DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Amarok]

So no real objections then

Nothing to object to.

Your opinion and it's wrong

The science is real and it does not need to concede to your irrational requests .

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Nothing to object to.

Your opinion and it's wrong

The science is real and it does not need to concede to your irrational requests .

Whatever you say.

[pocaracas]

- Before, I would say I was more ignorant, but not intentionally.  Even when I'm skeptical of something, I try not to rule it out, but I don't necessarily go out of my way either, just because there's too much to do in life, and I can't focus on everything.  Just like people claiming there is a Bigfoot running around somewhere.  If there is, I'm ignorant of it, but that doesn't mean there isn't.  I'm not an enthusiast for chasing Bigfoot as a hobby, so unless someone gives me a reason to believe, besides a blurry camera picture or video, then I'll just continue on with other things. If they are right, great, I'll look at what they want to show me.  If not, great.  Glad they're doing something meaningful to them.

Well then, call me skeptical of the god notion. There isn't even a grainy video of the guy. Just some people with feelings and pseudo-inspirations.

- There are a lot of things in this world that I wish weren't there as well, but there can still be beauty in those things.  Like finding beauty in what we view to make a mistake.  Someone lays a hot coal on a table and a child places their hand on it.  It's not a good experience for the child at that moment, but he or she knows not to touch hot coals in the future, or anything that might have been subject to large amounts of heat energy.  Not only do they know, they can tell others not to touch hot coals.  But that little singe kept someone else from being burned severely based on their experience and the knowledge they shared from it.  This is kinda what I meant before.  I tend to be very analytical and I like to be somewhere in the center of things. Knowledge is always viewed as a good thing, even when the information is negative.  It allows us all to act accordingly.

That may be so in small scales, but in large scales, for some reason, people forget what is good for them and end up supporting what was once known to be bad.

- I understand how you view Jesus dying and then he's back.  Yep, would seem like an oddity at face value.  But it wasn't just that.  It was like that coal I was just speaking of.  At face value it seems bad that the child burned themselves.  When Jesus died, it was very similar.  Someone died a brutal death because others failed to see their value, and as such felt they had removed the problem.  The thing is, he wasn't the problem, they were.  They got what they wanted, and in return he offered what they needed.  It's not that he had to die, but that he chose to.  I think comparing it all to a bridge going across a gap would be a good comparison.  He became that bridge.  Anybody can cross, but nobody is forced to.

I understand that it works in the story. A story that helps keep the believers in a state of somewhat suffering and awaiting that next journey... which helps keep them behaving properly, in a way.

But look at it from the point of view of a god who has always been around. A god who has always allegedly loved mankind. A god who would have always kept an eye out.
Even the story of the 10 commandments seems to suggest that god is mostly absent. But is that the story we get from Jesus' disciples points of view?

Anyway, given an always present and loving god, what is the purpose of Jesus' suffering in a single instant in a mostly illiterate era?

I won't go around telling anybody they have to believe what I do.  What I can do is be willing to share why I believe the way I do.  What they do with that is up to them.  Yay or nay, they can be my friend regardless, and if they tell me not to talk to them about it, then I respect that.

I can live with that.
But do you mind if people probe that reason for why you believe?

[Amarok]

Your opinion and it's wrong

The science is real and it does not need to concede to your irrational requests .

Whatever you say.

Has nothing to do with what i say

---

Your opinion and it's wrong

The science is real and it does not need to concede to your irrational requests .

Whatever you say.

Has nothing to do with what i say

[T0 Th3 M4X]

- Before, I would say I was more ignorant, but not intentionally.  Even when I'm skeptical of something, I try not to rule it out, but I don't necessarily go out of my way either, just because there's too much to do in life, and I can't focus on everything.  Just like people claiming there is a Bigfoot running around somewhere.  If there is, I'm ignorant of it, but that doesn't mean there isn't.  I'm not an enthusiast for chasing Bigfoot as a hobby, so unless someone gives me a reason to believe, besides a blurry camera picture or video, then I'll just continue on with other things. If they are right, great, I'll look at what they want to show me.  If not, great.  Glad they're doing something meaningful to them.

Well then, call me skeptical of the god notion. There isn't even a grainy video of the guy. Just some people with feelings and pseudo-inspirations.

- There are a lot of things in this world that I wish weren't there as well, but there can still be beauty in those things.  Like finding beauty in what we view to make a mistake.  Someone lays a hot coal on a table and a child places their hand on it.  It's not a good experience for the child at that moment, but he or she knows not to touch hot coals in the future, or anything that might have been subject to large amounts of heat energy.  Not only do they know, they can tell others not to touch hot coals.  But that little singe kept someone else from being burned severely based on their experience and the knowledge they shared from it.  This is kinda what I meant before.  I tend to be very analytical and I like to be somewhere in the center of things. Knowledge is always viewed as a good thing, even when the information is negative.  It allows us all to act accordingly.

That may be so in small scales, but in large scales, for some reason, people forget what is good for them and end up supporting what was once known to be bad.

- I understand how you view Jesus dying and then he's back.  Yep, would seem like an oddity at face value.  But it wasn't just that.  It was like that coal I was just speaking of.  At face value it seems bad that the child burned themselves.  When Jesus died, it was very similar.  Someone died a brutal death because others failed to see their value, and as such felt they had removed the problem.  The thing is, he wasn't the problem, they were.  They got what they wanted, and in return he offered what they needed.  It's not that he had to die, but that he chose to.  I think comparing it all to a bridge going across a gap would be a good comparison.  He became that bridge.  Anybody can cross, but nobody is forced to.

I understand that it works in the story. A story that  helps keep the believers in a state of somewhat suffering and awaiting that next journey... which helps keep them behaving properly, in a way.

But look at it from the point of view of a god who has always been around. A god who has always allegedly loved mankind. A god who would have always kept an eye out.
Even the story of the 10 commandments seems to suggest that god is mostly absent. But is that the story we get from Jesus' disciples points of view?

Anyway, given an always present and loving god, what is the purpose of Jesus' suffering in a single instant in a mostly illiterate era?

I won't go around telling anybody they have to believe what I do.  What I can do is be willing to share why I believe the way I do.  What they do with that is up to them.  Yay or nay, they can be my friend regardless, and if they tell me not to talk to them about it, then I respect that.

I can live with that.
But do you mind if people probe that reason for why you believe?

- It is your right to be skeptical.  It's important for us all to weigh things and determine what it all means.

- I agree about people forgetting what is good.  That's why we need guidelines to remind us, but we must choose to make those things a focal point.  Noted that you aren't a Christian, but proponents of said belief talk about it being a heart thing.  Those guidelines are placed in our hearts rather just written on paper.

- You asked about why Jesus would come and suffer in a mostly illiterate era.  I can tell you from my perspective, but I can't say it is a fully sufficient explanation, so please keep that in mind.  That age was very brutal, and as you stated, there was a lot of illiteracy.  However, not everybody was illiterate, especially those in leadership positions and the wealthy.  When you have people who are assumed to be on a higher tier of understanding, and those who generally aren't, they can assume power based on people's blind acceptance that they know what they are talking about.  I think that's one of the reasons.  A lot of it was saying "NO", go seek on your own.  Don't assume you are limited.  Those people aren't sufficient, but God is, so rely on Him first.  So he entered the world with a humble origin.  He existed in a manner that the "common folk" would exist, did it according to what is right, and then subjected himself to the ignorance of others.  Basically, he just became one of the common folk, but he also did it the right way.  He challenged their ideas, offered them something else, and questioned their traditions for honoring God. The more he did it, the more he drew crowds, and the more the legal authorities of that age were enraged by it.  The Pharisees, who were well excepted by the people as credible sources, would follow him around looking for anything and everything to challenge him, especially based on God's laws.  It's not necessarily that the Pharisees didn't care, but much of what they did was self-serving and legalistic.  It's fine to adhere to certain laws, but it's problematic when we forget the underlying purpose of those laws, and then prioritize those laws over our relationships with others, when in actuality they should go hand-in-land.  The law isn't to hurt the people, but to serve them.  So just to wrap this up because I'm probably talking to much, it was a volatile time, so intervention was needed to get those who were willing to listen back on track.  In doing so, he experienced what many of us will experience for following, but he was also indicating that, "It's all good", because this isn't the end all for me or you.  It's just what needs to be done so that we all have the opportunity to get where we need to ultimately be without relying on that which is unreliable.

- I don't mind if people probe.  Usually it's less about "if" and more an issue of "how" they do so, but regardless I don't usually mind.  As always, I enjoy my conversations with you. So agree or disagree, you have my respect for what it's worth.

[pocaracas]

- It is your right to be skeptical.  It's important for us all to weigh things and determine what it all means.

Aye, I agree we should weigh things. Sometimes, it feels like most people attribute little weight to important things, while attributing quite a bit of weight to irrelevant things.

- I agree about people forgetting what is good.  That's why we need guidelines to remind us, but we must choose to make those things a focal point.  Noted that you aren't a Christian, but proponents of said belief talk about it being a heart thing.  Those guidelines are placed in our hearts rather just written on paper.

Intuitive morality? Something that seems to have evolved with us? Something observed in many other social species, in varying degrees of similarity to our own.
Something like this, that has evolved with us over millions of years, would be very difficult to account for by our mundane experiences, by what we observe throughout our lives, so it would be extremely easy to attribute that to some higher power and include it in the apologetics recipe book.

- You asked about why Jesus would come and suffer in a mostly illiterate era.  I can tell you from my perspective, but I can't say it is a fully sufficient explanation, so please keep that in mind.  That age was very brutal, and as you stated, there was a lot of illiteracy.  However, not everybody was illiterate, especially those in leadership positions and the wealthy.  When you have people who are assumed to be on a higher tier of understanding, and those who generally aren't, they can assume power based on people's blind acceptance that they know what they are talking about.  I think that's one of the reasons.  A lot of it was saying "NO", go seek on your own.  Don't assume you are limited.  Those people aren't sufficient, but God is, so rely on Him first.  So he entered the world with a humble origin.  He existed in a manner that the "common folk" would exist, did it according to what is right, and then subjected himself to the ignorance of others.  Basically, he just became one of the common folk, but he also did it the right way.  He challenged their ideas, offered them something else, and questioned their traditions for honoring God. The more he did it, the more he drew crowds, and the more the legal authorities of that age were enraged by it.  The Pharisees, who were well excepted by the people as credible sources, would follow him around looking for anything and everything to challenge him, especially based on God's laws.  It's not necessarily that the Pharisees didn't care, but much of what they did was self-serving and legalistic.  It's fine to adhere to certain laws, but it's problematic when we forget the underlying purpose of those laws, and then prioritize those laws over our relationships with others, when in actuality they should go hand-in-land.  The law isn't to hurt the people, but to serve them.  So just to wrap this up because I'm probably talking to much, it was a volatile time, so intervention was needed to get those who were willing to listen back on track.  In doing so, he experienced what many of us will experience for following, but he was also indicating that, "It's all good", because this isn't the end all for me or you.  It's just what needs to be done so that we all have the opportunity to get where we need to ultimately be without relying on that which is unreliable.

This is when I offer you something that might need to be taken into account when you weigh in things.
At that time, there were the Pharisees, as you say, very legalistic, following scripture to the letter. But there were other Jewish sects. There were the Sadducees, considered to be those with the higher social status... and there were the Essenes. Ever heard of the Essenes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

""
The Essenes [...] were a sect during the Second Temple period which flourished from the 2nd century BCE to the 1st century CE.

The Jewish historian Josephus records that Essenes existed in large numbers, and thousands lived throughout Roman Judaea, but they were fewer in number than the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the other two major sects at the time. The Essenes lived in various cities but congregated in communal life dedicated to voluntary poverty, daily immersion, and asceticism (their priestly class practiced celibacy). Most scholars claim they seceded from the Zadokite priests.[1]
""

How many of these categories do you associate with Jesus and the priest class that followed?


""
The Essenes have gained fame in modern times as a result of the discovery of an extensive group of religious documents known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are commonly believed to be the Essenes' library.
""

How much do you know of these Scrolls?

I once found this site... feel free to dissect it:
http://www.shareintl.org/archives/M_emer...eacher.htm
""
The writers call themselves the Sons of Zadok (a hereditary line of Jewish priests established in the time of King David) and their great leader the Teacher of Righteousness.
[...]
They held their Teacher in deep reverence and maintained a faith in his mission against a Jerusalem priesthood which severely persecuted and apparently killed Him.
[...]
The Teacher of Righteousness is called in Hebrew Moreh ha-Zedek -- one entrusted with the Law and sent by God to lead his people in the way of truth.
[...]
"Jesus," he claimed, "appears in many respects as an astonishing reincarnation of the Teacher of Righteousness. Like the latter, he preached penitence, poverty, humility, love of one's neighbor, chastity.... Like him, he was the Elect and the Messiah of God.... Like him, he was the object of the hostility of the priests.... Like him, he was condemned and put to death. Like him he pronounced judgment on Jerusalem, which was taken and destroyed by the Romans for having put him to death.... Like him, he founded a Church whose adherents fervently awaited his glorious return.... All these similarities -- and here I only touch upon the subject -- taken together constitute a very impressive whole."

It must be emphasized that Dupont-Sommer never suggested the Teacher of Righteousness was Jesus, but called him a prototype.
""


So, my friend, was the Jesus we find in the bible and christian tradition a copycat, a mesh of previously existing men with some fantasy elements thrown in, or was he the son of god, coming at a time when his ideals were already well known?

- I don't mind if people probe.  Usually it's less about "if" and more an issue of "how" they do so, but regardless I don't usually mind.  As always, I enjoy my conversations with you. So agree or disagree, you have my respect for what it's worth.

Thank you. I enjoy our conversations too and hope we never do something that damages that mutual respect.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

- It is your right to be skeptical.  It's important for us all to weigh things and determine what it all means.

Aye, I agree we should weigh things. Sometimes, it feels like most people attribute little weight to important things, while attributing quite a bit of weight to irrelevant things.

- I agree about people forgetting what is good.  That's why we need guidelines to remind us, but we must choose to make those things a focal point.  Noted that you aren't a Christian, but proponents of said belief talk about it being a heart thing.  Those guidelines are placed in our hearts rather just written on paper.

Intuitive morality? Something that seems to have evolved with us? Something observed in many other social species, in varying degrees of similarity to our own.
Something like this, that has evolved with us over millions of years, would be very difficult to account for by our mundane experiences, by what we observe throughout our lives, so it would be extremely easy to attribute that to some higher power and include it in the apologetics recipe book.

- You asked about why Jesus would come and suffer in a mostly illiterate era.  I can tell you from my perspective, but I can't say it is a fully sufficient explanation, so please keep that in mind.  That age was very brutal, and as you stated, there was a lot of illiteracy.  However, not everybody was illiterate, especially those in leadership positions and the wealthy.  When you have people who are assumed to be on a higher tier of understanding, and those who generally aren't, they can assume power based on people's blind acceptance that they know what they are talking about.  I think that's one of the reasons.  A lot of it was saying "NO", go seek on your own.  Don't assume you are limited.  Those people aren't sufficient, but God is, so rely on Him first.  So he entered the world with a humble origin.  He existed in a manner that the "common folk" would exist, did it according to what is right, and then subjected himself to the ignorance of others.  Basically, he just became one of the common folk, but he also did it the right way.  He challenged their ideas, offered them something else, and questioned their traditions for honoring God. The more he did it, the more he drew crowds, and the more the legal authorities of that age were enraged by it.  The Pharisees, who were well excepted by the people as credible sources, would follow him around looking for anything and everything to challenge him, especially based on God's laws.  It's not necessarily that the Pharisees didn't care, but much of what they did was self-serving and legalistic.  It's fine to adhere to certain laws, but it's problematic when we forget the underlying purpose of those laws, and then prioritize those laws over our relationships with others, when in actuality they should go hand-in-land.  The law isn't to hurt the people, but to serve them.  So just to wrap this up because I'm probably talking to much, it was a volatile time, so intervention was needed to get those who were willing to listen back on track.  In doing so, he experienced what many of us will experience for following, but he was also indicating that, "It's all good", because this isn't the end all for me or you.  It's just what needs to be done so that we all have the opportunity to get where we need to ultimately be without relying on that which is unreliable.

This is when I offer you something that might need to be taken into account when you weigh in things.
At that time, there were the Pharisees, as you say, very legalistic, following scripture to the letter. But there were other Jewish sects. There were the Sadducees, considered to be those with the higher social status... and there were the Essenes. Ever heard of the Essenes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

""
The Essenes [...] were a sect during the Second Temple period which flourished from the 2nd century BCE to the 1st century CE.

The Jewish historian Josephus records that Essenes existed in large numbers, and thousands lived throughout Roman Judaea, but they were fewer in number than the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the other two major sects at the time. The Essenes lived in various cities but congregated in communal life dedicated to voluntary poverty, daily immersion, and asceticism (their priestly class practiced celibacy). Most scholars claim they seceded from the Zadokite priests.[1]
""

How many of these categories do you associate with Jesus and the priest class that followed?


""
The Essenes have gained fame in modern times as a result of the discovery of an extensive group of religious documents known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are commonly believed to be the Essenes' library.
""

How much do you know of these Scrolls?

I once found this site... feel free to dissect it:
http://www.shareintl.org/archives/M_emer...eacher.htm
""
The writers call themselves the Sons of Zadok (a hereditary line of Jewish priests established in the time of King David) and their great leader the Teacher of Righteousness.
[...]
They held their Teacher in deep reverence and maintained a faith in his mission against a Jerusalem priesthood which severely persecuted and apparently killed Him.
[...]
The Teacher of Righteousness is called in Hebrew Moreh ha-Zedek -- one entrusted with the Law and sent by God to lead his people in the way of truth.
[...]
"Jesus," he claimed, "appears in many respects as an astonishing reincarnation of the Teacher of Righteousness. Like the latter, he preached penitence, poverty, humility, love of one's neighbor, chastity.... Like him, he was the Elect and the Messiah of God.... Like him, he was the object of the hostility of the priests.... Like him, he was condemned and put to death. Like him he pronounced judgment on Jerusalem, which was taken and destroyed by the Romans for having put him to death.... Like him, he founded a Church whose adherents fervently awaited his glorious return.... All these similarities -- and here I only touch upon the subject -- taken together constitute a very impressive whole."

It must be emphasized that Dupont-Sommer never suggested the Teacher of Righteousness was Jesus, but called him a prototype.
""


So, my friend, was the Jesus we find in the bible and christian tradition a copycat, a mesh of previously existing men with some fantasy elements thrown in, or was he the son of god, coming at a time when his ideals were already well known?

- I don't mind if people probe.  Usually it's less about "if" and more an issue of "how" they do so, but regardless I don't usually mind.  As always, I enjoy my conversations with you. So agree or disagree, you have my respect for what it's worth.

Thank you. I enjoy our conversations too and hope we never do something that damages that mutual respect.

I like this.  I know who the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes were.   Before I get going, there is one thing that's important to understand.  The Sadducees were elitists, so they often didn't associate with the lower tiers in society.  They held there head high, but they were still lonely, which made them sad u see.

Okay, just some bad humor.

So I can attempt to resolve this in terms of Christian teaching, so please keep that in mind as the context of which I'm sharing.

Jesus is assumed to be that high priest.  This is what's known in the Bible as a Christophany.  It's an instance where Jesus is appears in the Old Testament.  There are several indications that they are one and the same.

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

(Melchizedek is the name given to the high priest)

Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

(David is associating the Lord with being a priest of the order)

Heb 7:20-22 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

(Again, identifies Jesus from the order of Melchizedek, but returning to establishing a better testament.  This, of course, it what we would refer to as the New Testament, which is "by grace")

Matt 22:41-46 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

(If you cross-reference this with Psa 110, the indication is that Jesus is referencing David at this moment.  It's a difficult statement, because Jesus is telling the Pharisees he is Melchizedek, and I'm sure it was very clear to the Pharisees what he was implying, since they would've been aware of David, and the priesthood.  It was shortly after this that he was crucified.

So to answer your question, I don't see it as being a copycat scenario, but rather a Christophany.  Same person, same teachings.

Hopefully that was a fair answer, but if I missed something you want me to address feel free to let me know.

[pocaracas]

I like this.  I know who the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes were.   Before I get going, there is one thing that's important to understand.  The Sadducees were elitists, so they often didn't associate with the lower tiers in society.  They held there head high, but they were still lonely, which made them sad u see.

Okay, just some bad humor.

Hehe! I laughed!

So I can attempt to resolve this in terms of Christian teaching, so please keep that in mind as the context of which I'm sharing.

Jesus is assumed to be that high priest.  This is what's known in the Bible as a Christophany.  It's an instance where Jesus is appears in the Old Testament.  There are several indications that they are one and the same.

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

(Melchizedek is the name given to the high priest)

Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

(David is associating the Lord with being a priest of the order)

Heb 7:20-22 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

(Again, identifies Jesus from the order of Melchizedek, but returning to establishing a better testament.  This, of course, it what we would refer to as the New Testament, which is "by grace")

Matt 22:41-46 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

(If you cross-reference this with Psa 110, the indication is that Jesus is referencing David at this moment.  It's a difficult statement, because Jesus is telling the Pharisees he is Melchizedek, and I'm sure it was very clear to the Pharisees what he was implying, since they would've been aware of David, and the priesthood.  It was shortly after this that he was crucified.

So to answer your question, I don't see it as being a copycat scenario, but rather a Christophany.  Same person, same teachings.

Hopefully that was a fair answer, but if I missed something you want me to address feel free to let me know.

It was a fair answer, indeed.

Does that mean that the standard Christian teaching implies that Jesus was already around in the OT? Hundreds of years before he was born?
Or was David a contemporary of Herod or Pontius Pilate?

Is this some sort of reverse cameo thing?


Also, about the priest's name, I found this (https://www.varchive.org/itb/zedek.htm):
""
The meaning of the name Melchizedek is “Zedek is [My] King.” Zedek, as said, is the name of the planet Jupiter, remaining so in the astronomy of the Jews in later ages. In the Talmud Zedek refers to Jupiter.(5) Zedek also has the meaning of “righteousness” or “justice.”
""

So... if King is associated with the particle "Melchi", and Zedek is "righteousness" or "justice", then is this high priest some sort of a king of the court of justice? But, at the time, it was the normal king that fulfilled this post, was it not? And that would be David, right?

Interestingly, I just noticed another name that begins with Melchi.... Melchior, which could refer to the king of the city of Ur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur).
But it seems that people associate "or" with light, instead http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Melchior

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I like this.  I know who the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes were.   Before I get going, there is one thing that's important to understand.  The Sadducees were elitists, so they often didn't associate with the lower tiers in society.  They held there head high, but they were still lonely, which made them sad u see.

Okay, just some bad humor.

Hehe! I laughed!

So I can attempt to resolve this in terms of Christian teaching, so please keep that in mind as the context of which I'm sharing.

Jesus is assumed to be that high priest.  This is what's known in the Bible as a Christophany.  It's an instance where Jesus is appears in the Old Testament.  There are several indications that they are one and the same.

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

(Melchizedek is the name given to the high priest)

Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

(David is associating the Lord with being a priest of the order)

Heb 7:20-22 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

(Again, identifies Jesus from the order of Melchizedek, but returning to establishing a better testament.  This, of course, it what we would refer to as the New Testament, which is "by grace")

Matt 22:41-46 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

(If you cross-reference this with Psa 110, the indication is that Jesus is referencing David at this moment.  It's a difficult statement, because Jesus is telling the Pharisees he is Melchizedek, and I'm sure it was very clear to the Pharisees what he was implying, since they would've been aware of David, and the priesthood.  It was shortly after this that he was crucified.

So to answer your question, I don't see it as being a copycat scenario, but rather a Christophany.  Same person, same teachings.

Hopefully that was a fair answer, but if I missed something you want me to address feel free to let me know.

It was a fair answer, indeed.

Does that mean that the standard Christian teaching implies that Jesus was already around in the OT? Hundreds of years before he was born?
Or was David a contemporary of Herod or Pontius Pilate?

Is this some sort of reverse cameo thing?


Also, about the priest's name, I found this (https://www.varchive.org/itb/zedek.htm):
""
The meaning of the name Melchizedek is “Zedek is [My] King.” Zedek, as said, is the name of the planet Jupiter, remaining so in the astronomy of the Jews in later ages. In the Talmud Zedek refers to Jupiter.(5) Zedek also has the meaning of “righteousness” or “justice.”
""

So... if King is associated with the particle "Melchi", and Zedek is "righteousness" or "justice", then is this high priest some sort of a king of the court of justice? But, at the time, it was the normal king that fulfilled this post, was it not? And that would be David, right?

Interestingly, I just noticed another name that begins with Melchi.... Melchior, which could refer to the king of the city of Ur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur).
But it seems that people associate "or" with light, instead http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Melchior

Yes, you could call it a cameo.  There are at least a few spots where it is believed to be Jesus. 

We also see it in the NT with how Jesus addresses things.

John 8:57-58 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

Additionally, that is what the beginning of John implies.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Most of your English bibles just say "God" but often there is a specific name God chooses to be identified based on what is happening.  In Genesis, where is says "God created" in the English bibles, he was actually referred to "Elohim" in the older manuscripts, which means "plurality in unity"

There's always so much information to take in with anything like this.  Sometimes it can almost seem overwhelming since not only is it about finding information, but also trying to make sure it's the right information.

[Amarok]

Your opinion and it's wrong

The science is real and it does not need to concede to your irrational requests .

Whatever you say.

Got nothing to do with me