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

So because baptism was never directly talked about in the OT we can assume that it never took place? ...

Mormon dispensationalist theology assumes that each of the seven gospel dispensations

was pretty much like another -- thus Father Adam is immersed for the remission of sins,

and is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (see JS and JST Genesis).

I suppose then, that according to LDS doctrine, contemporary baptism practices were

part of the religion of Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, etc.

Modern biblical scholarship traces a development of priestly ritual cleansing into the

late second temple period of Judaism -- with Pharisees mimicking temple priests in

many respects. But even more important, and to the point, the Qumran community's

ritual cleansing appears to have extended to all male members. If not, by the time of

John the Baptizer, that evolution to the laity was complete.

We have two possible ways to look at the topic -- 1. The traditional LDS viewpoint; and

2. the contemporary scholarly consensus.

As in many other matters of controversy, the path you choose to take in investigating

and solving the question, depends upon your faith stance.

With topics such as pre-Christian baptism and post-Jesus priesthood, I choose to

follow the contemporary consensus more often than I do Restoration theologizing.

UD

Share this post


Link to post

Well...hold on. Let's just be assured that the 'Restorationist theologizing' is consistant with the NT on the issue of baptisms. We talked about this in the Peter 3 thread... I believe Peter makes a blatant representation that the flood was most definitley a baptism, by which they were "saved by water..." rather than saved "from" the water. Considering Peter, I don't exactly call it modern...and is something that scholars need to better address (since I am perfectly aware of everything they have ever said).

PacMan

Share this post


Link to post

Well...hold on. Let's just be assured that the 'Restorationist theologizing' is consistant with the NT on the issue of baptisms. We talked about this in the Peter 3 thread... I believe Peter makes a blatant representation that the flood was most definitley a baptism, by which they were "saved by water..." rather than saved "from" the water. Considering Peter, I don't exactly call it modern...and is something that scholars need to better address (since I am perfectly aware of everything they have ever said).

PacMan

hmmmmmm....

I'm fairly convinced that Jewish baptism existed a generation or two before Peter's day;

so I am not arguing with THAT limited aspect of the "antiquity of the gospel."

In Greek, the term translates to "immerse" in English -- so the sentence you refer to

has a meaning controlled by the preposition. However, here we have "saved" rather

than "immersed" --- so if the flood was a total immersion of the earth (which I doubt),

then WHAT was "saved" by such an immersion?

Perhaps the LDS interpretation was that the righteousness and true religion of Noah

were saved by an earthly immersion (which slaughtered everybody else).

If so, it is not a "baptism" that has any meaning to me --- not even as a foreshadowing

symbolism, or some such thing.

Any Latter Day Saint who wishes to believe in the dispensationalist "antiquity of the gospel"

certainly has the right to such beliefs --- but they are out of the mainstream of what we

know of the Judeo-Christian faith (IMHO).

Uncle "RLDS have been backing away from dispensationalism for a century now" Dale

Share this post


Link to post

UD:

In Greek, the term translates to "immerse" in English -- so the sentence you refer to

has a meaning controlled by the preposition. However, here we have "saved" rather

than "immersed" --- so if the flood was a total immersion of the earth (which I doubt),

then WHAT was "saved" by such an immersion?

Their immortal souls. Really...saved from sin, etc. How else could the water itself do the saving since it itself was doing the destructing? And P.S....the Greek is very unhelpful.

Perhaps the LDS interpretation was that the righteousness and true religion of Noah

were saved by an earthly immersion (which slaughtered everybody else).

If so, it is not a "baptism" that has any meaning to me --- not even as a foreshadowing

symbolism, or some such thing.

But it speaks that "few souls" were "saved by the flood." That's the interesting thing about it.

Any Latter Day Saint who wishes to believe in the dispensationalist "antiquity of the gospel"

certainly has the right to such beliefs --- but they are out of the mainstream of what we

know of the Judeo-Christian faith (IMHO).

I don't understand that. I'm not saying that everything is 100% consistent, but even with such inconsistencies I don't see how it's out of the mainstream. Part of the issue is what issues the contemporaries choose to deal with; i.e. baptisms for the dead is often brushed aside with terribly lame explanations...a mainstream concept that is superficially treated out of necessity.

PacMan

Share this post


Link to post

....I'm not saying that everything is 100% consistent...

PacMan

Yeah, I know --

Possibly you are correct in a few of the items you've brought up -- but I doubt it.

Mormons seem content to exist in a separate world of perception and realization,

that need not overlap the scientific or scholarly consensus. Now and then they do

join in and contribute to the greater dialogue -- and when they do so, I am happy

and kinda proud of them. When they do not, they sometimes look a little silly

to me, whether speaking off the tops of their own noggins, or quoting some FARMS

source, or a GA ---- whatever ---- Perhaps I used to be a bit like that myself.

But I can't go back to that comfortable separatism -- probably you know that.

UD

Share this post


Link to post

Possibly you are correct in a few of the items you've brought up -- but I doubt it.

Hehe...thanks for the faith

Mormons seem content to exist in a separate world of perception and realization,

that need not overlap the scientific or scholarly consensus.

Well, let's not make sweeping generalizations...

Let's be sure to recognize that most people of faith fit your description. It has very little to do with Mormons alone. All the same, even these contentments do not mean that because they are naive, they are wrong. I feel comfortable in some of the possibilities that I've brought up, and don't think they're stretching the facts too much. And they're certainly not from GA's or FARMS.

But...at least give FARMS that credit of making steps in addressing the rationale dialog. They've brought a lot into the fray, and I think that's good for not only the apologetics, but conversation as a whole.

But I can't go back to that comfortable separatism -- probably you know that.

Yes you can. You just don't want to. Trust me...the water's fine! :P

80 years from now when all's said and done, and some dead dude in the spirit world introduces himself as PacMan...will you then return the comforts of separatism?

UD

Share this post


Link to post

First set of questions.

Why do you want a priesthood that Jesus Himself did not have? Jesus did not have the Aaronic priesthood. He couldn't. He was not a blood descendant of Aaron. In fact we are told explicitly in the NT that He did NOT have the Aaronic priesthood. I can't look it up right now but it is where they talk about Jesus' genealogy. How many LDS can show for certain that they are a blood descendant of Aaron. God was pretty clear on this in the NT. Why is this priesthood even needed when the Bible speaks so clearly about their being a "Better priesthood?" It became pretty much obsolete with the coming of Jesus. Also one person at a time held this office. Yet how many LDS young boys line up for the receiving of this priesthood?The purpose was mainly to act on behalf of the people once a year to atone for this sins of the people and himself. There was others but this was by far the main one. Since Jesus came once and for all to atone for the sins, why the need?

Second set of questions.

Only two people have held the office of Melchisadech (No I can't spell this word right. Never could.) One was Mel. the other was Jesus. They had two qualities that no one else has or had. They were both priests and kings. This is important no to note about Mel. It was unheard of in Jewish tradition/history that a person could be both a priest AND a king.. Mel was a foreshadowing of Jesus. The keys that Jesus is confering apon Jesus is the keys of knowledge in a sense. It has nothing to do with priesthood. IOW, the rock was the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that Jesus was the key to unlocking the door to heaven. Another way to say this is that the confession and belief that Jesus is Who He says He is, is what allows a person into heaven. It has nothing to do with priesthood. So now Peter is telling people what the key to heaven is. Just like I can tell people what the key to heaven is. PLainly pu, the key to heaven is Jesus. No need for the priesthood for that. Also we are told that Jesus is the great high priest. So we have no need for another. I have heard LDS tell me that Jesus is not here on earth and we need the MPH here on earth to carry out certain things. But sincew Jesus is God, and therefore everywhere, the office of MPH is held securely by Jesus. We don;t need it. And besides we can't have it as none of us are both priests and kings.

I'm just saying....

Share this post


Link to post

Selah,

Your hypothesis are fundementaly incorrect. Let me explain:

1-

Why do you want a priesthood that Jesus Himself did not have? Jesus did not have the Aaronic priesthood. He couldn't.

On the contrary. As a Priest after the order of Mel (kudos to you on the abbrev.), he had all authority and power given under the Priesthood of Aaron--just like to day. He didn't miss a thing.

2-

Only two people have held the office of Melchisadech (No I can't spell this word right. Never could.) One was Mel. the other was Jesus.

On the contrary, the Priesthood of Mel was actually the Priesthood after the order of Enoch, which was actually the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God. There are a number of texts that support this, and actually make an argument for the Priesthood after the order of Noah. Clearly, the early prophets held this most important authority...which was given different names but all the same nonetheless.

PacMan

P.S. Your comments referring to the "priest and king" as being the criteria for this Priesthood is off. In fact, Christ and His Apostles made this abundendtly clear, and the royal generation were to inherit all that Christ had, and to sit with Him in the throne of the Father. Consider:

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

(New Testament | Revelation 1:5 - 6)

So yes...the Priesthood of Mel IS only for such kings and priests, which we can all become. In other words, you've just proven why the Priesthood of Mel is meant for all of us.

Share this post


Link to post

PacMan,

Thanks for the reply. But would you mind giving me a more detailed answer please? What about the lineage refernce to Jesus I made where we are told specifically that Jesus did not have the Aaronic priesthood? What about the absolute necessity of being a blood descendant of Aaron in order to have it today? I'm not being smu here, I promise. But I don't see how your examples tie in to what I am talking about. Besides what would be the point of the Aaronic priesthood. And further how does this relate to the LDS having it today?

Thanks PacMan

Sory PacMan I just noticed that you edited your reply as I was typing mine. Will get back to you.

Share this post


Link to post

PacMan,

Are you a king right NOW? What you seem to be refering to has nothing to do with what you will become but what you are right now. Jesus did not hav the Aaronic priesthood. We have no need for it today. We don't have a need for the MPH since Jesus is alive and well. It was unheard of in ancient Hebrew to be BOTH a priest and a king. Converting Prince Charles in a few years when the Queen has "retired" or died seems to be out only hope of that.

Share this post


Link to post

PacMan,

Thanks for the reply. But would you mind giving me a more detailed answer please? What about the lineage refernce to Jesus I made where we are told specifically that Jesus did not have the Aaronic priesthood? What about the absolute necessity of being a blood descendant of Aaron in order to have it today? I'm not being smu here, I promise. But I don't see how your examples tie in to what I am talking about. Besides what would be the point of the Aaronic priesthood. And further how does this relate to the LDS having it today?

Thanks PacMan

Sory PacMan I just noticed that you edited your reply as I was typing mine. Will get back to you.

1-Do you first understand how many are thus meant to have the Priesthood of Mel? (I edited that part, so you probably missed it)

2-So what if He didn't have the PoA? My claim is that he had all the power, and as a Priest of the order of Mel., he never "received" the priesthood of Aaron because the Priesthood of Mel is superior. It was all inclusive. In fact, Paul talks about this directly:

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?

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

(New Testament | Hebrews 7:11 - 12)

The Levitical Priesthood is a preparatory priesthood--given through lineage--for the higher, grander priesthood: The Priesthood of Mel. Only Levites can, and do hold this Priesthood. The Priesthood of Aaron, however, is differentiated in Hebrew 7, and is the preparatory priesthood for those non-Levites. Note that the answer to "Why didn't Jesus have the Levitical Priesthood" isn't, "Because he wasn't a Levite." The discrepancy is made that he was never called to the order of Aaron (not Levi) because he didn't need it. Interesting that the "obvious" question of lineage was avoided, although the proposal to the "order of Aaron" was treated.

PacMan

Share this post


Link to post

PacMan,

Are you a king right NOW? What you seem to be refering to has nothing to do with what you will become but what you are right now. Jesus did not hav the Aaronic priesthood. We have no need for it today. We don't have a need for the MPH since Jesus is alive and well. It was unheard of in ancient Hebrew to be BOTH a priest and a king. Converting Prince Charles in a few years when the Queen has "retired" or died seems to be out only hope of that.

What I am is irrelevant. I'm not going to be so presumptuous to pass my own judgment. But, John certainly says, "hath made us kings and priests." That is, they WERE both kings and priests.

And again, any authority in the Aaronic Priesthood is also found in the Mel. Priesthood. There's no reason to "downgrade." It'd be purposeless.

Now, you say there's no need for the Aaronic Priesthood. You can believe that if you want, but it's simply inconsistent with scripture. The Levitical Priesthood was preparatory to the Preisthoof of Mel., clearly. The times needed a preparatory priesthood to come unto Christ. But what's to say that everyone is now ready to become a king and priest? Doesn't it make sense that we first become princes and deacons to see if we're faithful?

Again, you can hold to the fallacious banner that none were meant to be priests and kings, but John makes it very, very clear that THEY were made just that. They had the Priesthood of Mel, and if you don't want to accept it, you have to juxtapose what the scriptures DO say. Why do they say that men were made kings and priests, and promised to be co-heirs with Christ in receiving ALL that the Father hath. Inclusive of ALL is the Priesthood of Mel.

PacMan

Share this post


Link to post

...

Only two people have held the office of Melchisadech (No I can't spell this word right. Never could.) One was Mel. the other was Jesus...

I doubt that MelechZadock (my spelling) was a real person, despite his near

worship among the Qumranim. Jesus, on the other hand, I profess to have

been an historical person.

Still, I would partly agree with you on the "only two people" idea -- only I

would substitute an historical Hasmonean priest-king for Salem's "Mel."

But that's rather arcane stuff and probably nobody here will agree with me,

despite the relevant psalm's Maccabbean era dating, etc.

Oh well.....

UD

Share this post


Link to post

UD:

I doubt that MelechZadock (my spelling) was a real person, despite his near

worship among the Qumranim. Jesus, on the other hand, I profess to have

been an historical person.

There are many, many text that mix Enoch, Noah, and Mel up...with similar stories, etc. In that sense, it's difficult to really separate them. But was he fictional? Well, given that he has a definite place in history as the one that received the tithes of Abraham, I think you have a heavy burden to prove it's all contrived. But we know that it was the going belief at the time of the NT.

Now, you're not coming from a biblical inerrancy point of view, so let's get that straight. For anyone that does, they MUST accept Revelations where John makes no slight comment that he and others "had been made kings and priests." Under the argument posed to me above, this is almost certain evidence that they had the Mel. Priesthood (and taking in the Lords promise as co-heirs, it's a shut case). All the same, where the keys of the kingdom were past on, what was this authority called? It didn't have a name? Or, was it not authority?

It was the Priesthood...it's consistent and makes a lot of sense.

PacMan

Share this post


Link to post

...Trust me...the water's fine!...

wwweeeelllllll.....

Get me special dispensation from your First Presidency, accepting

my current Latter Day Saint baptism & confirmation, and we can

talk turkey .... er, membership.

After all, if Heber was ready to accept David Hyrum Smith on his

original baptism, mine should be OK too.

And ---- I promise to shut down my Spalding-Rigdon web-sites;

shave off my beard; get demoted back to deacon, and start wearing

a white shirt and tie.

Sounds like a fair trade to me.

Uncle "Of course archive.org has all my web stuff on file permanently.. heh heh!" Dale

Share this post


Link to post

UD:

Get me special dispensation from your First Presidency, accepting

my current Latter Day Saint baptism & confirmation, and we can

talk turkey .... er, membership.

James did say, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." Ya got it or ya don't.

After all, if Heber was ready to accept David Hyrum Smith on his

original baptism, mine should be OK too.

Never heard about that...pray, tell! But guaranteed, if there's a problem, I'm sure he'll get the work done in the end. The more important question was who ordained him? If it was one with authority that later went the RLDS route, I dareasy the baptism sound effective.

And ---- I promise to shut down my Spalding-Rigdon web-sites;

shave off my beard; get demoted back to deacon, and start wearing

a white shirt and tie.

Oh, don't do that...I'm plagarizing stuff on your site all the time! And...sorry to disappoint, but you'd be promoted straight to a Priest.

And the white shirt and tie are optional...but just for you.

:P

PacMan

Share this post


Link to post

Selah,

Where did you go? I hope you continue the discussion. It's worthwhile for me at least to understand the beliefs of others, and why.

PacMan

Share this post


Link to post

Selah?

You there?

Darn.

Share this post


Link to post

PacMan,

Sorry Shug. I'm still here! I had to be at work today and I don't really use a computer regularly at work so I have to wait until I am home. Besides for some reason, I can't get access to this website when I do have an opportunity to use the computer. But I'm here now. and I will check in regularly throughout the night. Don't forget that I am on EST so I turn into a pumpkin promptly at midnight my time.

OKay so anyway. It says in the NT that we as believers are to receive a ROYAL priesthood. Can we take this back into the greek and find that it is the same thing as the Mel. Priesthood? I don't think so. I believe as o other Protestants, that tis means that we are a special group of people because we are now believers in Christ. The authority that is referred to is Jesus. It has nothing to do with an actual priesthood.. Jesus is the authority by which we enter Heaven. Jesus is the high priest and as such acts as the Intercessor between us and God. Jesus is the set of keys that is being referred to. He alone unlocks the door to Heaven.

I still don't see the connection you are making between the Aaronic priesthood and the Mel. priesthood. I don;t gather from Scripture that the Aaronic is preperatory to the Mel. priesthood. Again only one person at a time hold the Aaronic priesthood. Yet in the LDS church young teenage boys and new converts line up to receive it. It says in the NT that Jesus has an UNCHANGEABLE priesthood. If we take that word and put it back into the Greek we will find (in fancy greek writing of course) the word "aparabatos." This means unchangeable and therefore not liable to pass to a successor. Therefore every time an LDS male lays his hands on another male's head to confer or "pass the priesthood" he is in fact changing it. The fact that even two people have this priesthood would change what it is. It cannot be passed accoording to Scripture (and the Greek) to anybody. Yet again millions of men in the LDS church claim to have this priesthood. If the Mel. priesthood is the higher priesthood, and Jesus is our great high priest then there is no need to have any man on earth posses it since Jesus is alive and well.

I cannot stress enough that Jesus is the authority to perform baptisms etc. It is because I have placed my faith in Him that I have the authority or permission to act in His name.

Share this post


Link to post

Selah,

Don't forget that I am on EST so I turn into a pumpkin promptly at midnight my time.

Me too! 31 minutes left…

OKay so anyway. It says in the NT that we as believers are to receive a ROYAL priesthood. Can we take this back into the greek and find that it is the same thing as the Mel. Priesthood? I don't think so.

Huh? What’s the Greek got to do with it?

I believe as o other Protestants, that tis means that we are a special group of people because we are now believers in Christ. The authority that is referred to is Jesus.

You can believe that, but it’s completely unbiblical. There’s never a time when priesthood is discussed in terms less than authority. And the authority isn’t Jesus…it’s Jesus’s authority.

It has nothing to do with an actual priesthood..

Then why refer to it as a priesthood? Again, this is your interpretation…but it’s not supported biblically.

Jesus is the set of keys that is being referred to. He alone unlocks the door to Heaven.

No he’s not. The keys are his, and He promised them to the disciples in Matthew 16, and gave them by Matthew 18. To say that He promised Himself to the disciples, then gave Himself to them 2 chapter later all before the atonement was effectuated makes absolutely no sense.

I still don't see the connection you are making between the Aaronic priesthood and the Mel. priesthood. I don;t gather from Scripture that the Aaronic is preperatory to the Mel. priesthood.

Well, what else was it then? It was a lesser priesthood, and because the priesthood was changed, the law needed changing also

Again only one person at a time hold the Aaronic priesthood.

Call for references!! Don’t worry…you’re incorrect. Do you think there was only one priest doing all the work? On the contrary…there were many. That was why it was such a big deal for Zechariahs to be in the temple the day he was visited by the angel, because it was likely the one and only time he’d ever be functioning in that service. It was rotated by lot, and such an opportunity was a once in a lifetime privilege and responsibility. Why? Because there were so many waiting for the opportunity to serve as the High Priest and enter the Holy of Holies.

It says in the NT that Jesus has an UNCHANGEABLE priesthood. If we take that word and put it back into the Greek we will find (in fancy greek writing of course) the word "aparabatos." This means unchangeable and therefore not liable to pass to a successor.

Again…huh? The Priesthood of Mel doesn’t change, but what’s that have to do with not getting past on? You’ve already conceded that Mel himself had it…so how was it passed on? You’re contradicting yourself. If it was passed once, it can be passed again. Think of it as fire…not a cookie. Pass the fire, the original flame loses nothing. Not the same with cookies.

Therefore every time an LDS male lays his hands on another male's head to confer or "pass the priesthood" he is in fact changing it. The fact that even two people have this priesthood would change what it is.

Your interpretation is completely unsubstantiated in both scripture and reason. Passing something does not change it. That correlation makes NO logical sense. Whatever you do, DON'T PASS THE SALT!!!

I cannot stress enough that Jesus is the authority to perform baptisms etc. It is because I have placed my faith in Him that I have the authority or permission to act in His name.

Except it’s completely non-biblical! Hebrew 5 maps out the process of receiving this honor, and the honor isn’t Jesus. Jesus is a person, God, our Savior. He is not an intangible authority. He give his authority to man, and that authority since OT times was called the Priesthood. You can believe you have whatever you want…but authority is NOT assumed. It has NEVER been assumed…it is given! And I cannot emphasize enough--unless you've received it like Aaron did, you don’t have it.

PacMan

P.S. So, now that you see that John and others were both Kings and Priests, why can’t you accept they were given the Mel Priesthood? And if we’re promised all that the Father hath, why doesn’t that include the Mel Priesthood?

Share this post


Link to post

...The more important question was who ordained him?..

PacMan

letmeseehere...

David Hyrum Smith was not born until after his Dad was assassinated, so I

think perhaps it was Heber himself who baptized the tyke.

As for who ordained Heber, I have no idea.

Nice to know I can wear Hawaiian shirts to sacrament meeting -- maybe you

Morms are not so bad after all!

d'Unk

Share this post


Link to post

Back to you...Selah!

Share this post


Link to post

Selah...

I PM'd you back. Tell ya what. If your pastors whom are well-educated and equipped on the matter would care to discuss, please invite them to log-on. I'd be happy to engage them. It'd save you the in-between.

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...