Melchizedek as a deity??? (Jesus Christ, priests, rituals, incarnation, beliefs)

[SimonMagus]

This is pretty interesting, there was an ancient Gnostic or Heretical movement called the Melchizedekians who raised the mysterious biblical priest-king to the status of Supreme God. Instead of accepting the Trinity, they broke the system down into three separate persons: Melchizedek becomes God the Father, the heavenly Christ is the Holy Spirit that came down on Jesus at his baptism, and Jesus himself is the adopted "Son" of God, merely human only and a prophet of the Most High.

It was founded according to Hyppolytus by one named Theodorus, and influenced by earlier beliefs/sects on the doctrines of Adoptionism (human Jesus adopted as Son of God) and Docetism (heavenly Christ/Holy Spirit; no true physical body).

Now Melchizedek had been given divine status in the Sethian Gnostic system (which is pre-Christian; Judaic Inter-testamental period) and some other varient systems like Qumran, but never as the status of "Highest." Apparently though there did arise a sect of followers who thought so. I haven't been able to find any detailed available theology yet, so does anyone else know anything more about them or if they're an offshoot of some Gnostic sect?? I was thinking maybe Sethian but I think Hyppolytus would have mentioned that...

[Halcyon]

I've read that some heterodox Christians believed Melchizedek to be another Christ, or another Son of God, higher than Jesus was, or even Jesus in a previous incarnation.

I've also read similar things of the Melchizedekians, that they saw Melchizedek as the Logos rather than God himself. But, it wouldn't surprise me if such a sect existed.

Gnostics tended to use biblical characters as allegories for ideas, therefore any personage in the Tanack or New Testament was/is fair game for Gnostic writers to use to get their message across.

[Random]

I've never heard of this gnostic Melchizedek.

As far as I know, he was a righteous King in the davidic line who appeared to Abraham in Genesis. There is an order of priests named for him in Mormonism.

Is this the same Melchizedek?

[Super Universe]

The Melchizedeks are mentioned a great deal in the Urantia Book. They are an order of priests/angels/ascended beings who work for the universe.

[SimonMagus]

yeah maybe I mis-read Hyppolytus, he may have not meant Melchizedek equated with the Highest God but a great power greater than Christ. The sect is only briefly mentioned, not alot of details unfortunately. There's is a Gnostic text called "Melchizedek" in the Nag Hammadi Library so maybe that's one of their texts...

[Space Debris]

Originally Posted by SimonMagus

yeah maybe I mis-read Hyppolytus, he may have not meant Melchizedek equated with the Highest God but a great power greater than Christ. The sect is only briefly mentioned, not alot of details unfortunately. There's is a Gnostic text called "Melchizedek" in the Nag Hammadi Library so maybe that's one of their texts...

Well, the book Melchizedek in Nag Hammadi Codex IX is clearly a work of Sethian Gnosticism (e.g. it includes distinctively Sethian characters such as Barbelo, Doxomedon, Harmozel, Oroiael, Daveithe, and Eleleth). The text identifies Melchizedek with Jesus Christ (an elaboration on the Christian treatment of Melchizedek in the Letter to the Hebrews), and the text also identifies both Melchizedek and Christ with Seth himself. There are also influences from Jewish apocalyptic views on Melchizedek, as the Gnostic tractate also presents Melchizedek as a kind of heavenly warrior.

Melchizedek plays other roles in other Gnostic texts: in the Second Book of Jeu, for example, he is a kind of heavenly priest who empowers Gnostic sacramental rituals; and in the Books of the Pistis Sophia, he is a heavenly power involved in the restoration of light/spirit to the "Treasury of Light," as PS refers to the Pleroma.

Regarding the alleged Melchizedekian sect, I've read that Epiphanius goes into a little more detail on them than Hippolytus does, but he's not exactly a reliable source... The actual details of the Melchizedekian sect may be lost forever.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Space Debris

Well, the book Melchizedek in Nag Hammadi Codex IX is clearly a work of Sethian Gnosticism (e.g. it includes distinctively Sethian characters such as Barbelo, Doxomedon, Harmozel, Oroiael, Daveithe, and Eleleth). The text identifies Melchizedek with Jesus Christ (an elaboration on the Christian treatment of Melchizedek in the Letter to the Hebrews), and the text also identifies both Melchizedek and Christ with Seth himself. There are also influences from Jewish apocalyptic views on Melchizedek, as the Gnostic tractate also presents Melchizedek as a kind of heavenly warrior.

Do you think this is a fairly late development?
I mean, it can be argued that Christ is mearly an alternate form of Seth, the original Gnostic revealer, do you think the identification of Melchizdek with the other revealer figures is perhaps of quite late origin?

Originally Posted by Space Debris

Melchizedek plays other roles in other Gnostic texts: in the Second Book of Jeu, for example, he is a kind of heavenly priest who empowers Gnostic sacramental rituals; and in the Books of the Pistis Sophia, he is a heavenly power involved in the restoration of light/spirit to the "Treasury of Light," as PS refers to the Pleroma.

You've made it all the way through the PS? Impressive. I can't get past the first few chapters without going slightly madder.

Originally Posted by Space Debris

Regarding the alleged Melchizedekian sect, I've read that Epiphanius goes into a little more detail on them than Hippolytus does, but he's not exactly a reliable source... The actual details of the Melchizedekian sect may be lost forever.

Probably, unless we discover some more jars - there has to be more out there *keeps fingers crossed*.

[Space Debris]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Do you think this is a fairly late development?
I mean, it can be argued that Christ is mearly an alternate form of Seth, the original Gnostic revealer, do you think the identification of Melchizdek with the other revealer figures is perhaps of quite late origin?

Since the tractate Melchizedek is an example of Christianized Sethianism, it likely stands in the middle phase of the Sethian religion, after the original non-Christian Judaic phase, but before the later Platonized phase. Beyond that I think it's pretty hard to say much about its age. Birger Pearson, in his introduction to the tractate Melchizedek in Robinson's Nag Hammadi Library, tentatively addresses the issue: "A third century date is likely, though it could be earlier (or later)."

Originally Posted by Halcyon

You've made it all the way through the PS? Impressive. I can't get past the first few chapters without going slightly madder.

Lol, yeah, I definitely notice a mind-altering quality about the Pistis Sophia.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Probably, unless we discover some more jars - there has to be more out there *keeps fingers crossed*.

True, as the recent emergence of the Tchacos Codex shows, these kinds of manuscripts can survive to the present day againt incredible odds. God willing, more may indeed be found!