Are there two Christs in the Bible?

Personally, I don't think the writer of Hebrews was suggesting that Melchizedek really didn't have parents and really didn't have a beginning or end.Early Christians regularly interpreted the Scriptures figuratively. Take, for example, Paul's use of "don't muzzle the ox" to mean "support Christian teachers" (1 Cor 9:8-10), or his statement that Hagar and Sarah are really two testaments (Gal 4:24).Thus, the writer of Hebrews was pointing out interesting points in the story. Abraham tithed to Melchizedek. Melchizedek means king of righteousness. He is king of Salem, which means peace. He is not introduce when he appears, and he is not given an exit when his encounter with Abraham is over. Thus he has no beginning or end in this story.The author of Hebrews is pulling all the figurative things he can from the story of Melchizedek. This is a very typical early Christian approach to Scripture, and there is no book of the New Testament that sounds more like the "apostolic fathers" and "apologists" who wrote shortly after New Testament times than Hebrews. A reading of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew will show you a very similar approach to Scripture that covers huge portions of the Old Testament.Anyway, I just wanted to point out that I don't think the writer of Hebrews was really suggesting that Melchizedek didn't have parents and never died. He was simply pulling an illustration from a story--an inspired story--to argue that Jesus was the Christ and that the Christ would be a divine being such as he is describing in his letter.

I think it's obvious he was using the LXX. I don't think this is so sure. The writer of Hebrews was addressing Hebrews, but he doesn't seem all that Hebrew himself necessarily. Greek speaking Christians would have had to use the LXX, and they wouldn't have any pressing reason to know the translation of any Hebrew text.As for Gen 14 or Ps 110:4 being a mistranslation or unrelated, maybe you can present Salibi's argument in brief. I don't see why there's any problem that needs solving there by proposing a mistranslation.

Sorry, nighttrain, I can't buy what he says. Here's why. This verse (Ps 110:4) starts with "YHWH has sworn and will not repent." The Lord has sworn that someone will be a priest to Olam??? Provide some precedent to that in Psalms or anywhere else in the Hebrew Scriptures. That's bizarre. There's no justification given in your text for his adding the word "two" to make it two flocks, other than he thinks the word for "order" can't be singular. So why two? Why not three or forty?"Follow behind" is really not much different than "after the order of," and I have to imagine that the repeated translation as "after the order of" works just fine even if it's more "exact" to say "following" or "follow behind."And if you're going to translate Melchizedek rather than leaving it as a proper name, doesn't it make much more sense, considering that this is a Hebrew Psalm, to translate to "kings of righteousness" rather than to the king of some potential tiny little village? This is a Psalm of David, king over a nation, for heaven's sake. What sort of promise is it that he or anyone else would be a priest like the king of some desert oasis?Now, back to Genesis. Because food is mentioned this makes it clear that we should change mlky to mkl????????? Sorry, I don't buy it.Should we read Gen 14:18 as "Some food, the king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine?" How much sense does that make? It really seems much more sensical to read it as a personal name. In the end, there is no problem with the standard translation. There is no issue driving us to want to swap letters around and make melek into ma'kal.