Posted on 05/07/2008 6:31:39 AM PDT by sevenbak
FYI, If this gets moved from the religion forum to the news forum, my apologies. That is a FR decision.
we get this.
and the democrats get the u.s. congress and presidency.
If any of you care to be bothered Ping.
Just more cult spam. Yawn..........
Who the heck is Barry Bickmore? Just another mormon man with an opinion. Definitely can’t be regarded as “official” doctrine......it is from fairlds.org.
"We believe that a man must be called of God by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." 5th Article of Faith by Joseph Smith
DEFINITION AND FUNCTION
President Joseph F. Smith (6th LDS Prophet) said:
What is the Priesthood? It is nothing more or less than the power of God delegated to man by which man can act in the earth for the salvation of the human family... by which they may baptize for the remission of sins and lay on hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost, and by which they can remit sin with the sanction and blessing of Almighty God. It is the same power and priesthood that was committed to the disciples of Christ while He was upon the earth... (G.D., p. 173; also see M.D., p. 594).
"There are in the (LDS) Church, two priesthoods, namely the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood" (D. & C. 107:1).
Milton R. Hunter also said, "Priesthood is probably the most important single item in the Gospel... The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the creation, before the world was formed... He is Michael, the archangel, spoken of in the scripture. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel; He stands next in authority to Adam in the priesthood" (G.T.A., p. 61).
Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote, "Priesthood is conferred upon an individual; he is ordained to office in the priesthood (such as elder); and he is set apart to a position of presidency or administration" (such as Elders Quorum President, M.D., p. 549). Advancement in the lower Aaronic Priesthood is determined by chronological age except in the case of older converts to Mormonism. Aaronic Priesthood is conferred on boys at age 12 when they are ordained as deacons. At age 14 they are ordained as teachers, and at 16 they are ordained priests. At age 18 the higher Melchizedek Priesthood is conferred when they are ordained as elders.
Apostle McConkie also said, "There is no advancement from one office to another within the Melchizedek Priesthood. Every elder holds as much priesthood as an apostle or as the President of the Church, though these latter officers hold greater administrative assignments in the Kingdom" (M.D., p.596).
The offices in the Melchizedek Priesthood include: elder, seventy, high priest, patriarch, and apostle. To hold any office, one must first have the priesthood. There can be no true church without the priesthood, even though priesthood can exist without the church. Each office in the priesthood has its own job description. Those in lower offices cannot function in the capacity of those with greater administrative assignments. Those with greater administrative assignments can do anything that those with less administrative assignments can.
Some things that the Melchizedek Priesthood holders can do include: administering to the sick or injured, consecrating oil for anointing the sick, blessing children, baptizing for the remission of sins, confirming members and bestowing the Holy Ghost on them, conferring priesthood on others and ordaining them to an office, dedicating graves, conducting funerals, and conducting regular meetings.
In support of their priesthood doctrine, LDS often quote part of John 15:16, where Jesus said, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you." LDS claim that Jesus was speaking about the priesthood, but priesthood is not mentioned in this context or anywhere in any of the four gospels! This verse says "ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit..." Neither John 15:16 nor any other New Testament verse says that Jesus laid His hands on the disciples and ordained them to the priesthood, but LDS claim that is what the word "ordain" means. However, D. & C. 89:14 says, "all grain is ordained for the use of man and of beast." Did someone lay hands on the grain and give it the Priesthood? Obviously that is not the meaning of "ordain." While it is possible for someone to be ordained by "laying on of hands," that word really means to "appoint" or "point out." D. & C. 89 also mentions that herbs and flesh of beasts and fowls are "ordained for the use of man." Thus, even LDS scripture shows that "ordained" means "appointed," not lay hands on to give some priesthood office.
The LDS also use Heb. 5:4 to support their doctrine of an ordained priesthood. It says, "No man taketh this honor unto himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron." Then they claim that Aaron was called by Moses in Ex. 28:1. But, neither Heb. 5:4 nor Ex. 28:1 say anything about "laying on of hands or "ordaining" anything. Heb. 5:4 says, "called of God," not "called by Moses" or "called by laying on of hands" as LDS interpret it. Ex. 4:27 declares, "The Lord said unto Aaron..." which shows that Aaron was called by the Lord, not Moses. In Num. 18:7 the Lord said to Aaron, "I have given your priests office unto you..." Even in D. & C. 132:59, the Lord says, "Verily if a man be called of my Father as was Aaron, by my own voice and by the voice of Him that sent me and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood..." Notice that LDS scripture says Aaron and those with LDS priesthood were called by the "voice" of God, not by laying on of hands! Neither Aaron nor anyone else was ever ordained to the Aaronic priest's office in the Old Testament. The only "priests" who were ordained in the Old Testament were idolatrous priests (II Kings 23:5; II Chron. 11:15)! Aaron was "anointed" (Ex. 40:13), but so was the tabernacle and everything in it (Ex. 40:9-15). Therefore, this "anointing" was not the "laying on of hands" to give the priesthood, unless the tabernacle and everything in it were also ordained to the priesthood! A good concordance will show that many other things in the Old Testament were "ordained," but the priests who served God were not! Later in this chapter under the subtitle, "Biblical Priesthood" how one became a priest in the Old Testament is examined.
ORIGIN OF LDS PRIESTHOOD
Even though LDS have no Biblical basis for their doctrine of "priesthood," LDS scripture says that John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 1829 and laid his hands upon them and conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on them just before they were baptized (P. of G.P. J.S. History 1:68-73). Since LDS believe baptism is necessary for salvation, Joseph and Oliver must have been unsaved sinners at the time they received the priesthood! LDS also teach that baptism must precede receiving the priesthood, so why didn't John the Baptist baptize them first? He was of the Levitical priesthood lineage and was filled with the Holy Spirit even before he was born (D. & C. 84:27; Luke 1:5-15). Surely he had the authority since he baptized the Lord (Matt. 3:13-16). Whether John the Baptist was a spirit or a resurrected man, he could have baptized Joseph Smith if the Spirit of the Lord baptized Adam as recorded in the P. of G.P., Moses 6:64-65. But, in Joseph Smith - History, John the Baptist told Joseph to baptize Oliver, and Oliver to baptize Joseph. However, Joseph was not baptized when he baptized Oliver, so Oliver's baptism was invalid by LDS standards! Then Oliver, immediately baptized Joseph. If Oliver's baptism was invalid by LDS standards, that also made Joseph's invalid because he was baptized by Oliver whose baptism was not valid! Next, Joseph, who was not properly baptized by LDS standards, conferred the Aaronic priesthood on Oliver, who was not properly baptized (LDS would reject that ordination today). Then Oliver, who was improperly baptized and ordained, conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on Joseph who had not been properly baptized. But, John the Baptist had already conferred the Priesthood of Aaron on both Joseph and Oliver before they baptized each other. Since they conferred that same priesthood on each other after they baptized each other, they must have lost the priesthood John gave them when they baptized each other or they did not really get it in the first place! Either way, they had no authority to baptize or ordain each other by LDS standards today! If Joseph and Oliver already had the Aaronic Priesthood after they baptized each other, it would have been useless to ordain each other to that which they already possessed! But, if they did not have the Aaronic Priesthood, they had no authority to baptize each other and therefore every Mormon's baptism is invalid today because it is based upon the authority that Joseph and Oliver supposedly received when they baptized each other!
In P. of G.P. J.S. History 1:70, John the Baptist said, "this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost." But, in v. 73, Joseph said, "no sooner had I baptized Oliver Cowdery, than the Holy Ghost fell upon him - and again, so soon as I had been baptized by him, I also had the spirit of prophecy - We were filled with the Holy Ghost, and rejoiced in the God of our salvation." The gift of the Holy Ghost does not "fall" on LDS today, but comes only through the "laying on of hands" by those with priesthood authority (M.D., p. 438). Since John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb and he had priesthood authority enough to baptize the Lord Himself, why could he not confer the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands as he did the Aaronic priesthood? John the Baptist was not needed to "restore" the church since the only thing he did was ordain Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood and that was done over again without him! Why didn't Joseph baptize himself while he was baptizing Oliver like Alma did when he baptized Helam (B. of M. Mosiah 18:14)? That context says nothing about Alma having the priesthood, but if he had it, he received it before he was baptized! Since Joseph Smith said "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its (the B. of M.) precepts than by any other book" (T. of P.J. S. p. 194; D.H.C. Vol. 4, p. 461), he should have followed Alma's example. But, of course, that is contrary to LDS doctrine today! The origin of LDS priesthood is full of problems, but every LDS male received his "priesthood" from someone who ultimately got it from Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery!
LDS scripture says the three Nephite disciples and the Apostle John would live on earth and bring souls to Jesus until He comes again (B. of M. III Nephi 28; D.& C. 7). There is no evidence that they did that since LDS claim the church was "extinct" from the time of the apostles of Christ until Joseph Smith restored it in 1830 (D.H.C. Vol. I, intro. pp. 39-40). But, LDS claim the three Nephites and the Apostle John had the "priesthood" so they surely could have "restored" the church to earth again, but they did not. LDS claim that the Melchizedek priesthood was restored to earth by Peter, James and John when they conferred it on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 1829. Peter and James had been dead for centuries, but they did as much as John, who according to D. & C. 7 had remained alive since Christ's earthly ministry (P. of G.P. J.S. History 1:72). LDS have no record of John doing anything else on earth until 1829, so he might as well have been dead too! Since the Apostle John and the three Nephites were to remain on earth and "bring souls to Jesus until He comes again," how could a universal apostasy happen when they were still on earth? The LDS teaching of a universal apostasy is discussed further in the chapter on "The Church."
The LDS claim of a universal apostasy and restoration of the church lacks credibility. If someone today claims that all churches (including the LDS) are apostate and that John the Baptist or an apostle of Christ has returned from the dead and given them the authority to restore the one true church, LDS would reject those claims! Yet, LDS expect others to accept their claims even though they have no more evidence to support them then someone making the same claim today! LDS keep volumes of records, but they have no historical records on the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood explaining when and where Peter, James, and John visited Joseph Smith. LDS use D. & C. 27:12, dated August, 1830, as historical evidence (Ensign, June, 1973, p. 5), but Peter, James, and John were not mentioned in this revelation in the original 1833 Book of Commandments (predecessor of the D. & C.). They first appeared in the D. & C. in 1835. Compare the Book of Commandments Chapter 28, with D. & C. 27, and notice that 13 verses have been added to this "revelation." That insertion casts suspicion on the LDS claim of a "restored" priesthood as well as on the reliability of LDS scripture!
David Whitmer, one of the "three witnesses" of the B. of M., said the priesthood and high priests were unknown and not a part of the LDS Church until two years after it began (Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 64). Since LDS use Whitmer's book to prove he never denied his testimony of the B. of M., they can accept both statements or reject both, but they cannot be consistent if they accept one and reject the other. If the priesthood was an invention of Sidney Rigdon two years after Mormonism began, as Whitmer claims, then the LDS Church was not founded with proper priesthood authority, as Mormons claim. But, if Whitmer lied about the priesthood, why should we believe his testimony of the B. of M.? Either way, the LDS have a problem.
The Book of Commandments Chapter 24, dated June, 1830, did not mention high priests or high priesthood. That is now D. & C. 20, in which verses 65-67 have been inserted to include high priests and the high priesthood without any indication of a change from the original revelation. Joseph Smith himself stated that on June 3, 1831, "the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the elders " (D.H.C., Vol. I, pp. 175-176). Apostle George A. Smith also said Ezra Booth, a Methodist minister, was present when the elders first received the high priesthood in June, 1831 (J. of D., Vol. XI, p. 4). That was more than a year after the LDS Church was founded on April 6, 1830! If that is true, the LDS Church was not founded upon the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood as they claim.
LDS claim that Peter, James, and John conferred the high priesthood on Joseph Smith, in 1829, but they quote a message given by Oliver Cowdery in 1848 as their historical source. It says, "I was also present with Joseph when the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by the holy angel on high" (A New Witness for Christ in America, Kirkham, Vol. I, p. 72). The first time Cowdery's message was published was in the Deseret News on April 13, 1859 which was ten and a half years after he gave it! That was also nine years after his death and 30 years after the LDS claim that the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored! The Deseret News claimed that Reuben Miller's Journal was their source for Cowdery's words, but that journal quoted Cowdery as saying, "I was also present with Joseph when the high or Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by 'holy angels' from on high" (BYU Study Series, Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 278; see also D. of S., Vol. III, p. 99). Did Cowdery say "angel" or "angels"? Since he apostatized, is Cowdery's word even reliable? Apostle George A. Smith said that Oliver Cowdery did not know a true revelation from a false one (J. of D., Vol. XI, pp. 2-3). D. & C. 28 was received by Joseph Smith to help Oliver discern true revelations. Times and Seasons, a Mormon paper printed in 1840, says that Cowdery was a liar (Vol. I, pp. 22-23 and 81)! Yet, LDS use his message as evidence for their high priesthood!
LDS often ask others, "Where did you get your authority?" But, in the light of the foregoing information, Christians should ask LDS where they got their authority! All Mormon males over 12 years of age have priesthood certificates showing who ordained them. Thus, they can trace their line of authority back to Joseph Smith, whom they claim got his authority from Peter, James, and John, who got it from Christ. But, Christ's priesthood does not pass from person to person because He lives eternally (Heb. 7:24). Furthermore, Christ claims He has all power or authority in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18) which does not leave much "authority" for any man to claim! Therefore, anyone who claims that he has the priesthood of Christ has been misled. It is easy to boast, "I am a millionaire." But, to prove that you are a millionaire you must have the money! The same is true when LDS claim they have the priesthood or authority to act for God. The lack of Biblical evidence for such priesthood, the confusion in their own records about it and their inability to demonstrate that their priesthood authority even exists and that they have it, all indicate serious problems with their claims.
BIBLICAL PRIESTHOOD
In the Old Testament, Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood was not received by ordination, but it was inherited. Every priest was born an Israelite of the tribe of Levi and as a descendant of Aaron (Num. 3:6-12; D. & C. 107:16). LDS usually claim to be the tribe of Ephraim or Manasseh, which disqualifies them from having the "Aaronic Priesthood." LDS priests have never fulfilled the Old Testament duties of the "priests" or the "high priest" in offering sacrifices (Ex. 29:38-44; Heb. 5:1; 8:3). The Aaronic priesthood cannot be separated from those sacrifices.
But, even if LDS offered those sacrifices today, they would be of no value, because the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood was replaced or superceded by Jesus Christ, the Great Eternal High Priest (Heb. 7:11-17; 10:8-21). While Old Testament Priests functioned as mediators, Christ is now the only Mediator (Priest) between men and God (I Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:24-25; John 14:6). The Aaronic priesthood actually ended at Christ's crucifixion when "the veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom" (Matt. 27:50-51). That veil was 60 feet high and separated the "Holiest of all" from the "sanctuary" (Heb. 9:2-3). By tearing that veil, God symbolically declared that Christ's death gave believers direct access to God. They "enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus - through the veil, that is to say, His flesh" (Heb. 10:19-20). But, some of the priests patched the heavy temple curtain and went on offering sacrifices until 70 AD when the Roman army destroyed both the temple and the city of Jerusalem. They did not know that those sacrifices were only figures (symbols) of Christ's offering of Himself (Heb. 9:1-10:21).
In Old Testament days, there was only one high priest on earth at a time. Once each year He went into the "Holiest of all" to offer blood sacrifice for himself and for the people (Ex. 30:10; Heb. 9:7, 19-22). In the New Testament church, Jesus Christ is both the High Priest and the sacrifice (Heb. 3:1; 9:11-12, 25-26). His body was offered once so there is no more sacrifice for sin (Heb. 7:26-27; 9:11-12, 26; 10:10-14). Because that work is finished (John 19:30), there is no need for a High Priest on earth! Christ, the only mediator and High Priest, is in heaven (I Tim. 2:5; Heb. 8:1-6).
The book of Hebrews repeatedly declares that Jesus Christ is the only High Priest after the order (manner) of Melchizedek (Heb. 3:1; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21, 24, 26; 8:1; 9:11). His "Melchizedek Priesthood" is "unchangeable" (literally "untransferable" or it "passeth not from one to another," Heb. 7:24). He did not get it from anyone nor give it to anyone. Because He lives forever (Heb. 7:25), He is consecrated for evermore (Heb. 7:28) as the Christian's only High Priest after the manner of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:15-17). Since Jesus Christ lives forever as our High Priest, there is no need for other high priests!
Thus, LDS Priesthood claims contradict the Bible at several points: 1) there were "high priests" under the Old Testament Law, but nowhere does the Bible say that they held the Melchizedek Priesthood; 2) Priests cannot be separated from "sacrifice for sins" Heb. 5:1 declares. But, LDS high priests offer no sacrifice for sins. At least twice, two contemporary men were called high priests (I Chron. 15:11; Luke 3:2), but only one was the legal high priest; 3) Priests had to be descendants of Aaron (Num. 20:28; 25:10-13). LDS "high priests" are not descendants of Aaron, so they cannot legally claim to have the same office as the Old Testament high priest; 4) There was only one legal high priest at a time; 5) Today Jesus Christ is the only High Priest Christians will ever need because He lives forever (Heb. &:24), but multitudes of LDS men claim they are high priests, too. When Heb. 7:27-28 mentions "high priests" it refers to the fact that as one high priest died, he was replaced by another one (Num. 20:28; Heb. 7:23). The "high priest" in the New Testament was a part of Judaism, and he sought to kill Jesus (Matt. 26:57-66) and he persecuted Christians (Acts 9:1-2). But, there never was an office called "high priest" in the New Testament church. If LDS claim to have high priests like those mentioned in the New Testament, they identify themselves with the persecutors of Christ and Christians!
LDS teach that Joseph Smith had to have the priesthood before he could establish the Church. But the Bible says nothing about apostles, bishops, deacons, or any other New Testament office holding either the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood. Why did Joseph Smith need it if Mormonism is a restoration of the New Testament church? The Bible does not teach that the church or priesthood will be lost or restored. The B. of M. is also silent about the Aaronic Priesthood, and the Melchizedek Priesthood is mentioned only once, when it refers directly to Melchizedek. If the B. of M. is the "the fulness" of the everlasting gospel (D. & C. 20:9; 27:5; 42:12; and P. of G.P. J.S. History 1:34), and it does not even mention priesthood in the church, why does the LDS Church teach that it so important? The B. of M. does mention high priests, but it does not say that they held the Melchizedek Priesthood. Nor does it say that those who baptized had the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood. LDS assume B. of M. people had the priesthood since they teach that it is so important today, but "Priestcraft" is forbidden in the B. of M. (II Nephi 26:29).
Acts 6:7 does say that "a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." But, these were converts from Judaism to Christianity, and they never functioned as "priests" in the church! LDS claim that when Jesus was no longer on earth in person to guide His church, He left His apostles in charge of it. But, Col. 1:18 declares that "He (Christ) is (now) the head of the body the church," even though He is in heaven! Jesus said, "All power (authority) is given unto me in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28:18). If Jesus has it all, men do not have any!
All Christians are a "Kingdom of priests (Rev. 1:6) and possess a "holy" or "royal" priesthood mentioned in I Peter 2:5 and 9, which is neither Aaronic nor Melchizedek. Nor did it ever exclude the Negroid race like the LDS did until 1978. Nor does it exclude, women or children, like the LDS still do (Gal. 3:28; Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; 10:12; Eph. 6:9). Even the B. of M., in II Nephi 26:33 and Jacob 2:21, declares that God sees all men alike whether they are black or white, male or female, bond or free. If God sees all alike, why have LDS treated them differently? LDS scripture contradicts their history of excluding blacks, women, and children from their priesthood!
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/mclaims6.htm#ORIGIN%20OF%20LDS%20PRIESTHOOD
X2
You know, I don’t have a problem with you posting this stuff, cause I doubt anyone reads it. But I am curious if I posted Luther’s small catechism, how that would go over.
Besides, no matter how many reams of material you post, it still comes down to buried golden tablets and peepstones in a hat.
Pray tell which quote from the text of the article (assuming you actually read it, of course) do you feel is cult spam?
Tertullian, Eusebius, Iraneus, Ignatius, Theopholis, Origen, CLement of Alexandria etc.
The point fo the article is to show where Mormon doctrine conforms to early post apostolic Christian teachings. (Thus lending wieght to the claim that it actually is a Restorationist Christian church as it claims) If you have a problem you'll have to specify which Doctrine you disagree with and why. Also please specify why we should trust your opinion over the aforementioned Christian Fathers on said subject.
Interesting as modern "orthodox" Christians do not agree on this matter. For example many hold that women and homosexuals should not or cannot hold the priesthood. Debate over the matter led to the recent rift in the Anglican church.
Riddle me this. Why is the Melchizedek Priesthood referred to as an "order" in the Bible if it includes only one person? As all references to the Aaronic Priesthood as an order clearly included many men.
From Smith's (the "non-Mormon" English Theologian) Bible dictionary. http://www.bible-history.com/smiths/M/Melchizedek/
Melchizedek (king of righteousness), king of Salem and priest of the most high God, who met Abram in the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's valley, bought out bread and wine, blessed him, and received tithes from him. Ge 14:18-20 The other places in which Melchizedek is mentioned are Ps 110:4 where Messiah is described as a priest forever, "after the order of Melchizedek," and Heb 5:1 ..., 6:1 ..., 7:1 ... where these two passages of the Old Testament are quoted, and the typical relation of Melchizedek to our Lord is stated at great length. There is something surprising and mysterious in the first appearance of Melchizedek, and in the subsequent reference to him. Bearing a title which Jews in after ages would recognize as designating their own sovereign, bearing gifts which recall to Christians the Lord's Supper, this Canaanite crosses for a moment the path of Abram, and is unhesitatingly recognized as a person of higher spiritual rank than the friend of God. Disappearing as suddenly as he came, he is lost to the sacred writings for a thousand years. Jewish tradition pronounces Melchizedek to be a survivor of the deluge, the patriarch Shem. The way in which he is mentioned in Genesis would rather lead to the inference that Melchizedek was of one blood with the children of Ham, among whom he lived, chief (like the king od Sodom) of a settled Canaanitish tribe. The "order of Melchizedek," in Ps 110:4 is explained to mean "manner" = likeness in official dignity = a king and priest. The relation between Melchizedek and Christ as type and antitype is made in the Epistle to the Hebrews to consist in the following particulars: Each was a priest, (1) not of the Levitical tribe; (2) superior to Abraham; (3) whose beginning and end are unknown; (4) who is not only a priest, but also a king of righteousness and peace. A fruitful source of discussion has been found in the site of Salem. [SALEM]
Bibliography Information Smith, William, Dr "Definition for 'Melchizedek' Smiths Bible Dictionary". bible-history.com - Smiths; 1901.
You ignore the context of the passage, that of all believers in the spiritual realm, not the earthly. In the earthly realm sin enters in. Not unlike the split that has FLDS following Smith's teachings more rigorously than the more liberal LDS interpretations in requiring polygamy for priesthood. 1. usage in the OT Ps 110:4 - more common usage is manner, mode or reason. Thus a more rigorous translation would be a 'priest after the manner of Melchazadek'
2. Greek here is 'taxis' the context of the passages in Hebrews is in line with the definition of the 'post, rank, or position which one holds in civic or other affairs' because the whole phrase is "kata taxis melchisedek" (Thayer Lexicon) thus following the 'manner' of the hebrew text.
You clearly overlooked these comments in your citation:
The "order of Melchizedek," in Ps 110:4 is explained to mean "manner" = likeness in official dignity = a king and priest. The relation between Melchizedek and Christ as type and antitype is made in the Epistle to the Hebrews to consist in the following particulars: Each was a priest, (1) not of the Levitical tribe; (2) superior to Abraham; (3) whose beginning and end are unknown; (4) who is not only a priest, but also a king of righteousness and peace. A fruitful source of discussion has been found in the site of Salem. [SALEM]
You should really READ Christian citations prior to citing them since when read, they do not support mormon theology or positions - particularly on this subject. In the citation it relates on a 1:1 basis Melchizedek to Christ. The descriptions here do not match mormon Melchizedek structure.
++++++++++++++++++
And who is colorcounty, just another ex church member trying to justify leaving the Church.
Thanks for posting that. Now people have a starting point to study out both sides.
That is right. You and I have no more LDS "official" authority than Barry Bickmore. He's just another lame guy trying to come up with excuses. Show me what your prophets have to say concerning this issue, then I might listen (at least if they all agree)
++++++++++++++++++
Fantastic, I think the antis that disagree with you about who and what God is will pick on you for a while.
Some of the anti posters here spend a good deal of time posting against anyone who's beliefs disagrees with there's.
“You shall fear and love God.....”
:)
Strongs Greek Dictionary lists Taxis as an "order" among the definitions as well. So in choosing just one of many possible defintions you are just cherry picking the definiton that already lines up with your previously decided interpretation of the passage. taxiV -taxis -tax'-is = order.
The Lord could just as easily have said a Priest after the manner of Aaron. But he didn't according to Hebrews.
As the Bible text itself states
Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
The reference to "order of Aaron" is clearly to an "order" of the Priesthood as is it plainly understood. But you want us to believe that the same word (when used 9 words sooner) has an entirely different meaning. And to do so you have deliberately left out the fact that a common translation of taxis includes "order" as is commonly understood.
The reference to Aaron as an order nullifies your argument. Even if the interpretation of taxis is only "manner" (which it is not) it is clear that "manner" can refer to a group of priests as it (Taxis) refers to the Priesthood of Aaron as well.
However, the citation in Psalms is in Hebrew, there for that is where the fundamental understanding of the passages must be established in. I never denied 'order' was a possible definition, I pointed out that based upon the context (and cited reference btw), it is translated 'order' only once in the KJV (cause 1, order 1, estate 1, end 1, regard 1 ). Gesenius' Lexicon indicates the following:
1. ('thing, ie') manner, mode ; Ps 110:4, " thou are a priest for ever (`owlam )(long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world) according to the manner fo Melchisedec.
2) Cause, reason, Hence 'on account of' (Ecc 3:18, 8:2) , 'to the end that' 7:14
3) cause, in a forensic sense Job 5:8.
So it is clear that although the KJV translates it ‘order’ is not the sense you are trying to apply it to.
Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Again, you must go back to the context of the greek for the word "order" and not commit the logical fallacy of superimposing a 20th century definition on a first century word and use. The use of 'order' in the fashion you are implying. Since you cite Strongs, here is what else strongs says regarding the passages in Hebrews:
of the Divinely appointed character or nature of a priesthood, of Melchizedek, as foreshadowing that of Christ, Hbr 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:11 (where also the character of the Aaronic priesthood is set in contrast); 7:17 (in some mss., ver. 21).
Notice that 'order' in the context of both the Hebrew and greek context does not support your arguement that there ever was an 'order' in the religious sense, but that it was a reference to the manner (character or nature) of Melchizedek. Within that contrast, your order of Aaron arguement fails too. Once again the charcter of the Aaronic priesthood is set in contrast.
You obviously have missed the basic point made with the text of Hebrews. Even if we accepted that order is meant only and solely as "manner", (which is not agreed upon see Strong's previous citation), manner clearly could refer to a group of priests as it is used to refer to the priests of Aaron. IOW, you are using your own interpretation of what "manner" means to nullify it as a reference to a group of priests but this contradicts the usage of it in Hebrews to do just that with the group of the priests of Aaron. Your basic logic contradicts the text of the Bible itself as it's usage clearly can refer to a group of priests.
IOW, your basic argument comes down to what the meaning of "is" is. You want us to believe that order (manner) refers to just one person then want to ignore that 9 words later the exact same word clearly refers to a group of men in the order of Aaron. Unless you are also now claiming that there was no group of Levitical priests. manner cleary references a group of priests. There was an actual order (or even if we accept your definition, rank, heirachry, manner etc.) the Bible clearly references the group of Levital priests and hence can refer to plural.
A simple reading shows that manner can refer to a group of priests as it does with the priest"s" (plural) of Aaron. Hebrews vs. 11 refers to the the Levitical priesthood as an order and vs. 21 refers to those priets (plural). 21 For those priests
Incorrect, I am viewing the translation within the CONTEXT that the word sits. If you read my post you would have seen this:
Notice that 'order' in the context of both the Hebrew and greek context does not support your argument that there ever was an 'order' in the religious sense, but that it was a reference to the manner (character or nature) of Melchizedek
The author of Hebrews was comparing and contrasting the law (represented by the Aaronic Priesthood) and the King-Priest represented by Melchizedek. Expanding the context here:
Hebrews 7:11-17:
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.
Note contrast is law v. post law (Christ). Note too the use of similitude in association with Melchisedec. Thus the compare and contrast here is not about a religious order(s), but the OT law versus the new covenant in Christ.
In Hebrews, the salient point made concerning Jesus' priesthood in the order of Melchizedek was that it was on the power of an indestructible life (Heb. 7:16). The fact that men who occupied the Levitical priesthood could not continue because of death was noted as a short-coming. They could pray for Israel, but their prayers were cut short by death. Jesus, as noted above, lives forever to offer intercession for His own.
IOW, your basic argument comes down to what the meaning of "is" is. You want us to believe that order (manner) refers to just one person then want to ignore that 9 words later the exact same word clearly refers to a group of men in the order of Aaron. Unless you are also now claiming that there was no group of Levitical priests. manner cleary references a group of priests. There was an actual order (or even if we accept your definition, rank, heirachry, manner etc.) the Bible clearly references the group of Levital priests and hence can refer to plural.
This has been addressed above. The context is not the religious ‘order’ as you are trying to ascribe, but kind or nature of the position. Thus the one playing ‘is’ is is you. (say that three times fast).
A simple reading shows that manner can refer to a group of priests as it does with the priest"s" (plural) of Aaron. Hebrews vs. 11 refers to the the Levitical priesthood as an order and vs. 21 refers to those priets (plural). 21 For those priests
Again, the context is overall comparing and contrasting the law – represented by the levitical priesthood and the fulfillment of the law by Christ. From 7:11 The simple fact that God describes a priest . . . according to the order of Melchizedek shows there is something lacking in the priesthood according to the order of Aaron.
Under it the people received the law: The Levitical priesthood is the priesthood associated with the Law of Moses. The priesthood of Melchizedek is associated with Abraham, not with Moses. Thus it is not the religious order in question here but the representation of the Law.
The Aaronic priesthood was done away at the crucifixion of Christ, since He has become our permanent high priest. There is no more need for Levitical priests to offer imperfect sacrifices on behalf of the people in the temple. Jesus alone is worthy to hold the Melchizedek priesthood. I highly recommend working through the following as MHCC explains the greater context better than I:
Hbr 7:11-28
Observe the necessity there was of raising up another priest, after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron, by whom that perfection should come which could not come by the Levitical priesthood, which therefore must be changed, and the whole economy with it, v. 11, 12, etc. Here,
I. It is asserted that perfection could not come by the Levitical priesthood and the law. They could not put those who came to them into the perfect enjoyment of the good things they pointed out to them; they could only show them the way.
II. That therefore another priest must be raised up, after the order of Melchisedec, by whom, and his law of faith, perfection might come to all who obey him; and, blessed be God, that we may have perfect holiness and perfect happiness by Christ in the covenant of grace, according to the gospel, for we are complete in him.
III. It is asserted that the priesthood being changed there must of necessity be a change of the law; there being so near a relation between the priesthood and the law, the dispensation could not be the same under another priesthood; a new priesthood must be under a new regulation, managed in another way, and by rules proper to its nature and order.
IV. It is not only asserted, but proved, that the priesthood and law are changed, v. 13, 14. The priesthood and law by which perfection could not come are abolished, and a priest has arisen, and a dispensation is now set up, by which true believers may be made perfect. Now that there is such a change is obvious.
1. There is a change in the tribe of which the priesthood comes. Before, it was the tribe of Levi; but our great high priest sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning the priesthood, v. 14. This change of the family shows a real change of the law of the priesthood.
2. There is a change in the form and order of making the priests. Before, in the Levitical priesthood, they were made after the law of a carnal commandment; but our great high priest was made after the power of an endless life. The former law appointed that the office should descend, upon the death of the father, to his eldest son, according to the order of carnal or natural generation; for none of the high priests under the law were without father or mother, or without descent: they had not life and immortality in themselves. They had both beginning of days and end of life; and so the carnal commandment, or law of primogeniture, directed their succession, as it did in matters of civil right and inheritance. But the law by which Christ was constituted a priest, after the order of Melchisedec, was the power of an endless life. The life and immortality which he had in himself were his right and title to the priesthood, not his descent from former priests. This makes a great difference in the priesthood, and in the economy too, and gives the preference infinitely to Christ and the gospel. The very law which constituted the Levitical priesthood supposed the priests to be weak, frail, dying, creatures, not able to preserve their own natural lives, but who must be content and glad to survive in their posterity after the flesh; much less could they, by any power or authority they had, convey spiritual life and blessedness to those who came to them. But the high priest of our profession holds his office by that innate power of endless life which he has in himself, not only to preserve himself alive, but to communicate spiritual and eternal life to all those who duly rely upon his sacrifice and intercession. Some thing the law of the carnal commandment refers to the external rites of consecration, and the carnal offerings that were made; but the power of an endless life to the spiritual living sacrifices proper to the gospel, and the spiritual and eternal privileges purchased by Christ, who was consecrated by the eternal Spirit of life that he received without measure.
3. There is a change in the efficacy of the priesthood. The former was weak and unprofitable, made nothing perfect; the latter brought in a better hope, by which we draw near to God, v. 18, 19. The Levitical priesthood brought nothing to perfection: it could not justify men’s persons from guilt; it could not sanctify them from inward pollution; it could not cleanse the consciences of the worshippers from dead works; all it could do was to lead them to the antitype. But the priesthood of Christ carries in it, and brings along with it, a better hope; it shows us the true foundation of all the hope we have towards God for pardon and salvation; it more clearly discovers the great objects of our hope; and so it tends to work in us a more strong and lively hope of acceptance with God. By this hope we are encouraged to draw nigh unto God, to enter into a covenant-union with him, to live a life of converse and communion with him. We may now draw near with a true heart, and with the full assurance of faith, having our minds sprinkled from an evil conscience. The former priesthood rather kept men at a distance, and under a spirit of bondage.
4. There is a change in God’s way of acting in this priesthood. He has taken an oath to Christ, which he never did to any of the order of Aaron. God never gave them any such assurance of their continuance, never engaged himself by oath or promise that theirs should be an everlasting priesthood, and therefore gave them no reason to expect the perpetuity of it, but rather to look upon it as a temporary law. But Christ was made a priest with the oath of God: The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, v. 21. Here God has upon oath declared the immutability, excellency, efficacy, and eternity, of the priesthood of Christ.
5. There is a change in that covenant of which the priesthood was a security and the priest a surety; that is, a change in the dispensation of that covenant. The gospel dispensation is more full, free, perspicuous, spiritual, and efficacious, than that of the law. Christ is in this gospel covenant a surety for us to God and for God to us, to see that the articles be performed on both parts He, as surety, has united the divine and human nature together in his own person, and therein given assurance of reconciliation; and he has, as surety, united God and man together in the bond of the everlasting covenant. He pleads with men to keep their covenant with god, and he pleads with God that he will fulfil his promises to men, which he is always ready to do in a way suitable to his majesty and glory, that is, through a Mediator.
6. There is a remarkable change in the number of the priests under these different orders. In that of Aaron there was a multitude of priests, of high priests, not at once, but successively; but in this of Christ there is but one and the same. The reason is plain, The Levitical priests were many, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. Their office, how high and honourable soever, could not secure them from dying; and, as one died, another must succeed, and after a while must give place to a third, till the number had become very great. But this our high priest continues for ever, and his priesthood is aparabaton—an unchangeable one, that does not pass from one to another, as the former did; it is always in the same hand. There can be no vacancy in this priesthood, no hour nor moment in which the people are without a priest to negotiate their spiritual concerns in heaven. Such a vacancy might be very dangerous and prejudicial to them; but this is their safety and happiness, that this ever-living high priest is able to save to the utmost—in all times, in all cases, in every juncture—all who come to God by him, v. 25. So that here is a manifest alteration much for the better.
7. There is a remarkable difference in the moral qualifications of the priests. Those who were of the order of Aaron were not only mortal men, but sinful men, who had their sinful as well as natural infirmities; they needed to offer up sacrifices first for their own sins and then for the people. But our high priest, who was consecrated by the word of the oath, needed only to offer up once for the people, never at all for himself; for he has not only an immutable consecration to his office, but an immutable sanctity in his person. He is such a high priest as became us, holy, harmless, and undefiled, etc., v. 26–28. Here observe, (1.) Our case, as sinners, needed a high priest to make satisfaction and intercession for us. (2.) No priest could be suitable or sufficient for our reconciliation to God but one who was perfectly righteous in his own person; he must be righteous in himself, or he could not be a propitiation for our sin, or our advocate with the Father. (3.) The Lord Jesus was exactly such a high priest as we wanted, for he has a personal holiness, absolutely perfect. Observe the description we have of the personal holiness of Christ expressed in various terms, all of which some learned divines consider as relating to his perfect purity. [1.] He is holy, perfectly free from all the habits or principles of sin, not having the least disposition to it in his nature; no sin dwells in him, though it does in the best of Christians, not the least sinful inclination [2.] He is harmless, perfectly free from all actual transgression, has done no violence, nor is there any deceit in his mouth, never did the least wrong to God or man. [3.] He is undefiled, he was never accessory to other men’s sins. It is a difficult thing to keep ourselves pure, so as not to partake in the guilt of other men’s sins, by contributing in some way towards them, or not doing what we ought to prevent them. Christ was undefiled; though he took upon him the guilt of our sins, yet he never involved himself in the fact and fault of them. [4.] He is separate from sinners, not only in his present state (having entered as our high priest into the holiest of all, into which nothing defiled can enter), but in his personal purity: he has no such union with sinners, either natural or federal, as can devolve upon him original sin. This comes upon us by virtue of our natural and federal union with the first Adam, we descending from him in the ordinary way. But Christ was, by his ineffable conception in the virgin, separate from sinners; though he took a true human nature, yet the miraculous way in which it was conceived set him upon a separate footing from all the rest of mankind. [5.] He is made higher than the heavens. Most expositors understand this concerning his state of exaltation in heaven, at the right hand of God, to perfect the design of his priesthood. But Dr. Goodwin thinks this may be very justly referred to the personal holiness of Christ, which is greater and more perfect than the holiness of the hosts of heaven, that is, the holy angels themselves, who, though they are free from sin, yet are not in themselves free from all possibility of sinning. And therefore we read, God putteth no trust in his holy ones, and he chargeth his angels with folly (Job 4:18), that is, with weakness and peccability. They may be angels one hour and devils another, as many of them were; and that the holy angels shall not now fall does not proceed from an indefectibility of nature, but from the election of God; they are elect angels. It is very probable that this explanation of the words, made higher than the heavens, may be thought too much strained, and that it ought to be understood of the dignity of Christ’s state, and not the perfect holiness of his person; and the rather because it is said he was made higher genomenos; but it is well known that this word is used in a neutral sense, as where it is said, genestheµ ho Theos aleµtheµs—Let God be true. The other characters in the verse plainly belong to the personal perfection of Christ in holiness, as opposed to the sinful infirmities of the Levitical priests; and it seems congruous to think this must do so too, if it may be fairly taken in such a sense; and it appears yet more probable, since the validity and prevalency of Christ’s priesthood in v. 27 are placed in the impartiality and disinterestedness of it. He needed not to offer up for himself: it was a disinterested mediation; he mediated for that mercy for others which he did not need for himself; had he needed it himself, he had been a party, and could not have been a Mediator—a criminal, and could not have been an advocate for sinners. Now, to render his mediation the more impartial and disinterested, it seems requisite not only that he had no present need of that favour for himself which he mediated for in behalf of others, but that he never could stand in need of it. Though he needed it not to-day, yet if he knew he might be in such circumstances as to need it to-morrow, or at any future time, he must have been thought to have had some eye upon his own interest, and therefore could not act with impartial regard and pure zeal for the honour of God on one hand, and tender pure compassion for poor sinners on the other. I pretend not here to follow the notes of our late excellent expositor, into whose labours we have entered, but have taken the liberty to vindicate this notion of the learned Dr. Goodwin from the exceptions that I know have been made to it; and I have the rather done it because, if it will hold good, it gives us further evidence how necessary it was that the Mediator should be God, since no mere creature is of himself possessed of that impeccability which will set him above all possible need of favour and mercy for himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.