Monday, January 11, 2016

Of Jesus the Messiah ("Anointed One") and Melchizedek ("Prince of Righteousness"): Evidence Against the Trinity Doctrine

Of Jesus, the Messiah (“Anointed One”) and Melchizedek (“Prince of Righteousness”): Arguing the Trinity Doctrine
by Brendan Bombaci

Creative Commons License
ISBN: 978-1-365-09750-8

Article updated 12-1-2016 with relevant and exciting world news:
 2000 Year Old Tablets Contain First Mention of Jesus, and He Worshipped a Male/Female God.

            It is curious that the Trinity doctrine, implying the human divinity of Jesus (i.e., being God in flesh), came to dominate Christianity.  Christ himself said in Revelations 22:16 “I am the source of David and heir to his throne. I am the bright and morning star.”  This seems to imply that he was physically related to David.  How could Jesus be the “source” (obviously originating the bloodline) of David if he was of virgin birth, implanted miraculously in Mary’s womb by God himself?  Is the immaculate conception of Jesus a falsehood or misinterpretation of original texts, and/or was Mary in fact born into the bloodline of David?  Or was Jesus saying that he was immortal and somehow responsible for entitling the Holy Family (or “chosen ones”) of the line of Abraham (David’s ancestor)?  No less, what does it mean to be "the bright and morning star"?

            The male descendents of Zadok - who was the sole high priest during the rule of Solomon (David’s son’s), so ordained by David who named Solomon the King of Judah after his rule (I Kings I:34, I Kings 2:35, I Kings 4:2, etc) – all carried forth the title of High priest throughout the monarchical kingship of David’s lineage.  Strangely, after seven generations of David’s descendents (Matthew 1:1-9), his son Uzziah and Uzziah’s wife Jerusha, “daughter of Zadok,” conceived the next king who they named Jotham (2 Kings 15:32-38).  How can she be the daughter of Zadok?  Also, it seems unorthodox, or perhaps political, for them to have mixed their bloodlines.  It is most likely that this more recent “Zadok” character was actually a priest from the line or “house” of Zadok (2 Chronicles 31:10), implying that there was either a misinterpretation or ommittance of such genealogical record, or that the reader must intuit that it is indeed Jerusha's nobility being named.  Either way, if this is the case, it would mean that the sole bloodline of the kings under David’s lineage (including Jesus) and the sole bloodline of the holiest priesthood (of Zadok, descendent of Aaron [1 Chronicles 24:3, Book of Numbers 25:13, Book of Exodus 28:01]) became re-mixed after said seven generations (Aaron’s line from Levi was separate in Abraham’s family tree from that of David’s).  No less, Mary was related to Elizabeth of the line of Aaron (Luke 1:5, 36).  Gregory of Nazianzus (the “Trinitarian Theologian”), archbishop of Constantinople in the 4th century, suggested (in Carmen 18) that this means Mary herself was of the line of Levi.  In as much, if Jesus was born of either Joseph or Mary, he was physically of the line of Abraham, but in a genealogical manner that validated him as both king and priest, anointed and anointer, simultaneously.  Corroboratively, the Dead Sea Scrolls document IQ28a or “Rule of Congregation,” or “Messianic Rule,” describes “the messiah of Aaron and David” who will be celebrated in the end days.  And another point, less the erudition, is the fact that Nazarene and Nazorean were interchangeable spellings in Biblical times, with nazor meaning “branch” in reference to the line of David.

            A popular Christian proclamation of proof that Jesus has status as “the right hand of God” is Peter’s affirmation that Psalms 110:1-7 refers to Jesus (Acts 2:32-35).  That particular psalm was written by David, much before Jesus’ time.  Peter believes that his proclamation is the truth because David wrote of his “Lord” before “the Lord” being the one addressed with the decree that “The Lord has taken an oath and will not break his vow: You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4).  Peter's internal self-affirming dialectic may be described as “how can anyone besides the Lord be David’s Lord except for the then-prophesied Messiah himself (according to Trinity doctrine); and, "forever" must mean "until the end of cosmic time;" and, who else can possibly be an immortal priest?"  This is some sound reasoning for someone inclined to buy into in speculations and/or anecdotes, or someone with the intention to manipulate potential Christians, at his own benefit; however, we must discover who Melchizedek was before believing Peter's proclamation to be reasonable, let alone accurate.  An aside: Peter himself may have been accomplice to a Christian-Pharisee double-agent's task of undermining Zealot messianic uprising via the fabrication of "miracles."

"The Meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek" - painting by Laurent de la Hyre, c. 1630

Abraham, along with his lineage, was defined as the holiest of people in the Bible up until Genesis 14:17.  At that time, he had defeated Kederlaomer and his allies and taken many spoils of war.  Melchizedek, “the king of Salem and a priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:18) blessed Abraham, and Abraham paid him tithe of one tenth of his wealth.  In this historical period, anyone who pays tithe to another is subjugated to that very other.  In fact, Melchizedek is described as one with Heavenly, rather than Earthly status.  It was co-written by Paul in Hebrews 7:8-11 that,
“The priests who collect tithes are men who die, so Melchizedek is greater than they are, because we are told that he lives on.  In addition, we might even say that these Levites – the ones who collect the tithe – paid a tithe to Melchizedek when their ancestor Abraham paid a tithe to him. For although Levi wasn’t born yet, the seed from which he came was in Abraham’s body when Melchizedek collected the tithe from him.  So if the priesthood of Levi, on which the law was based, could have achieved the perfection God intended, why did God need to establish a different priesthood, with a priest in the order of Melchizedek instead of the order of Levi and Aaron?”
The reason is given as such:
“This change has been made very clear since a different priest, who is like Melchizedek, has appeared. Jesus became a priest, not by meeting the physical requirement of belonging to the tribe of Levi, but by the power of a life that cannot be destroyed. And the psalmist pointed this out when he prophesied, “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”
Further it is stated in Hebrews 7:22-25,
“Because of this oath, Jesus is the one who guarantees this better covenant with God. There were many priests under the old system, for death prevented them from remaining in office. But because Jesus lives forever, his priesthood lasts forever. Therefore he is able, once and forever, to save those who come to God through him. He lives forever to intercede with God on their behalf.”
So, being “in the order” of Melchizedek is not interpreted in the book of Hebrews as meaning that Jesus is in some sect or sort of high council “of” Melchizedek, but rather, that he lives the way that Melchizedek does – forever, indestructible.  To give this weight, it is said of Melchizedek that “There is no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors – no beginning or end to his life. He remains a priest forever, resembling the Son of God” (Hebrews 7:3). 

Let us return, however: in Revelations, it is said that Jesus proclaimed he is the source of David.  He is either (1) physically of the lines of David and Zadok (both of Abraham), who are subject to the more glorious priest Melchizedek, whereby Jesus owes Melchizedek his allegiance as well, and/or (2), not “like” Melchizedek in some manner of immortal gift, but truly in the order of Melchizedek.  In that Melchizedek actually translates to Prince of Righteousness, it is likely to have just been the original priest-king's surname (and therefore the case that he had an untold first name).  In that way, it only makes sense that there is no genealogical record or life history for a character actually named “Melchizedek.”  It is confabulation, then, to deem him immortal.  In as much, the priest-king may have had an “order” or council of trained priests (a fairly standard operation) that carried into the future, in immortal fashion (or hope thereof), along with Abraham’s family line blessed thereby.  Indeed, the author of the Dead Sea Scroll document 11Q13 or “11QMelch” replaces the name Elohim (“angelic,” “divine,” or “princely” beings) in Psalms 82:1 with the name Melchizedek.  The Qumran document 4Q401 11:3 and 22:3 corroborate that Melchizedek is a character who leads the Elohim.  11Q13, again, also refers to “the men of the lot of Melchizedek” who will be atoned for in the end times.  In as much, it is most likely the case that David was not referring to Jesus the redeemer when he spoke of “my Lord,” who was addressed by the Lord, in Psalms 110:4.  Most probably, he was speaking of one of his priests that was ordained a priest in the order of Melchizedek (likely Zadok himself, given the ultimate situation).  Such a priest would indeed be his “Lord,” as he owes him allegiance as aforementioned.  Jesus may have been indoctrinated by and officiated into this order (or craftily and greedily written into Biblical history as having been so), but, either way, he can be said to be “the source” of David via either the relation to Abrahamic bloodline or the priesthood that “divinely” granted it the power to rule.  However, due to the easy defense of this interpretation of these texts in contrast to that of the long-standing standard, Jesus cannot be proclaimed immortal through said verses alone.  

Aside from these facts, there is further intrigue in the other part of Christ’s statement, which this argument is based on, that he is “the bright and morning star.”   Many Biblical scholars have argued that this is in reference to the way in which Venus, at odd intervals in its 8 year synodic cycle, rises before or with the Sun, as opposed to when it appears at or just before sunset and becomes the Evening Star.  What would be the importance of this, though, excepting the fact that Venus is the brightest celestial object aside from the Sun and the Moon?  Venus is but one of the two celestial spheres to which that title is given.  Another, and more cyclically recognizable Heavenly body (to the lay public as opposed to the master astrologers, the Magi), is the brightest star in the sky: Sirius.  It rises before the Sun when the sign of Leo the lion begins to dominate every year in August.  Indeed, Jesus was titled “The Lion of Judah.”  It has great import to the Egyptian calendar which would have been well regarded by people of the time, as it heralds the Dog Days of summer and the annual flooding of the Nile – an event which is metaphorically relative to the cosmological fertilization of the world itself.  Crucially, and certainly more pertinent to people outside of Egypt, was that the cycle of Sirius was more predictable than the solar cycle at the time,because intercalation of the calendar (Leap Years, etc) was not yet instituted – this took centuries to be made manifest and regionally standardized by the Roman Catholic Church – and so, with every 72 years, the sky would shift one full degree out of alignment with the Zodiacal signs.  This was called the Precession of the Equinoxes, and was quite a confusing phenomenon to ancient people, as just 2160 years’ passing would mean that the sign that the sun would rise in during any given month would be off by one from that which preceded it those two millennia earlier.  To be titled the Morning Star is to be symbolic of the mystery itself of fixing the sky in place and better realizing the Heavenly complications.  We are in the Piscean Age – for which the mitre cap of the Pope and the “Jesus fish” are symbolic – because of this: when intercalation was instituted and the Zodiac made stationary, the Spring Equinox was locked to the Sign of Pisces.  No less, the sign of Virgo the Virgin (Mother Mary herself) was locked to the Autumnal Equinox.  How greatly appropriate it was for the Church to then make Christ’s birth aligned with the Winter Solstice – the “rebirth” of the Sun each year – in the Sign of Sagittarius the Archer, who avenges Orion’s slaying by Scorpio… Orion, who rises yet before and heralds the coming of Sirius, the Morning Star, itself.  Suitably, Sirius is last visible for the year, setting in the West just before sunrise, on this day.  For Jesus’ title of “bright and morning star” to relate to Venus is just not as founded an argument as all of this.  Could Jesus' "immortality" be astrological mythos, as well as symbolic of a covertly kingship-supervising military state cabal that creates Godheads out of priests - one whose office and persuasion was commandeered by the Roman Empire?

No comments: