Jump to content
Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers

Recommended Posts

I have often wondered if Philo had a connection to Machiventa. When I first came to the Urantia book along time ago I felt a connection to Machiventa. Anyway's this quote from Philo makes me wonder, if Philo was having some sort of friendship and or connection with him. I wonder if other's have felt a connection to machiventa? I know Pato Banton has expressed something.

 

 

 

"But Melchizedek shall bring forward wine instead of water, and shall give your souls a drink, and shall cheer them with unmixed wine in order that they be wholly occupied with a divine intoxication more sober than sobriety itself,. For reason is a priest having as its inheritance the true god, and entertaing lofty and sublime magnificant ideas about him, for he the priest of the Most High God".

 

I know Machiventa is probably very busy though and probably doesn't have time to do the duty's of a gaurdian angel but I just wonder if he is sitting around and experiencing some connection to human being's. You never know haha.

Edited by boomshuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is now a "man." Just like me, in eternity, when I get there.

 

 

P.514 - §6 14. Machiventa Melchizedek, the only Son of this order to bestow himself upon the Urantia races. While still numbered as a Melchizedek, he has become "forever a minister of the Most Highs," eternally assuming the assignment of service as a mortal ascender, having sojourned on Urantia in the likeness of mortal flesh at Salem in the days of Abraham. This Melchizedek has latterly been proclaimed vicegerent Planetary Prince of Urantia with headquarters on Jerusem and authority to act in behalf of Michael, who is actually the Planetary Prince of the world whereon he experienced his terminal bestowal in human form. Notwithstanding this, Urantia is still supervised by successive resident governors general, members of the four and twenty counselors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest rich

well, since machiventa is a melchizedek son and the third epochal revelation there should be lore about him by the teachers of old like philo. he is the planetary prince in waiting so it's no wonder some humans should have feelings for him. 114:1.2 Vicegerent authority to act for Michael as Planetary Prince has been recently vested in machiventa Melchizedek, but this Son of the local universe has made not the slightest move toward modifying the present planetary regime of the successive administrations of the resident governors general. 114:3.4 It was expected, when machiventa was designated vicegerent Prince, that he would immediately assume his place in the council of the Planetary Princes of Satania, but thus far he has made no gesture in this direction. 114:1.4 Some believe that machiventa will not come to take personal direction of Urantian affairs until the end of the current dispensation. Others hold that the vicegerent Prince may not come, as such, until Michael sometime returns to Urantia as he promised when still in the flesh. Still others, including this narrator, look for Melchizedek’s appearance any day or hour. 93:10.5 machiventa continued as a planetary receiver up to the times of the triumph of Michael on Urantia. Subsequently, he was attached to the Urantia service on Jerusem as one of the four and twenty directors, only just recently having been elevated to the position of personal ambassador on Jerusem of the Creator Son, bearing the title Vicegerent Planetary Prince of Urantia. It is our belief that, as long as Urantia remains an inhabited planet, machiventa Melchizedek will not be fully returned to the duties of his order of sonship but will remain, speaking in the terms of time, forever a planetary minister representing Christ Michael.

 

looks like machiventa hangs out on jerusem for now and doesn't have much to do with urantia, but he must have some things to do with it as the eventual ruler of this world.

 

I know Machiventa is probably very busy though and probably doesn't have time to do the duty's of a gaurdian angel but I just wonder if he is sitting around and experiencing some connection to human being's. You never know haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest one4all

Regarding the Septuagint reference to Melchizedek (Melchisedec); there are only 2 references to the name however they spell a little differently as you can see below.

 

 

 

THE SEPTUAGINT WITH APOCRYPHA: ENGLISH

 

SIR LANCELOT C.L. BRENTON

 

 

 

Origionally published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., London 1851

 

The English Septuagint is made available by http://ecmarsh.com, 2010

 

 

 

Genesis Chapter 14.8

 

14.8 And Melchisedec king of Salem brought forth loaves and wine, and he was the priest of the

 

most high God. And he blessed Abram, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God,

 

who made heaven and earth, and blessed be the most high God who delivered thine enemies

 

into thy power. And Abram gave him the tithe of all. And the king of Sodom said to Abram,

 

Give me the men, and take the horses to thyself. And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I

 

will stretch out my hand to the Lord the most high God, who made the heaven and the earth,

 

that I will not take from all thy goods from a string to a shoe-latchet, lest thou shouldest say, I

 

have made Abram rich. Except what things the young men have eaten, and the portion of the

 

men that went with me, Eschol, Aunan, Mambre, these shall take a portion.

 

 

 

Psalm 110

 

A Psalm of David.

 

110.1 The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy

 

footstool. The Lord shall send out a rod of power for thee out of Sion: rule thou in the midst

 

of thine enemies. With thee is dominion in the day of thy power, in the splendours of thy

 

saints: I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning. The Lord sware, and will not

 

repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec. The Lord at thy right hand

 

has dashed in pieces kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the nations, he shall

 

fill up the number of corpses, he shall crush the heads of many on the earth. He shall drink of

 

the brook in the way; therefore shall he lift up the head.

 

You may wish to search the internet based on this spelling. Quite a lot of additional info in the SEPTUAGINT with APOCRYPHA, which is considered to be the full version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest one4all

Site Link: www.sabbatarian.com/Content/Melchisedec.html

 

The Order of Melchisedec

 

by D. J. Love, Minister, TSN, SBC

Written 6-9-2004

Refined 3-26-2007

First of All, if you haven't read "My Lord and My God" (Kurios Theos), then you really need to, as this message follows the same Ancient Hebrew pattern of thinking; and 'The Ancient Hebrews' did not think like any other nation. After all, they lived under the direct influence of YHVH, and YHVH's "Champions."

According to Strong's Concordance (which isn't purely without prejudice) the following are the definitions of Kurios, and Theos.

 

KURIOS, Strong's #2962: He who is "In Charge" or "In Authority." The Supreme Authority (for a specific realm of influence).

 

THEOS, Strong's #2316: As a figure of speech, "A Magistrate" or a "Supreme Divinity." AND "godly" (like God) (The Image of God) OR even God but (only because YHVH has Godly qualities, is Divine, and is Supreme, but YHVH is not the only one with those qualities). Strong's Concordance only lists YHVH as a last choice, because anyone that has received YHVH's Holy Spirit or Righteous Character has Godly qualities; and The Messiah certainly has Godly qualities.

 

Note: The Eternal "Self Existent" Creator (Y'HVH or YHWH) can only be implied with 100% certainty when both Kurios and Theos are placed side by side as "KURIOS THEOS." The conjunction 'and' (between Kurios 'and' Theos) is not sufficient enough to replace "KURIOS THEOS." This "Side by Side" form of "KURIOS THEOS" is used exclusively in the 'New Testament' (The Epistles) to positively indicate only Y'HVH, and not His appointed firstborn son, Messiah Y'Shua. While Messiah is both a Kurios, 'and' a Theos, he is not a "KURIOS THEOS."

There are zero examples of the Messiah ever being referred to as "KURIOS THEOS" anywhere in the Bible. The following New Testament verses are positive indicators where "KURIOS THEOS" has been used in the Epistles to exclusively indicate Y'ahveh: Luke 1:32, 1:68; 1 Peter 3:15,Revelation 4:8, 11:17, 15:3, 16:7, 18:8, 19:6, 21:22, 22:5, and 22:6. However, when you see "Lord Y'ahveh" or Lord god" in English, this does not necessarily indicate "KURIOS THEOS," as is shown in Jude 1:4. Jude 1:4 says "Lord god," meaning a lesser title than "LORD GOD."

 

According to Strong's Concordance:

 

Jude 1:4 says, "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our Y'HVH (Y'HVH) into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord god, and our Lord Messiah Y'Shua. Here we find "Lord" to be Strong's #1203 (Despotes, which means "Husband" or "Master of the House"). "Despotes Theos" is not "KURIOS THEOS" (the 'Side by Side' form), thus we are not presented with the positive indicator of Y'ahveh, but with Y'ahveh's Magistrate or proxy.

 

The Tanakh (Older Testament) use of "Yehovah Elohiym" as "LORD GOD" is even more specific than "KURIOS THEOS," as YeHOVAH, The Self-Existent or Eternal GOD. If used with Strong's #430, Elohiym (El-O-Heem), meaning "gods" or "magistrates," then it indicates the "Supreme GOD". However, Elohiym all by itself will indicate Children or Magistrates of GOD. I do not promote the use of the words 'god' and 'gods' to indicate those who serve GOD (Y'HVH) or those who are His children (Images), as this borders on pagan polytheism, and ambiguity. The term GOD is only used as a familarity factor for those who are still locked in the current grip of Christianity (Christopaganism).

 

 

At first glance the less knowledgeable would immediately jump to an untrue conclusion, and ASSUME that "My Kurios and My Theos" must be God (YHVH). However, one must not only look at the context of the chapter, but one must make sure that John's statement about Thomas is entirely in agreement with ALL Scripture. After all, Yahveh's inspired word is not chaotic, but harmonious (if properly translated and understood).

 

 

Note: Satan (Source of Human Nature) has created a veil over the eyes of Christians, Nazarenes, and Cabalistic Messianics. This veil leads them to approach their study of Inspired Scriptures and Inspired Apostolic Writings from a preconceived (Hellenistic) PAGAN GREEK (Babylonian) perspective. That veil being that Jesus (IHSous) is Y'HVH. _ _ Well folks, GREEKS and ROMANS did NOT write down the original "Inspired Words of Y'ahveh." Inspired

Hebrews did, and not for one second did any of YHVH's Champions (Moses, King David, King Solomon, the prophets, Messiah or any of the Apostles, etc. .) ever believe or ever make the statement that Yahveh (God) was more than ONE; therefore Yahveh's Inspired words must only be studied from that Inspired Hebrew perspective.

 

 

The bottom line is simple, YHVH uses proxies to interface with human beings, and YHVH works on a "Chain of Command" system. YHVH is "One" and at the "TOP" of "The Chain of Command." YHVH has a second in command, who was never Y'HVH, God, a god or even a winged angel. YHVH's second in command, replaced Lucifer "Anointed (Cherub)," as YHVH's Champion, and Lucifer is furious about it. However, YHVH's "Anointed (Messiah)" never existed prior to his physical birth, except as a "Planned Child of Y'HVH." But "The Messiah" was "Spiritually Conceived" (in The Mind or "<A title="The Spiritual Womb of YHVH" href="http://www.sabbatarian.com/Content/Melchisedec.html#Anchor-49575">Spiritual Womb" of YHVH), and thus did pre-exist, but only as a "Planned Child" prior to his physical birth. This "Planned Concept" is the "Hebrew Mind Set" on pre-existence, and does not mean that The Messiah had a conscious or godly existence prior to his physical birth; because that concept on pre-existence is the pagan polytheistic 'Mind Set'. Simply stated, "Only YHVH is Eternal or Self-existent, and IF YHVH were to suddenly cease to exist (impossible, but IF), then all of creation including angels, demons, mankind, the universe and "The Messiah" would also cease to exist." Therefore, as a Servant of "The Order of Melchisedec", I say to you and to the world that "The Messiah" is NOT Y'HVH, God, god or self-existent nor can he exist separately or even pre-exist in "The Mind of YHVH" (Haggios Pneuma) without YHVH choosing it to be so. This brings us to the question of "Who was Melchisedec?" Why? Because Christianity (Christopaganism) tries to teach that their Jesus Christ was both God and Pre-existent according to the polytheistic ''Mind Set',' and that he existed as "Melchisedec." Folks, neither Jesus Christ nor The True Messiah (Y'Shua) can ever be YHVH or Melchisedec (Melchizedek), except according to The Chain of Command, acting as YHVH's Proxy.

 

The interesting thing here is that "Melchisedec" was never meant to be a name. "Melchisedec" is actually a "Title of Honor," and is a transliteration of two Hebrew words, melek and tsedeq. The Hebrew melek means king and tsedeq means righteousness. Therefore, the term "Melchisedec" means literally, "King of Righteousness." The next logical question is, "To whom does the title of Melchisedec belong?" The answer to this question is quickly and easily seen as Our Eternal and Self-existent Creator, YHVH, by those with "Ears to Hear, and Eyes to See" in Hebrews chapters 6 and 7.

 

 

Hebrews 7:3 (Melchisedec or YHVH is)

3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but (Spiritually, as a Righteous or Sacred 'Mind Set' was) made like (as a Sacred Spiritual Image) unto the Son of Y'HVH; (therefore) abideth a priest continually (As YHVH's Proxy or Ambassador to mankind).

 

 

Here we can again see that YHVH does not personally interface directly with men, because "No man can literally see YHVH and live" (Exodus 33:20). HOWEVER, figuratively speaking, mankind can indirectly look at YHVH and still live by interfacing with YHVH's Sacred Spirit, which exists in all of YHVH's Champions, Proxies, Ambassadors, True Priests or Ministers and Servants, Prophets, Righteous Angels, and YHVH's 'Second in Command,' Messiah Y'Shua. This does not, I repeat not, make them Melchisedec, BUT it does make them a "Select Group" according to . . . . .

 

 

. . . The Order of Melchisedec !!!

 

Are you one of YHVH's "Chosen Few?"

Edited by one4all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi one4all,

 

Did you plan to make a comment about such beliefs? A simple link to that

web page would have been less confusing. The nicely formatted original is

easier to read, and such ideas make more sense when presented in the

context of the other work of such scholars.

 

Nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michaels First bestowal was that of A Melchizedek

And Why Jesus in the Bible Records Is Calld

A High Priest Of The Melchizedek Order .

 

The Bible Scripture Says

 

Scripture does not elaborate on the identity of the King of Salem. However, King David makes mention of him some 900 years later, in the Book of Psalms.

 

"The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind: You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

 

Over one thousand years later, Hebrews lists several passages concerning this mysterious figure.

 

"And he says in another place, 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.' " (Heb. 5:6)

 

Four verses later a most remarkable comparison is made. Jesus is said to "have been called out by God as a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek." (Heb. 5:10).

 

Jesus, the Son of God, is said to be a High Priest, not unto an order of Himself, but unto the order of this mysterious Priest/King!

 

The verse in full is as follows:

 

"and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek." (Heb. 5:9-10)

 

A chapter later the same information is deemed so important as to be reiterated once again. This time, the name Jesus isspecifically mentioned.

 

"where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order ofMelchizedek." (Heb. 6:20)''

 

The Urantia Papers Reveal So Much More ... TRUTH :D

 

 

'' and this record is now closed with the certification that this visitor lived as a Melchizedek, in the likeness of a Melchizedek he worked as a Melchizedek, and he faithfully performed all of his assignments as an emergency Son of our order. By universal consent he has become chief of Melchizedeks, having earned our love and adoration by his matchless wisdom, supreme love, and superb devotion to duty. He loved us, understood us, and served with us, and forever we are his loyal and devoted fellow Melchizedeks, for this stranger on our world has now eternally become a universe minister of Melchizedek nature."

 

 

1. THE FIRST BESTOWAL

 

119:1.1 It was a solemn occasion on Salvington almost one billion years ago when the assembled directors and chiefs of the universe of Nebadon heard Michael announce that his elder brother, Immanuel, would presently assume authority in Nebadon while he (Michael) would be absent on an unexplained mission. No other announcement was made about this transaction except that the farewell broadcast to the Constellation Fathers, among other instructions, said: "And for this period I place you under the care and keeping of Immanuel while I go to do the bidding of my Paradise Father."

 

119:1.2 After sending this farewell broadcast, Michael appeared on the dispatching field of Salvington, just as on many previous occasions when preparing for departure to Uversa or Paradise except that he came alone. He concluded his statement of departure with these words: "I leave you but for a short season. Many of you, I know, would go with me, but whither I go you cannot come. That which I am about to do, you cannot do. I go to do the will of the Paradise Deities, and when I have finished my mission and have acquired this experience, I will return to my place among you." And having thus spoken, Michael of Nebadon vanished from the sight of all those assembled and did not reappear for twenty years of standard time. In all Salvington, only the Divine Minister and Immanuel knew what was taking place, and the Union of Days shared his secret only with the chief executive of the universe, Gabriel, the Bright and Morning Star.

 

119:1.3 All the inhabitants of Salvington and those dwelling on the constellation and system headquarters worlds assembled about their respective receiving stations for universe intelligence, hoping to get some word of the mission and whereabouts of the Creator Son. Not until the third day after Michael's departure was any message of possible significance received. On this day a communication was registered on Salvington from the Melchizedek sphere, the headquarters of that order in Nebadon, which simply recorded this extraordinary and never-before-heard-of transaction: "At noon today there appeared on the receiving field of this world a strange Melchizedek Son, not of our number but wholly like our order. He was accompanied by a solitary omniaphim who bore credentials from Uversa and presented orders addressed to our chief, derived from the Ancients of Days and concurred in by Immanuel of Salvington, directing that this new Melchizedek Son be received into our order and assigned to the emergency service of the Melchizedeks of Nebadon. And it has been so ordered; it has been done."

 

119:1.4 And this is about all that appears on the records of Salvington regarding the first Michael bestowal. Nothing more appears until after one hundred years of Urantia time, when there was recorded the fact of Michael's return and unannounced resumption of the direction of universe affairs. But a strange record is to be found on the Melchizedek world, a recital of the service of this unique Melchizedek Son of the emergency corps of that age. This record is preserved in a simple temple which now occupies the foreground of the home of the Father Melchizedek, and it comprises the narration of the service of this transitory Melchizedek Son in connection with his assignment to twenty-four missions of universe emergency. And this record, which I have so recently reviewed, ends thus:

 

119:1.5 "And at noon on this day, without previous announcement and witnessed by only three of our brotherhood, this visiting Son of our order disappeared from our world as he came, accompanied only by a solitary omniaphim; and this record is now closed with the certification that this visitor lived as a Melchizedek, in the likeness of a Melchizedek he worked as a Melchizedek, and he faithfully performed all of his assignments as an emergency Son of our order. By universal consent he has become chief of Melchizedeks, having earned our love and adoration by his matchless wisdom, supreme love, and superb devotion to duty. He loved us, understood us, and served with us, and forever we are his loyal and devoted fellow Melchizedeks, for this stranger on our world has now eternally become a universe minister of Melchizedek nature."

 

119:1.6 And that is all I am permitted to tell you of the first bestowal of Michael. We, of course, fully understand that this strange Melchizedek who so mysteriously served with the Melchizedeks a billion years ago was none other than the incarnated Michael on the mission of his first bestowal. The records do not specifically state that this unique and efficient Melchizedek was Michael, but it is universally believed that he was. Probably the actual statement of that fact cannot be found outside of the records of Sonarington, and the records of that secret world are not open to us. Only on this sacred world of the divine Sons are the mysteries of incarnation and bestowal fully known. We all know of the facts of the Michael bestowals, but we do not understand how they are effected. We do not know how the ruler of a universe, the creator of the Melchizedeks, can so suddenly and mysteriously become one of their number and, as one of them, live among them and work as a Melchizedek Son for one hundred years. But it so happened.

Edited by Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest one4all
Hi one4all,

 

Did you plan to make a comment about such beliefs? A simple link to that

web page would have been less confusing. The nicely formatted original is

easier to read, and such ideas make more sense when presented in the

context of the other work of such scholars.

 

Nigel

 

Yes I did, although I thought it was selfevedent from the previous post, that not all that you read in the UB should be taken verbatum. Sometimes spelling and grammer can mean the difference between truth and fact. The other think I asked in my first contact was; Why was the UB presented in the first place? And, what is its mission statement. May be it was ment as a compilation what is known and needs to be known to those elsewhere who do not have access to the anchent ways of looking at things. If you keep looking in side a box be carefull you are not looking in pandoras' box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one-for-all,

 

"Why was the UB presented in the first place? And, what is its mission statement."

 

 

 

The mission statement of the Urantia Book is:

 

to expand cosmic consciousness and enhance spiritual perception, (page 1, section 2)

 

 

Your attempts to introduce references from Apochryphal sources do nothing to further the study of Urantia Book concepts and relate in no way to the Fifth Epochal Revelation other than to disparage it's contents, cast aspersions upon it's provenance. Your post does not even reply to Boomshuka's, Rich's or My post. Your post is painfully presented, abstruse and irrelevant and I suggest you remove it yourself.

 

Bill Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I did, although I thought it was selfevedent from the previous post, that not all that you read in the UB should be taken verbatum. Sometimes spelling and grammer can mean the difference between truth and fact. The other think I asked in my first contact was; Why was the UB presented in the first place? And, what is its mission statement. May be it was ment as a compilation what is known and needs to be known to those elsewhere who do not have access to the anchent ways of looking at things. If you keep looking in side a box be carefull you are not looking in pandoras' box.

 

I'm wondering why you suggest that spelling and grammar make a difference concerning truth when you've made so many spelling and grammatical errors in one short paragraph yourself? Since you've gone through the effort of editing my posts for me, please allow me to return the favor.

 

SPELLING ERRORS

 

selfevedent – self evident

verbatum – verbatim

grammer – grammar

think – thing

ment – meant

anchent – ancient

in side – inside

may be _ maybe

carefull – careful

 

SOME GRAMMATICAL ERRORS

 

Yes I did, although I thought it was selfevedent from the previous post, that not all that you read in the UB should be taken verbatum. – Yes I did. Although, I thought it was self evident from the previous post that not all you read in the UB should be taken literally.

 

The other think I asked in my first contact was; Why was the UB presented in the first place? And, what is its mission statement. – The other thing I asked in my first contact was, "Why was the UB presented in the first place and what is its mission statement?"

 

May be it was ment as a compilation what is known and needs to be known to those elsewhere who do not have access to the anchent ways of looking at things. – Perhaps the UB was meant to be a compilation of what is already known, as well as what should be known, for those who do not have access to ancient perspectives.

 

If you keep looking in side a box be carefull you are not looking in pandoras' box. – If you look inside a box, take care that you are not looking into Pandora's box.

 

In all fairness, one4all, I'm not sure if English is your primary language, in which case these errors should certainly be overlooked. But, let's get take a closer look at one of your statements:

 

Sometimes spelling and grammer can mean the difference between truth and fact.

 

You may not realize this: Truth has absolutely nothing at all to do with spelling and/or grammar. In which case, if your statement above is true, spelling and grammatical errors would not get in the way of one's ability to grasp the truth in what you wrote. It is the meaning and value gleaned from your words which resonate according to one's capacity for truth recognition. Can your words be put into action, can they be lived?

 

p42:7  2:7.6 Happiness ensues from the recognition of truth because it can be
acted out
; it can be lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest rich

what would you not take verbatim one4?, i take it all verbatim. the ub was presented in the first place to give people something as we await a live revelation, a living human or spirit being of some kind manifesting on urantia. it's mission is to give people the truth about all of creation, especially god, the history of this earth and the life of jesus. there's no real controversies or troubles with tub so i wouldn't say it's a pandora's box.

 

Yes I did, although I thought it was selfevedent from the previous post, that not all that you read in the UB should be taken verbatum. Sometimes spelling and grammer can mean the difference between truth and fact. The other think I asked in my first contact was; Why was the UB presented in the first place? And, what is its mission statement. May be it was ment as a compilation what is known and needs to be known to those elsewhere who do not have access to the anchent ways of looking at things. If you keep looking in side a box be carefull you are not looking in pandoras' box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@One4all The U.B is pretty straight forward about who Machiventa is, as opposed to ancient scripture which has just a handfull of sentence's regarding him. There is a ton of insight to be gained into this amazing man if you actually believe the U.B is what it say's it is ;).

 

My question was to whether any human being has ever felt some type of sensation, or connection associated with this person. I feel that I have but I could be in error when I say that I have :D, so the whole topic isnt really a big deal to me. I spend most of my time trying to connect to the Universal Father so I don't really care to much about this topic lol. I don't pray to actually gain friendship with these being's but I would certainly be open to the possiblity of anything if it felt right with my father :D. However I have a hard time imagining a human being actually befriending any being -that is not visible- who is not within the trinity/thought adjuster, without actually first achieving the 3rd cosmic circle and I know personally that I am no where near to being a 3rd circler so I am not going to give the whole thing much thought.

 

I know also the Father can be in an infinite number of place's and he even live's within us, so its hard for me to spend much time wishing to connect to some other invisible being when the Father is sooooo close to me. Not to mention the Father's attributes make him a hard person to resist :D, and by "him" I dont mean a male :).

Edited by boomshuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest rich

i spend all my time thinking about the universal father in conjunction with my thought adjuster too, when i'm pondering any beings in the book anyway. i don't think about the eternal son, infinite spirit, michael of nebadon or any of them, certainly not then a melchizedek. but i imagine if we were higher circlers that we would be able to comtemplate beings besides the universal father more. 143:7.3 The feelings of insecurity arising from the fear of personality isolation in the universe should be antidoted by the faith contemplation of the Father and by the attempted realization of the Supreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UB (1015.1) 93:2.1

It was 1,973 years before the birth of Jesus that Machiventa was bestowed upon the human races of Urantia .His coming was unspectacular; his materialization was not witnessed by human eyes. He was first observed by mortal man on that eventful day when he entered the tent of Amdon, a Chaldean herder of Sumerian extraction. And the proclamation of his mission was embodied in the simple statement which he made to this shepherd, “I am Melchizedek, priest of El Elyon, the Most High, the one and only God.”

 

 

We should read the text as literary as we are able to understand. The historical evidence is plenty! There has bee some mail about this before on this forum.

 

In addition to what one4all wrote, the following is known to the historians:

 

- Melchizedek is known from the The Dead Sea Scrolls extra-biblical documents found between 1947 and 1956 at Khirbet Qumran. He is there known as the teacher of righteousness to Abraham. (UB: And Abraham believed Melchizedek, “and it was counted to him for righteousness.”)

 

- Melchizedek is known fro texts found in the city of Ugarit, an ancient port city in the eastern Mediterranean at the site of modern Ras Shamra, east of Cyprus.

 

- Melchizedek is known from the Egyptian history and from the priest Sanchuniathon, as Elyon.

 

- Melchizedek is known from my grandfather’s book about his travel in Palestine more than 100 years ago. He mentions that he there saw statues of a mother goddess and of another statue of a god named Eljon , side by side.

 

- My grandfather also mentions that he investigated a cuneiform letter sent form Jerusalem roughly 3500 years ago. Jerusalem was called Urusalem, in Sumerian meaning the city of Salem (could have been a letter about or from the Melchizedec school in Salem).

 

- Archeologists tell us that there was a settlement in Jerusalem about 4,000 years ago. However, the recorded history of the city began about 1500 B.C.E. Stone tablets were discovered in Egypt dating from that time. These stones refer to the city as Urusalimmu

http://jets.jerusalem.muni.il/Jhistorymiri.html

 

 

The City of Salem of Melchizedek is marked on the following map of Jerusalem (at the hill of the Upper City) . Also the Pilates Palace, Gaolgatha and other know places are marked on this map:

 

oldjerusalem3.jpg

 

The same picture of Old Jerusalem in better resolution:

http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/maps/jer/images/...81/Jer081_a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. The time between Machiventa and David (given in the link you provided is , what? 1000 years?(cosmically not much, generationally yes, alot) Enough time for diffusion to muddle the meaning

 

 

I love what you give to this forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In addition to what one4all wrote, the following is known to the historians:

 

- Melchizedek is known from the The Dead Sea Scrolls extra-biblical documents found between 1947 and 1956 at Khirbet Qumran. He is there known as the teacher of righteousness to Abraham. (UB: And Abraham believed Melchizedek, “and it was counted to him for righteousness.”)

 

This is interesting to me. I haven't had a chance yet to read the Dead Sea Scrolls for myself (because I'm still struggling to get through the Nag Hammadi texts); but, I've read many scholarly dissertations on the Scrolls and have been lead to understand something different concerning the Teacher of Righteousness.

 

According to the Pesher to Habakkuk, the Teacher of Righteousness (moreh tsedek or moreh (ha)zedeq) was a leader, possibly of the Qumran sect, who would lead the righteous in the apocalyptic battle against the Wicked Priest. Historians appear to have different ideas about who the Teacher of Righteousness was, but most do not seem to connect him to Melchizedek. However, it would make an interesting argument.

 

Pesher to Habakkuk

The Pesher on Habakkuk

The Habakkuk Commentary

 

There is also the Florilegium or Melchizedek Midrash from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is also apocalyptic:

 

Florilgeium – Melchizedek Midrash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is interesting to me. I haven't had a chance yet to read the Dead Sea Scrolls for myself (because I'm still struggling to get through the Nag Hammadi texts); but, I've read many scholarly dissertations on the Scrolls and have been lead to understand something different concerning the Teacher of Righteousness.

 

According to the Pesher to Habakkuk, the Teacher of Righteousness (moreh tsedek or moreh (ha)zedeq) was a leader, possibly of the Qumran sect, who would lead the righteous in the apocalyptic battle against the Wicked Priest. Historians appear to have different ideas about who the Teacher of Righteousness was, but most do not seem to connect him to Melchizedek. However, it would make an interesting argument.

 

Pesher to Habakkuk

The Pesher on Habakkuk

The Habakkuk Commentary

 

There is also the Florilegium or Melchizedek Midrash from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is also apocalyptic:

 

Florilgeium – Melchizedek Midrash

 

 

OK. I agree with what Bonita wrote.

The Gods of the Jews was discussed on a Finnish forum in the year 2002, and I participated: (HST)

 

http://www.kotiportaali.fi/adslfor/GodsoftheJews.htm

 

There are several scholars at the Helsingfors universtet, University of Helsinki who are experts on the Dead Sea Scrolls:

 

You find that we have discussed "more tsedeqa" also on the mentioned forum, and

 

Lloyd M. Barré, Ph.D. "El and Yahweh: The Early History and Formative Traditions of Ancient Israel", 1998, ISBN: 1-58112-895-9

 

Mowinckel Sigmund. "The Psalms in Israel´s Worship", New York Abingdon, 1976

 

"The Dead Sea Scrolls" by G. Vermes

 

PONTIFEX mentions that the first finish dissertation for the degree of doctor about Qumran was written in 1964 by Per Wallendorfin, about the Teacher of Righteousness (More tsedeqa):

 

“Ensimmäinen suomalainen Qumrania koskeva

väitöskirja oli juuri Per Wallendorfin Rättfärdighetens läräre

More tsedeqa vuonna 1964.”

 

Bonita used the spelling moreh (ha)zedeq. A somewhat similar expression appears in the Babylonian Talmud, according to which Christ was executed on the eve of Passover. The name used was Yeshua Ha-Nozri (Jesus of Nazareth), or very close.

 

In HST klo 01.01.03 18:10 was mentioned some of my grandfathers curriculum information.

 

= = =

 

On our forum you might find related material from 2008, on:

http://www.urantia-uai.org/forums/index.ph...entry6183

 

K.T. also describes that he saw “gods” (statues) that the Palestinians worshipped, by the name “Eljon”. This is undoubtedly a form of the word El-Elyon in the UB, connected to Melchizedek!

 

This post has been edited by HSTa: Dec 13 2008, 01:23 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very awesome information HSTa I never came back on this topic but I am glad I did to read what information you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...