Albion wrote:Well known is a vague expression.
No, it means that in the world of Biblical studies it is something that most people would know.
He was also thought to be a priest of the Dead Sea sect who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I know of no legitimate scholar who believes James wrote the DSS. There is thought that it might describe some of the early Christian/esoteric Judaic communities, but as to writing...? Which one are you referring to?
It is no kind of fact but mostly unconfirmed tradition.
You don't know you are wrong, do you? The tradition predates the re-emergence of the DSS. I'm talking of Early Christian writings, I believe 4th or 5th century, but I would have to look it up.
Scripture mentions only two people in connection with the MP.....Melchizedec himself and Jesus...unless you can find others.
That's where you are wrong. Scripture mentions a group. It only names two explicitly. If Scripture mentioned 12 apostles, but only mentioned 5 by name, according to your logic, there would only be 5, but the word 12 means there had to me more than 5. The terminology used to refer to the Order of Melchizedek, precludes the restriction to two people, this is simple, and unarguable, linguistics.
Jesus was a priest of Melchizedek in the order, style of, or fashion of Melchizedek
Completely wrong. Jesus was a priest in the order, meaning a grouping that contained multiple members, of Melchizedek.
...far and way the overwhelming view of Biblical scholars throughout history regardless of your opinion that it is a modern protestant creation. Are they all wrong....are they all part of some massive conspiracy....a conspiracy that presumably the Old Testament writers were in on because none of them deemed the MP important enough to mention in relation entire generations of prophets and other leaders.
Odd, now you see conspiracies? I suspect most of the people you consider scholars are anything but.
The high priest of the Jews, only one at a time, held the Levitical priesthood by which he officiated...his highest duty being in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. Jesus was not of Levi and thus it was necessary for him to have a different or higher priesthood, one that only he was qualified for, in order to enter the real Holy of Holies, the place where God literally dwells, making an offering of himself on behalf of sinful mankind. Since he holds the office still, what on earth reason would there be for any other?
Interesting. There is only one high priest, but many, many, many subordinate priests, all of the Order of Aaron. But with Melchizedek, where the same language is used, and the same word for order (as in a military order), there is only one high priest, and absolutely zero subordinate priests, within the same order, but this makes sense to you.
Unfortunately Biblical tradition, history, linguistics, and even scholarship, disagrees with you.
