Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

kingonion

When And How Did Jesus Give The Priesthood To His Apostles?

Recommended Posts

I'm curious about this. When did Christ confir the priesthood upon the apostles by the laying on of hands?

Where can I find scriptures relating to this? Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

Mark 3: 14 might be what you're after (or perhaps John 15: 16)

Share this post


Link to post

I'm curious about this. When did Christ confir the priesthood upon the apostles by the laying on of hands?

Where can I find scriptures relating to this? Thanks!

There are several implicit references, and then you can easily put the pieces together. Hebrew speaks of the method relating to ordination:

Heb 5

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

While the process of Aaron's ordination isn't laid out step by step, Joshua's is (who all would agree received this honor in the appropriate way)--that being the laying on of hands:

Numbers 27:

18

Share this post


Link to post

I'm curious about this. When did Christ confir the priesthood upon the apostles by the laying on of hands?

Where can I find scriptures relating to this? Thanks!

Perhaps he never did --- of the various disciples/apostles, only Jesus' brother James

has a tradition tying his name to priestly office (though John also seems rather a

priesthood-oriented sort of writer).

Could it be that the LDS do not fully grasp the priestly and high priestly functions

as lived out by Jesus? My bet is that they do not understand fully, and that a great

deal of modern "presentism" influences the Mormon views on how things were in

that distant past.

Uncle "who learned long ago the difference between priestcraft and priesthood" Dale

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously the notion of priesthood as understood by LDS is not present in the NT.

Priesthood is a big deal in Mormonism and is explicitly talked about all through Mormon writings.

By contrast, one must scrape through the NT to find something that only vaguely sounds like it could refer to priesthood in a positive LDS sense.

It is inconcievable that an institution like the priesthood as in the Mormon notion of such (melchizedek and Aaronic) should have existed in Jesus's cosmology without him repeatedly and explicitly mentioning it (IMO).

Share this post


Link to post

It is inconcievable that an institution like the priesthood as in the Mormon notion of such (melchizedek and Aaronic) should have existed in Jesus's cosmology without him repeatedly and explicitly mentioning it (IMO).

Probably so. And who knows what everything that Jesus or the Apostles said during those years. I would say that the average LDS missionary journal is probably longer than the entire New Testament. (Though mine is short, some people like to write). If we had all the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles during those decades, the New Testament would probably be 10000 pages long or more.

Share this post


Link to post

Probably so. And who knows what everything that Jesus or the Apostles said during those years. I would say that the average LDS missionary journal is probably longer than the entire New Testament. (Though mine is short, some people like to write). If we had all the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles during those decades, the New Testament would probably be 10000 pages long or more.

Darn those apostles, if any of them had kept a journal and passed it on. Better yet, if Christ had... BUt all these Gospels, written years after the events transpired. *SIGH*

OTOH: This is my excuse for not keeping a journal. Christ didn't and I'm trying to be like Jesus...

-SlackTime

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously the notion of priesthood as understood by LDS is not present in the NT.

Priesthood is a big deal in Mormonism and is explicitly talked about all through Mormon writings.

By contrast, one must scrape through the NT to find something that only vaguely sounds like it could refer to priesthood in a positive LDS sense.

It is inconcievable that an institution like the priesthood as in the Mormon notion of such (melchizedek and Aaronic) should have existed in Jesus's cosmology without him repeatedly and explicitly mentioning it (IMO).

It may be obvious to you that it did not exist in the NT , as such. On the other hand , it is obvious to me that it did.

Share this post


Link to post

Darn those apostles, if any of them had kept a journal and passed it on. Better yet, if Christ had... BUt all these Gospels, written years after the events transpired. *SIGH*

OTOH: This is my excuse for not keeping a journal. Christ didn't and I'm trying to be like Jesus...

-SlackTime

Can you imagine if there where scribes recording all the sermons of Jesus and the Apostles for all those years and it where to be discovered. A First Century version of the Journal of Discourses. I wonder what all the nice juicy doctrines and statements in it.

Share this post


Link to post

Can you imagine if there where scribes recording all the sermons of Jesus and the Apostles for all those years and it where to be discovered. A First Century version of the Journal of Discourses. I wonder what all the nice juicy doctrines and statements in it.

I don't know. But , we'd be spending our whole lives doing nothing but reading them , if as John says :

Jhn 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Unless John was exaggerating a wee bit. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously the notion of priesthood as understood by LDS is not present in the NT.

Priesthood is a big deal in Mormonism and is explicitly talked about all through Mormon writings.

By contrast, one must scrape through the NT to find something that only vaguely sounds like it could refer to priesthood in a positive LDS sense.

It is inconcievable that an institution like the priesthood as in the Mormon notion of such (melchizedek and Aaronic) should have existed in Jesus's cosmology without him repeatedly and explicitly mentioning it (IMO).

Of course if the Church that controlled the Bible with an iron fist for over 1000 years wanted to keep all power to itself, perhaps some changes and deletions could have been made. A word changed here, a sentance deleted there and pretty soon it says what you want it to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Obviously the notion of priesthood as understood by LDS is not present in the NT.

Priesthood is a big deal in Mormonism and is explicitly talked about all through Mormon writings.

By contrast, one must scrape through the NT to find something that only vaguely sounds like it could refer to priesthood in a positive LDS sense.

It is inconcievable that an institution like the priesthood as in the Mormon notion of such (melchizedek and Aaronic) should have existed in Jesus's cosmology without him repeatedly and explicitly mentioning it (IMO).

That's the beauty of Tarski...he's adept at stating the simple and obvious, exaggerating it, adding cynical nothings to the conversation, ignoring previous posts that do entreat the subject, and to end it all in stye-- fires up ignorantium to support hyperbolic and ridiculously arrogant theses.

So, let's scrap...start at Heb 5 and go the rest of the way. But whatever you do, ignore Hebrews 7 completely.

And inconievable[sic]? Why? Because you happen to understand Jesus's "cosmology?" I tell you...if you're talking about Christ's "study of the universe" but have a problem with blatant priesthood references, you're consistencies are tremendously misaligned.

PacMan

Share this post


Link to post

Darn those apostles, if any of them had kept a journal and passed it on. Better yet, if Christ had... BUt all these Gospels, written years after the events transpired. *SIGH*

OTOH: This is my excuse for not keeping a journal. Christ didn't and I'm trying to be like Jesus...

Of course there is always the thousands of followers that lived at the same time or shortly after.

I suppose you think that 2000 years from now there might be no record of the Mormon priesthood.

Of course if the Church that controlled the Bible with an iron fist for over 1000 years wanted to keep all power to itself, perhaps some changes and deletions could have been made. A word changed here, a sentance deleted there and pretty soon it says what you want it to say.

Right! They would add the word priesthood if they wanted to secure power.

Share this post


Link to post

That's the beauty of Tarski...he's adept at stating the simple and obvious, exaggerating it, adding cynical nothings to the conversation, ignoring previous posts that do entreat the subject, and to end it all in stye-- fires up ignorantium to support hyperbolic and ridiculously arrogant theses.

So, let's scrap...start at Heb 5 and go the rest of the way. But whatever you do, ignore Hebrews 7 completely.

And inconievable[sic]? Why? Because you happen to understand Jesus's "cosmology?" I tell you...if you're talking about Christ's "study of the universe" but have a problem with blatant priesthood references, you're consistencies are tremendously misaligned.

PacMan

I don't think old testament verses can be used to argue that Jesus thought much about priesthood authority as we conceive it.

Look, shouldn't there be records of young men being ordained to the priesthood? Is there?

I'm just askin'.

Share this post


Link to post

Tarski,

I don't think old testament verses can be used to argue that Jesus thought much about priesthood authority as we conceive it.

HEBREWS ISN'T IN THE OLD TESTAMENT! Moreover, considering Hebrews 5 (a NT account) brings Aaron into the whole mix, I think it does!

Look, shouldn't there be records of young men being ordained to the priesthood? Is there?

I'm just askin'.

NO! There shouldn't! So if you'd like to explain why you think there should, please...be my guest. This will be fun...

But FYI, there ARE records of ordinations. The Clementine Recognitions explain, for example, that it was Paul that ordained Clement a Bishop, and Peter Ignatius in Antioch. They also explain the order of the Bishop, with priests under him and deacons under them, authorized to help in offering the emblems of the sacrament. There are so many, in fact, that the Catholics have built their claims of legitimacy on the perpetuation of the Priesthood. If you really want to attack the concept of the priesthood as not historical, you are going to find yourself in a world of desperation.

PacMan

Share this post


Link to post
HEBREWS ISN'T IN THE OLD TESTAMENT! Moreover, considering Hebrews 5 (a NT account) brings Aaron into the whole mix, I think it does!

Sorry, of course Hebrews is in the NT. I was just trying to anticipate what I thought was coming.

My bad.

My point is only that Jesus didn't seem to be concerned about the priesthood. You can claim that he was and it was lost to history but then we can claim anything we want that way. Shouldn't we go with whats there?

Tarski,

NO! There shouldn't!

Really? So God is really concerned about keeping records on who has the priesthood now days but he wasn't back then? What happened to "My house is a house of order"?

Share this post


Link to post

Imagine all the little things that got mixed up, misunderstood and misinterpreted by the saints during the time of Joseph Smith. He was around much longer than Christ and so much of what he taught took years to sink into the hearts and minds of the people.

Not only that, but Christ's apostles were even slow to learn. You think they took everything in in 3 years? So much that Peter denied Him and they all went back fishing when He died. I don't think they had much of an understanding of their hearts, let alone the more ritualistic, less spiritual doctrines Christ may have taught.

Share this post


Link to post

Tarski,

Sorry, of course Hebrews is in the NT. I was just trying to anticipate what I thought was coming.

My bad.

No worries.

My point is only that Jesus didn't seem to be concerned about the priesthood. You can claim that he was and it was lost to history but then we can claim anything we want that way. Shouldn't we go with whats there?

Seemed? On what grounds? So Jesus apparently never talked of authority (he did), but Paul his Apostle was pretty darn explicit, and that's not good enough?

Really? So God is really concerned about keeping records on who has the priesthood now days but he wasn't back then? What happened to "My house is a house of order"?

You're joking, right? Please tell me that you are only humorously confounding paradigms, discounting the complete concept of the Apostasy, and leveraging argumentum ad ignoratium.

WHO SAID HE WASN'T CONCERNED ABOUT RECORDS BACK THEN? WHO SAID HE DIDN'T? WHO SAYS IT MATTERS? WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

PacMan

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously the notion of priesthood as understood by LDS is not present in the NT.

Priesthood is a big deal in Mormonism and is explicitly talked about all through Mormon writings.

By contrast, one must scrape through the NT to find something that only vaguely sounds like it could refer to priesthood in a positive LDS sense.

It is inconcievable that an institution like the priesthood as in the Mormon notion of such (melchizedek and Aaronic) should have existed in Jesus's cosmology without him repeatedly and explicitly mentioning it (IMO).

The laying on of hands is mentioned in several places in the New Testament. At least five of these references seem to speak specifically of conferring some type of authority through this process. I am quite certain that this was a method they were taught and didn't make up on their own.

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously the notion of priesthood as understood by LDS is not present in the NT.

Priesthood is a big deal in Mormonism and is explicitly talked about all through Mormon writings.

By contrast, one must scrape through the NT to find something that only vaguely sounds like it could refer to priesthood in a positive LDS sense.

It is inconcievable that an institution like the priesthood as in the Mormon notion of such (melchizedek and Aaronic) should have existed in Jesus's cosmology without him repeatedly and explicitly mentioning it (IMO).

Well, the Johanine writings and the Letters to the Hebrews touch upon the subject --

but the main emphasis appears to be the precept of Jesus being the one great

high priest for his followers.

The notion that the followers had some sort of priesthood "conferred" upon them,

probably cannot be sustained by recourse to biblical scripture.

If you accept latter day scripture, the issue is solved, however.

Uncle "I'm not a great proponent of the latter day work, I must admit" Dale

Share this post


Link to post

UD:

The notion that the followers had some sort of priesthood "conferred" upon them,

probably cannot be sustained by recourse to biblical scripture.

If you accept latter day scripture, the issue is solved, however.

If the critics' point is that there is no place in the NT that says, "The Mormon understanding, definition, and practice is correct," then let me save them all the time: They're right. It doesn't say that. But the real issue is whether we can be objective about what there is. You've mentioned that having the priesthood "conferred" on the followers is likely an unsustainable notion. If that's the case, I need an expalantion that differentiates "confirmation" from "ordination," which IS expressly illustrated in the NT. To confound them is likely a modern paradigm issue.

But on top of that, there is certainly authority in the "keys of the kingdom" promised to Peter, and proof that the other disciples also received the sealing power (and likely with that the keys as well). Judeo-Christian authority was expressed in "priesthood" terms, and IS expressed in "priesthood" terms. So whether or not people want to make the connection between the two terms, "keys to the kingdom" and "Priesthood" (both which are in the NT), that's their perogative. But they're still caught in the quagmire of juxtaposing the two terms.

I respect your point of view...but please juxtapose the two, what they are, how they're not related, etc.

PacMan

Share this post


Link to post

...there is certainly authority in the "keys of the kingdom" promised

to Peter, and proof that the other disciples also received the sealing

power (and likely with that the keys as well). Judeo-Christian authority

was expressed in "priesthood" terms, and IS expressed in "priesthood"

terms. So whether or not people want to make the connection between

the two terms, "keys to the kingdom" and "Priesthood" (both which are

in the NT), that's their perogative. But they're still caught in the quagmire

of juxtaposing the two terms...

Yes -- I follow your logic.

However I am very sceptical of the Petrine promise -- it does not

occur in the parallel pericopies in Mark, Luke and Thomas.

My feeling is that the Matthew episode was largely composed and/or

overwritten by what the Saints sometimes call the G&A Church, and

that it is less reliable than the Markan parallel.

As for "sealing power," my studies of Sidney Rigdon's latter day

theology tell me that he was very, very interested in the precept

of binding things on earth -- so that they would be bound in heaven.

For Rigdon, at least, the teaching was that such power did not fully

apply to "priesthood" until the Political Kingdom of God was set up

and fully functioning.

I think that a close reading of the Greek will show that the "binding"

mentioned in the Greek Bible was something done in heaven and

not performed on earth (as a proxy power given up by heaven).

Any koine scholars here? We need to parse the "binding" text very

carefully to comprehend its probable meaning.

UD

Share this post


Link to post

So because baptism was never directly talked about in the OT we can assume that it never took place? John just started dunking people for the fun of it? What is common place to one people is completely obscure and misunderstood by others.

The direction traffics signs are posted and given the direction of traffic I can safely assume that I should drive a set direction when on a given road as the other cars around me, but there are no signs nor postings telling me explicitly that I must drive in a certain lane a set direction. Its common knowledge, just because it isn't posted everywhere doesn't mean people don't understand what is going on or what to do.

WeĆ¢??re talking about the Hebrew people who had the priesthood for several millennia, it is and was a central part of their religion and culture, When talking about synagogues or temples in the NT the same guidelines apply that were in the OT.

Share this post


Link to post

UD:

However I am very sceptical of the Petrine promise -- it does not occur in the parallel pericopies in Mark, Luke and Thomas.

Ahhh...I see where you're coming from. Sure...that complicates things, and definitley takes the conversation to another, discussing in a non "Biblical inerrant" assumption. But within the context of the NT, I still think juxtaposition is necessary.

I think that a close reading of the Greek will show that the "binding" mentioned in the Greek Bible was something done in heaven and not performed on earth (as a proxy power given up by heaven).

That just doesn't explain, however, the parallel binding on earth and heaven. Clearly, the disciples are doing the binding on earth, and it is matched in heaven. How that happenes is very secondary.

For Rigdon, at least, the teaching was that such power did not fully apply to "priesthood" until the Political Kingdom of God was set up and fully functioning.

Which is fairly correct. It needs be administered by those in authority, which can't really be done without a theocratic hierarchy. What are you trying to get out here (honest quesiton, could be interesting)?

PacMan

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...