ad,
That last one especially is a remarkable claim indeed, and I'm not sure what or where it was that you think he was king of either.
Still, no doubt at some point in the future you or someone else will share with us a method to suggest why these claims should be privileged above just guessing about stuff. I for one look forward to it.
Hi blue
I strongly suspect there is no 'method' (now there's a surprise). The Biblical record itself is tenuous and contradictory, but just for the record, here are a few details to contemplate:
1. Priest. He is referred to as "A priest forever according to the order of Melchizedech" in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Melchizedech gets a couple of references in the OT, once in a Psalm (which the Epistle quotes), and once in Genesis 14, in the story of Abraham. Seems to have been a bloke who came out of nowhere, and whose 'priesthood' pre-dated the Levite priesthood.
2. King. He is referred to as "King of the Jews" only by non-Jewish people in the NT - the Magi, the Roman soldiers and Pilate (who had the board fixed on the cross reading Iesus Nazareni Rex Iudorum, and in Aramaic and Greek as well). The Jews around said "Don't write that, write 'He said he was King of the Jews').
3.God. Well there are two contradictory texts in the same chapter of John's gospel for a start:
9]"He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?"
John.14
28] " If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is
greater than I."
John 14.
The rest is the result of several hundred years of speculation.
Sounds all rather nebulous to me.