Comments on Antipelagian: Acts 17:27 Redux

Rob, for some reason Blogger didn't want to ac...

2011-06-23T09:04:44.728-04:00

Rob, for some reason Blogger didn't want to accept my comment, so I simply posted it as a blog entry:
http://www.antipelagian.com/2011/06/melchizedek-ugaritis-there-connection.html

Craig, three is of course on the money in as much ...

2011-06-22T22:30:40.605-04:00

Craig, three is of course on the money in as much as El Elyon is a way in which Yahweh has been reffered to. But that he was not a priest of the Canaanite religion is just a denial of the nature of the times and places. And it begs the question to suggest that this is a hard and fast dichotomy, one which I have been denying. Interestingly, there were no priests in the chosen line until Moses.

What some Church fathers thought of pagan philosophers in no way sheds light on the meaning of Genesis 14.

What it demonstrates is that what I am saying is line with orthodoxy, it is quite thinkable.

Your assertions may fall in line with what Church fathers said about pagan philosophers, but that doesn't mean you've presented the correct meaning of the text.

right, I don't depend on this observation. It certainly highlights that what I am suggesting is not purely novel as you have critisized.

Remind me...who introduced Melchizedek and Jethro? I think that would be the one who abandoned the original discussion, right? I am guilty of allowing you to string me along.

They are good examples (more so Melchizedek) of what I am saying is evident from Acts 17. I'm not complaining that you are discussing them, only that you are fixating on them at the expense of the rest of the discussion.

Rob, now I think you're just being insulting. Even here, like before, you are merely being dismissive.

I don't mean to insult, and yeah, there is a degree of dismissiveness here. I really didn't get it and it looked like a chief example of an unsubstantiable claim, that in light of that beginning of the section, it had to say something else additionally for my observations to hold. Sorry, Craig, I just didn't get it at all and it looked completely unfounded. And I brought it up in light of your complaint about unsubstantiated claims, and here's a claim about, I don't know, communication, pscychology, something, that just really comes out of the blue.

Rob said: "You've cited nothing about wha...

2011-06-22T16:04:49.521-04:00

Rob said: "You've cited nothing about what was believed about Melchizedek by ancient authors that is contrary to what I've said..."

Traditionally, there are at least 3positions, none of which resemble yours:
1) That Melchizedek was the pre-incarnate Christ.
2) That Melchizedek was the son of Ham.
3) That Melchizedek was a king and priest who served the One True God, Yahweh.

I'm not opposed to number 1...but I don't agree. I don't think number 2 can be substantiated. And number 3 seems to take the Gen 14 account at face value. You can crossreference me by going to CCEL.org and looking up Matthew Henry and John Calvin. You'll also find other mentions of him in Schaff, and the assumption of the fathers there was that Melchizedek was a priest of Yahweh.

So there are various opinions, but these opinions are NOT that Melchizedek worshiped God according to the Canaanite tradition, rather, that he was a priest of Yahweh.

Rob said: "I have noted that what I've said is completely in line with the way the church fathers have said of the pagan philosophers."

What some Church fathers thought of pagan philosophers in no way sheds light on the meaning of Genesis 14. Your assertions may fall in line with what Church fathers said about pagan philosophers, but that doesn't mean you've presented the correct meaning of the text.

Rob said: "I observe you have abandoned the rest of the discussion for what you call puff and smoke."

Remind me...who introduced Melchizedek and Jethro? I think that would be the one who abandoned the original discussion, right? I am guilty of allowing you to string me along.

Rob said: "That whole point on Paul being provoked, the implications you drew remain completely odd and contrived. I am still reeling from how thoughtless they were. Very very much puff and smoke."

Rob, now I think you're just being insulting. Even here, like before, you are merely being dismissive. You "don't take it seriously", and now consider my comments to be "thoughtless".

The former only tells me of your subjective state. The latter tells me what you think of my subjective state...of which you're not privy to.

While you will not budge on this issue, I observe ...

2011-06-22T12:13:11.390-04:00

While you will not budge on this issue, I observe you have abandoned the rest of the discussion for what you call puff and smoke.

I can see why you say the things you've said here. Your earlier comments? That whole point on Paul being provoked, the implications you drew remain completely odd and contrived. I am still reeling from how thoughtless they were. Very very much puff and smoke.

So let me get this straight…you make an unsubs...

2011-06-22T12:10:09.398-04:00
So let me get this straight…you make an unsubstantiated assertion…to reject that assertion, am I supposed to substantiate my rejection? Please.

Your welcome.

Craig, 50 miles is not significant in the scheme of religions, for a religion especially that is known to extend throughought the region. That is the absurd thing to claim. You are making the silly objection. the burdon is on you.

This is conjectural, on your part.

No it isn't. you are asserting the exceptional without support.

Remember, retreating to your unsubstantiated assertion

i substantiated it. You waved your hands.

Further, it is immaterial that Melchizedek knew the LORD apart from the Jews…there were no Jews! Abram was still Abram!

Abram was God's chosen vessel for special revelation. Melchizedek know God apart from him.

Abram was still Abram! We don’t know to what extent true worship of God remained throughout the earth at this point.

Craig, it's been my contention that true worship of God did extend and still does extend throughout the world where the gospel and God's special revelation have not been funneled through his chosen line.

Do you have compelling reason for me to accept the studies of these God-haters?

yes, it's called avoiding ad hominem.

Unsubstantiated assertions need not be met with valid arguments.

I substantiated much to be met with unsubstantiated objection.

Not really.

Yes, really, in light of a religious tradition, including that of the reformers that has always known development.

I accept something new when there’s nothing you’ve demonstrated to be wrong with the old?

It's not an either or deal. And what I say of the old is more faithful to what is old than your mere unsubstantiated claims about the old view. You've cited nothing about what was believed about Melchizedek by ancient authors that is contrary to what I've said and I have noted that what I've said is completely in line with the way the church fathers have said of the pagan philosophers.

Rob said: “you implicitly assert that 50 miles is ...

2011-06-22T10:33:34.957-04:00
Rob said: “you implicitly assert that 50 miles is significant. It is not. yes, I just asserted that. all you have is unupported assertion to disagree.”

So let me get this straight…you make an unsubstantiated assertion…to reject that assertion, am I supposed to substantiate my rejection? Please.

Rob R: “Religions even of this area of much larger ranges and they last much longer than 3 centuries.”

This is conjectural, on your part. That it “may” be true in some instances doesn’t mean it is so in this situation. That is what you're supposed to be proving.

Rob said: “Regardless, it remains, Melchizedek was NOT a Jew, he was NOT one of the chosen and that goes a long way combined with what we know of the regional religion which involved recognition of El Elyon. And it remains, that apart from God's chosen, Melchizedek found favor with God.”

Remember, retreating to your unsubstantiated assertion re: El Elyon is not helpful. Further, it is immaterial that Melchizedek knew the LORD apart from the Jews…there were no Jews! Abram was still Abram! We don’t know to what extent true worship of God remained throughout the earth at this point. If the Bible says Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God (Who is said to be Yahweh) then that is what a believer accepts.

Rob R said “And lets not forget to throw in guilt by association, ya semi-gnostic.”

Do you have compelling reason for me to accept the studies of these God-haters? If I did accept them, I wouldn't necessarily be accepting your “righteous pagan” theory…you actually want me to accept an unsubstantiated *modified* take on El Elyon.

Unsubstantiated assertions need not be met with valid arguments.

Rob R: “And a fallacious appeal to antiquity.”

Not really. As I stated above, unsubstantiated assertions need not be met with valid arguments. You introduce a novelty with no support. Why would I accept something new when there’s nothing you’ve demonstrated to be wrong with the old?

You’ve committed a decent amount of text to arguing about arguing, but you still haven’t made a case. It's all puff and smoke.

You haven't. At best, you reference a coll...

2011-06-21T19:10:10.922-04:00
You haven't. At best, you reference a collection of texts 50 miles away from Jerusalem which *may* be contemporaneous with Abram.

you implicitly assert that 50 miles is significant. It is not. yes, I just asserted that. all you have is unupported assertion to disagree.

Religions even of this area of much larger ranges and they last much longer than 3 centuries.

Regardless, it remains, Melchizedek was NOT a Jew, he was NOT one of the chosen and that goes a long way combined with what we know of the regional religion which involved recognition of El Elyon. And it remains, that apart from God's chosen, Melchizedek found favor with God.

.so your claim requires more than just an assertion backed by unbelievers and liberals

And lets not forget to throw in guilt by association, ya semi-gnostic.

Your insistence for Melchizedek being a pagan are a novelty to those who affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

And a fallacious appeal to antiquity. Probably not even a valid one (as valid as a fallacy can be) considering those Church fathers who valued inspiration viewed the pagan greek philosophers as virtual Christians. I don't know that they wrote of Melchizedek, but issue is the same. They might not have used the term "holy Pagan". That is irrelevent though.

Rob: "Craig, I don't have to support abso...

2011-06-21T13:10:41.834-04:00
Rob: "Craig, I don't have to support absolutely everything I say..."

Sigh. I didn't say you have to support "everything" you say...but when you make assertions, you ought to have good evidence to back it up. You haven't. At best, you reference a collection of texts 50 miles away from Jerusalem which *may* be contemporaneous with Abram. We don't even know the extent of the practices contained in those texts, nor do we know if they were contemporary with Abram. The dating leaves a window of about 300 years after Abram's death as well...so your claim requires more than just an assertion backed by unbelievers and liberals who would like to see the Biblical God be nothing more than an alternative take on pagan gods. Your insistence for Melchizedek being a pagan are a novelty to those who affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

Seriously craig, its a far more sever problem when...

2011-06-20T17:54:10.847-04:00
Seriously craig, its a far more sever problem when you go beyond mere assertion to really bad ones that are easily disproven, such as the point you made about the alter being man made and a tool of the service of human hands. It still floors me that you interpret what Paul says to an extent that is contradictory to the old covenant that is from God when it is compleltely unnecessary.

We were NOT discussing the extent of his minis...

2011-06-20T17:50:27.189-04:00
We were NOT discussing the extent of his ministry, rather, the nature of his office. That's all the Scripture tells us.

it is implicit that he was a priest and king to pagans.

iia. That he confessed Yahweh is very significant, and that he offered a sacrifice upon this confession under the oversight of Aaron, Moses, and the elders is highly relevant.

right, a nod and recognition to his spiritual leadership.

i. I have no idea why you think this carries any weight. One is not a pagan if he knows Yahweh but not His chosen people by flesh. A Jew is not one outwardly, but inwardly.

Now you're being anachronistic. The outward expression of Judaism was essential under the old covenant.

And this is a word game if you define pagan as one who does not know God. But that pagans can find God is precisely the thing in question.

i. Empty assertion. The only arguments you've offered are speculation, so retreating to your dead assertion is not helping your case.

good grief craig, I was placing this smaller discussion in the greater context of the broader discussion.

i. Prooftexting Romans 2 without offering exegesis or acknolwedging other interpretations is...what do you call that?

Craig, I don't have to support absolutely everything I say which is impossible. One doesn't have to explain all of his explanations indefinitely. Its just not practical. If you want to offer an alternative explanation to Romans 2:13 and on, you are welcome to make an issue of it. I certainly don't think Romans 2 stands on its own. But how it lines up with my interpretation is easy to see.

ii.Introducing another unargued assertion re: Job being a pagan doesn't help your case either.

Job was not a Jew. Job pleased God before being tested and repented for his shortcoming afterword, all AGAIN apart from influence from God's chosen line.

Maybe I've been approaching this all wrong. I think from now on I'll just make a bunch of assertions,

There's no change. no one supports every part of the support for their claims. I'm still reeling from how colossally bad your point was regarding Paul being "provoked" and what allegedly should've been there. The problem wasn't that you didn't support this assertion. If the observation is good, or at least reasonable, often that can be evident or more evident with a little more probing. This was just a crazy assertion about psychology and/or communication standards which come out of no where.

Craig, Melchizedek was a king and priest in the canaanite region. It is not a crazy assertion to suggest that he was therefore a leader in the canaanite religion. The thing that needs support is to suggest that he wasn't just to keep things theologically convenient for rigid exclusivism and restrictivism.

Rob, thank you for demonstrating the waste of time...

2011-06-20T16:41:46.333-04:00
Rob,
thank you for demonstrating the waste of time this has been.

You said: "If you don't want to believe that Melchizedek was a spiritual leader to the canaanites, aka pagans... uh, okay. There's nothing to commend that and everything to commend the opposite view."

i. I did not say Melchizedek was not a spiritual leader to the Canaanites.

ia. Neither am I saying Melchizedek was a spiritual leader to the Canaanites.

We were NOT discussing the extent of his ministry, rather, the nature of his office. That's all the Scripture tells us.

Rob said: "If you want to think that Jethro just became an orthodox Jew at the time, nothing of what he was spiritually beforehand was relevant and he was error and pagan free after, okay, its a stretch, but be my guest."

i. I never said Jethro became an orthodox Jew...that's anachronistic.

ii. I never said what he was before hand was irrelevant. On the other hand, we don't really know what he believed before his profession of faith.

iia. That he confessed Yahweh is very significant, and that he offered a sacrifice upon this confession under the oversight of Aaron, Moses, and the elders is highly relevant.

Rob said: "It remains that they are examples of Holy Pagans, people outside of God's chosen..."

i. Actually, it remains your empty assertion.

ii. If someone were a believer in the true God, even if not of the tribe of Abraham, it remains that they are NOT pagans.

Rob said: "Melchizedek was implicitly spiritually pleasing to God prior to an encounter with God's chosen..."

i. I have no idea why you think this carries any weight. One is not a pagan if he knows Yahweh but not His chosen people by flesh. A Jew is not one outwardly, but inwardly.

Rob: "and illustrates the principals in acts 17..."

i. Empty assertion. The only arguments you've offered are speculation, so retreating to your dead assertion is not helping your case.

Rob: "and romans 2:13-16 perfectly as does Job."

i. Prooftexting Romans 2 without offering exegesis or acknolwedging other interpretations is...what do you call that?

A: Unargued assertion.

We all have unargued assertions, and they carry no weight...especially when the one introducing them is wrong and has a history of empty assertions and speculation.

ii.Introducing another unargued assertion re: Job being a pagan doesn't help your case either.

Maybe I've been approaching this all wrong. I think from now on I'll just make a bunch of assertions, employ google to make a superficial case that might appear plausible to someone unfamiliar with the Bible and argumentation and then act as if the one with the opposing view should be on the defensive.

It's a great way to be lazy and watch the other guy run around in circles.

It remains that they are examples of Holy Pagans, ...

2011-06-20T13:13:26.608-04:00
It remains that they are examples of Holy Pagans, people outside of God's chosen who found favor with him and at least Melchizedek was implicitly spiritually pleasing to God prior to an encounter with God's chosen and illustrates the principals in acts 17 and romans 2:13-16 perfectly as does Job. Jethro fits the picture even if he is not as good of an example.

at worst, educated speculation on much better soli...

2011-06-20T13:01:51.885-04:00
at worst, educated speculation on much better solid ground than what you've been offering.

If you don't want to believe that Melchizedek was a spiritual leader to the canaanites, aka pagans... uh, okay. There's nothing to commend that and everything to commend the opposite view.

If you want to think that Jethro just became an orthodox Jew at the time, nothing of what he was spiritually beforehand was relevant and he was error and pagan free after, okay, its a stretch, but be my guest.

Rob, Every thing you've said has been mere spe...

2011-06-20T12:11:00.801-04:00
Rob,
Every thing you've said has been mere speculation.

I can't believe I've even labored on about this.

Considering that even scripture authors most likel...

2011-06-17T15:01:24.172-04:00
Considering that even scripture authors most likely believed false things from their own Jewish Culture, like the author of the book of Jude who quoted the book of Enoch, it's that much more likely that Jethro retained significant aspects of his paganism.

El Elyon rarely appears anywhere outside of S...

2011-06-17T13:33:57.902-04:00
El Elyon rarely appears anywhere outside of Scripture.

The ugarit texts are special because they provide a rare look into Canaanite religion.

This website cites the encyclopedia Judaica as saying that El Elyon is a "well known Canaanite deity". http://www.biblicalheritage.org/People/melchizedek.htm

Even then, you would still need to provide evidence that Genesis 14's record of El Elyon was a reference to a Canaanite god...especially in light Abram saying El Elyon is Yahweh in v22.

it's not strictly an either or proposition. That has always been my point. El Elyon, "God Most High" is a Canaanite God, a Greek God, an Asian God because there is only one God who has been found throughout the world albeit with varying degrees of truth and error.

"El" was the godfather of the Canaanite pantheon, whether

Agreed, furthering my point. And the godfather of the Canaanite pantheon has been used synonomously with "God Most High" in one I've read... just as it is with scripture.

Compounding your task's difficulty, Ugarim was 50 miles away from Salem (Jerusalem)...not a short journey.

And all in the region of the Canaanites prior to Israels take over of the land.

all of which is written by the Holy Spirit,

Inspired by the holy spirit who used the conceptual landscape of the region while molding it which has been the mode of communication for all of scripture and beyond through church history.

you actually undermine your assertion that Melchizedek worshiped God ignorantly

Everyone worships God with a degree of ignorance, really an infinite degree of ignorance given God is infinite and our minds are finite. I know factually more about God than Abraham who wasn't a trinitarian. My claim is not focussed on that Melchizedek worshipped God ignorantly but that he found God outside the scope of God's chosen, God's vessels for his special revelation.

You make much out of nothing. God says throughout the OT that He is greater than other gods. Perhaps God is also weak in His theology?

It's a pretty significant fact but it's a sparse one. I got a heckovalott more out of scripture than that. I gotta heck of a lot out of scripture in the first handful of verses.

Why assume Jethro returned and *maintained* a false religion?

Craig, there is not a whole lot of content there and tons of content he missed by not staying with the Jews and Moses as the law was developed.

Israel was faithful and furthering the worship of Yahweh and driving out Canaanites...are we to suppose Jethro departed, fostered idol worship,

I don't assume anything of the sort. But I certainly don't believe it is safe to say that Jethro went along and held something completely error free with no further influence from his own backgrownd and neighbors nor that what he held previously was without worth. He got a significant chunk of truth and the narrative presents him positively.

Rob, In searching about over the last couple of da...

2011-06-17T11:49:48.568-04:00
Rob,
In searching about over the last couple of days, that link re: the Ugarit text you provided is the about the only one that says El Elyon was a Canaanite god. I can't find the Ugarit texts online, not surprisingly...I would be more surprised if the Academy made somthing like that available for all. According to wikipedia (for whatever that is worth), El Elyon rarely appears anywhere outside of Scripture. That says a lot given we know a lot about Canaanite idol worship.

"El" was the godfather of the Canaanite pantheon, whether El Elyon was a god of theirs would need evidence. Even then, you would still need to provide evidence that Genesis 14's record of El Elyon was a reference to a Canaanite god...especially in light Abram saying El Elyon is Yahweh in v22.

Further, there are other references in the OT to God as "Most High", all of which is written by the Holy Spirit, some of which was recorded by the hand of Moses who wrote Genesis 14. Why selectively read "El Elyon" as being a reference to a Canaanite god in Gen 14?

Compounding your task's difficulty, Ugarim was 50 miles away from Salem (Jerusalem)...not a short journey. The texts from Ugarim give a TON of info regarding the worship of the Canaanite gods, including orgies and child sacrifice. So once you show the link between the Ugarim text and Melchizedek, you actually undermine your assertion that Melchizedek worshiped God ignorantly...being a priest in Canaan, and *leading others in the practices* contained in the Ugarim texts would show Melchizedek was quite knowledgable of the perverted polytheism of Canaan, and practiced it. He was a priest, after all.

Did Abram offer a tithe to finance drunken orgies and child sacrifice? Is Jesus a High Priest in the order of such a man?

Rob said: "Jethro isn't proof for my claims, yet it isn't insignificant that in spite of his minimal conversion..."

I didn't realize neophytes were denied the opportunity to make sacrifices to God.

Rob said: "(if it is even that given a claim of superiority doesn't make for a whole lot of theology... minimal also in light of the fact that he returns to his country and remains apart from God's chosen)"

You make much out of nothing. God says throughout the OT that He is greater than other gods. Perhaps God is also weak in His theology?

Why assume Jethro returned and *maintained* a false religion? It is recorded in Judges that Jethro's descendents (the Kenites) joined Judah in the Promised Land...at that point, Israel was faithful and furthering the worship of Yahweh and driving out Canaanites...are we to suppose Jethro departed, fostered idol worship, and that Judah invited the Kenites into the Promised Land just before they went on campaigns against the Canaanites to drive out the idol worshipers?

Your words might sway the ill-informed, or those who don't read the Bible...because on the surface, what you say sounds "reasonable"...even "plausible". But the moment your assertions are confronted with the truth in the Word, they shown to be wrong. W-R-O-N-G...WRONG.

Wrong is a gentle description.

(had to delete one more time, after annoying mysel...

2011-06-17T10:59:17.403-04:00
(had to delete one more time, after annoying myself with with "Jethro" mispellings)

from the ugaritic text:

Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament.

http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm

Jethro isn't proof for my claims, yet it isn't insignificant that in spite of his minimal conversion (if it is even that given a claim of superiority doesn't make for a whole lot of theology... minimal also in light of the fact that he returns to his country and remains apart from God's chosen) he MC's a meal to God by sacrifice for the Jewish religious leadership and engineers the Jewish legal structure.

10:57 AM

2011-06-17T10:57:28.963-04:00
This comment has been removed by the author.

2011-06-17T10:52:22.074-04:00
This comment has been removed by the author.

Rob, you are currently the king of unsubstantiated...

2011-06-16T23:02:21.237-04:00
Rob,
you are currently the king of unsubstantiated assertions. You just say things matter of factly, like that carries any weight.

Do you have any reason to think El Elyon whom Melchizedek served was a Canaanite god? I'm asking for evidence, not just loose references with an appearance of plausibility.

Rob said: "The amazing thing about Jethrow by the way is that he, after being a pagan priest after one simple confession is allowed to sacrifice on the alter."

Again, that's what you say. Does the OT give any reason to think a new profession, even if simplistic, prevents a man from offering a sacrifice?

Rob said: "In other words, his spiritual leadership here is acknowledged..."

His spiritual leadership is acknowledged by his admitting Yahweh is greatest and does it all under the authority of Moses, the elders, and Aaron the priest?

The amazing thing about Jethrow by the way is that...

2011-06-15T07:42:17.878-04:00
The amazing thing about Jethrow by the way is that he, after being a pagan priest after one simple confession is allowed to sacrifice on the alter. In other words, his spiritual leadership here is acknowledged even if you could call him a recent convert, whatever that would mean. He was a priest and he's allowed to continue to perform as a priest.

2011-06-15T07:40:56.600-04:00
This comment has been removed by the author.

Craig, Melchizedek is a pagan priest in as much as...

2011-06-15T06:59:28.158-04:00
Craig, Melchizedek is a pagan priest in as much as the greek philosophers whom the early church fathers cite as speaking of God, our god. Who is he? He's not in the line of those who recieved special revelation, he is not of God's chosen people who were Abraham's children.

That he served El Elyon is not evidence that he wasn't a pagan since the pagan Canaanites did indeed worship El Elyon, God most high, who had 70 sons.

If you want to insist that he wasn't a pagan, okay, it's just word games and it works to my claims that people other than the Jews received revelation.

And Craig, did you know as Jethrow now knew that Yahweh is greater than all the other gods? I don't. I think there is only one God. Jethrow was a midianite priest, aka a pagan. that is what scripture says.

But if you want to insist that God had servants amongst the canaanites and midianites apart from Jews, GREAT that's my point.

Again, Job remains another, the book of whom some believe came from Jethrow.

Rob, I can't begin to correct you. You misread...

2011-06-14T10:09:44.569-04:00
Rob,
I can't begin to correct you. You misread me at certain points and introduce mere assertions and conjecture...bad conjecture at that. Here's an example:

Rob: "Most likely the pagan Priest King Melchizedek offered sacrifices, and it isn't the case that this priest whom is cited as one who gives a legitimate blessing to Abraham and who's priesthood has been honored to provide the model for Jesus priesthood was not a servant to demons. Moses' Pagan father in law was even allowed to offer sacrifices to God on the Jewish alter."

You assert that Melchizedek was a pagan priest. The Bible doesn't say that.

Genesis 18:18
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of [i]God Most High[/i].

Regarding Moses' father in law...he made a sacrifice according to God's Word. That in no way supports your position. In fact, preceding the sacrifice he acknolwedges Yahweh's superiority:

Exodus 18
9 Jethro rejoiced over all the goodness which the LORD had done to Israel, in delivering them from the hand of the Egyptians. 10 So Jethro said, “Blessed be the LORD who delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians and from the hand of Pharaoh, and who delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. 11 Now I know that the LORD is greater than all the gods; indeed, it was proven when they dealt proudly against [d]the people.” 12 Then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God, and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat a meal with Moses’ father-in-law before God.

Melchizedek: a priest to Yahweh.

Jethro: confesses Yahweh and sacrifices to Him, even eating a meal before the LORD with Moses, the elders, and Aaron...whose lineage was to serve as priests to the LORD.

When someone insists on spouting off conjecture, misreads the other at certain points, and gets basic Bible facts wrong...argument is fruitless. Keep grasping.