In the Bible we can read about another god. His name is Melchizedek (or Melchisedec). He is first mentioned in Genesis

"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all."

Genesis 14:18-20

This in itself may not be all that significant until we read Hebrews

"For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils."

Hebrews 7:1-4

Is this God's brother? Is this God's cousin? Is this a completely different God? For these are certainly divine attributes. According to the Bible in our hands today, Jesus (pbuh) had a beginning (he was "begotten"), and an end "he gave up the ghost" (Luke 23:46). This mighty being, however, is alleged to have had neither. It is stated plainly here in the Bible, that he was "made like unto the son of God." Why do they not worship him then? The church now will allege that Jesus peace be upon him was "begotten" by God. Tell us what you mean when you say "begotten." What did God Almighty do to "beget" Jesus (pbuh)? Further, if Jesus (pbuh) was "begotten," but Melchisedec who was "made like unto the Son of God," was not, then does this not make Jesus (pbuh) a "son of God" but Melchisedec an independent god with neither offspring nor parents? Is a god with no parents not greater than one who needs parents? Where is Melchisedec now?

From these verses we get the following picture:

1. Melchizedec is equal to the Son of God
2. Melchizedec's ministry is eternal
3. Melchizedec, unlike Jesus (pbuh), is an independent god, with neither father nor mother.
4. Melchizedec, unlike Jesus (pbuh), was never "born" or "begotten" but was ever present.
5. Melchizedec, unlike Jesus (pbuh), will never die but is eternally without death.
6. Everything but God has a beginning of days. Even air, water, and food have a beginning of days. Melchizedec, however, does not. Therefore, he is claimed to not need God nor water, food, nor air to breathe.

Does this not sound preposterous? Notice how when Jesus (pbuh), a man, is preached as being a god most people have no trouble with that. They are willing to see proof of his godhead even where it can not be found (see chapter one). This is because this is a well established doctrine in Paul's church. However, when the same Bible tells them in no uncertain terms that another man, Melchisedec, is a god, then they are willing to "interpret" the verses fifty different ways and attach to them all manner of abstract interpretations to disprove this claim since Melchisedec "cannot possibly" be a god. Why? Because the church has not told us to worship Melchizedec?. If the Bible remains the word of God then why should we place the words of men (the church) above the words of God?

Some people will object that: "Melchizedec was an imaginary character and not real." Once again, a valid possibility, so let us study this claim. Let us go back and read the above verses. Was prophet Abraham (pbuh) an imaginary character? Of course not! Well then, did Abraham "meet" a figment of his imagination upon returning from the "slaughter of the kings"? Was Abraham blessed by a figment of his imagination? Did he give a tenth of his spoils to a figment of his imagination?

I have searched far and wide in my quest for a logical answer to this dilemma. Many interpretations have been presented, however, these interpretations always attempt to either completely side-step the above issues, or when they do actually attempt to deal directly with them they say "of course it can not possibly be that the words are meant to be taken literally," with no valid explanation whatsoever. It is simply left up to the reader to have "faith" and only take the literal meanings of such words when they are applied to Jesus (pbuh), but when they are applied to others then they "can not possibly" be understood to be taken literally. Why?

It is easy to make excuses. It is much harder to keep an open mind. Many people have a tendency to quote only part of the command of the Bible. They read "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul" and stop!. Well what about the rest of the verse? What about "…and with all thy mind." I don't know about you, but my salvation is too precious a commodity to allow someone to dictate to me blind faith in doctrines they have inserted in the book of God, resulting in countless discrepancies. A truly unchanged religion of God must be able to convince me fifty ways from Sunday that it is faultless and unchanged by the hands of men. It should not need it's propagators, and "correctors" to demand blind faith and my having to continually make excuses for it even though they themselves bear witness to the continuous and unrelenting attempts of the church to "correct" and "clarify" the Bible over so many centuries.