesting that Melchizedek and Jesus might be the same... but I see now, it would be easy to misunderstand what I was trying to say.
I had quoted from another thread a point and did not make that clear tha it was not I who said anything about Melchizedek being Jesus.
To
@Runningman I had said
So while Melchizedek was a real historical person with a real priestly ministry in his own day, his ultimate biblical purpose is to testify in advance to the priesthood of Christ.
And I have found nowhere that suggests the two could be the same.
And
@Runningman ... this is perfect within the Trinity believers for The Heavily Father had it all figured and laid out in His perfect plan before long before there was every said "Let there be".......................................
____________________________________________________---
Where I read that idea came from
@civic AND NO... HE DID NOT SUGGEST IT... HE QUESTIONED IT.
Check here...https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-trinity-and-the-incarnation.1941/page-54 reply #1017
Hebrews 6:20 says, “[Jesus] has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” This term
order would ordinarily indicate a succession of priests holding the office. None are ever mentioned, however,
in the long interval from Melchizedek to Christ, an anomaly that can be solved by assuming that Melchizedek and Christ are really the same person. Thus the “order” is eternally vested in Him and Him alone.
Hebrews 7:3 says that Melchizedek was “without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” The question is whether the author of Hebrews means this
actually or
figuratively.
If the description in Hebrews is literal, then it is indeed difficult to see how it could be properly applied to anyone but the Lord Jesus Christ. No mere earthly king “remains a priest forever,” and no mere human is “without father or mother.” If
Genesis 14 describes a theophany, then God the Son came to give Abraham His blessing (
Genesis 14:17–19), appearing as the King of Righteousness (
Revelation 19:11,
16), the King of Peace (
Isaiah 9:6), and the Mediator between God and Man (
1 Timothy 2:5).
If the description of Melchizedek is figurative, then the details of having no genealogy, no beginning or ending, and a ceaseless ministry are simply statements accentuating the mysterious nature of the person who met Abraham. In this case, the silence in the Genesis account concerning these details is purposeful and better serves to link Melchizedek with Christ.
Are Melchizedek and Jesus the same person? A case can be made either way. At the very least, Melchizedek is a type of Christ, prefiguring the Lord’s ministry. But it is also possible that Abraham, after his weary battle, met and gave honor to the Lord Jesus Himself. got?
I apologize to you and all else who got confused by what I was trying to say.