Jump to content

Archived

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

PacMan

Biblical Authority

Recommended Posts

Bill,

You wrote:

The following examples from the New Testament show how the earliest Christians used laying on hands for three purposes--blessing/healing, giving Holy Ghost, and ordination to an assignment.

Blessing and Healing

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

You wrote:

And how do you know that Moses wasn't ordaining Joshua as both leader of Israel and a priest (or royal high priest)? After all, Philo said Moses was a king, lawgiver, high priest and prophet (Philo, Life of Moses II.292).

Joshua, originally named Hoshea, was of the tribe of Ephraim, not Levi (Num. 13:8, 16). Priests had to be of the tribe of Levi.

Was that short and simple enough for you to handle?

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

You asked:

Oh, and while we are on the topic of authority. Rob, where do you claim to get yours?

Jesus Christ.

Hopefully, that wasn't too convoluted an answer for you.

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

You asked:

Jesus Christ.

Hopefully, that wasn't too convoluted an answer for you.

And just how did He give you authority?

Share this post


Link to post

Bill,

You wrote:

The following examples from the New Testament show how Christ used spitting for healing people:

  • Christ spits and touches the tongue of a deaf and nearly mute man, after laying hands on him, to heal him (Mark 7:32-33)
  • Christ spits on the eyes of a blind man and lays hands on him to heal him (Mark 8:23, 25)
  • Christ spits on the ground and uses the muddy spittle to heal a blind man's eyes (John 9:6)

Obviously, the true church will do likewise. ;)

Well it is scientifically proven that Saliva heals.

(The Netherlands)

Share this post


Link to post

LDS nomenclature for Apostles

As a side note, in the LDS system of Priesthood, an Apostle has five coexisting titles.

These are

Apostle

Elder

Prophet

Seer

Revelator

So when passages in Acts of the Apostles mention Apostles and Elders who are these guys by LDS nomenclature?

And when NT passages mention Prophets and Teachers

Share this post


Link to post

Joshua, originally named Hoshea, was of the tribe of Ephraim, not Levi (Num. 13:8, 16).

And Ephraim received the birthright blessing.

Priests had to be of the tribe of Levi.

Please show where members of the other tribes are precluded from this (or the higher priesthood).

Just because the tribe of Levi were entitled to this priesthood doesn't mean that others were precluded from this or other, higher priesthood.

So basically, it is still possible that Moses did give Joshua priesthood authority.

Was that short and simple enough for you to handle?

Well, you could have provided more scripture to support your bald assertions, IF there were any.

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

Jesus had authority

Matthew 7:29

For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Yet he didn't have the Levitical Priesthood.

Heb 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?

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

13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

So there must be a Higher Priesthood "order" full of "Priests" that Mr Bowman is missing.

Remember also that the "lower priesthood" was ADDED to what already existed.

Galatians 3:24

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

...

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Notice the "hand of a mediator"? Hmmm... reminds me of "laying on of Hands of the Presbyter."

Share this post


Link to post

PacMan,

Thanks for your response. Your comments are shown as block quotations. I had written:

When Hebrews was written, the high priest was officiating still under the old covenant,

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

He sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in me.

And just how did He give you authority?

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

He sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in me.

Is there a scripture some were in the bible that says that the indwelling of the HS is the authority to act in the name of God?

I am glad to know your belief on the issue either way though.

Share this post


Link to post

Elf,

The relevance of your comments about saliva to my response to Bill escapes me.

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

First things first. You need to provide some support for your supposition that Joshua was being ordained as a priest.

And Ephraim received the birthright blessing.

Please show where members of the other tribes are precluded from this (or the higher priesthood).

Just because the tribe of Levi were entitled to this priesthood doesn't mean that others were precluded from this or other, higher priesthood.

So basically, it is still possible that Moses did give Joshua priesthood authority.

Well, you could have provided more scripture to support your bald assertions, IF there were any.

Share this post


Link to post

Mola,

You asked:

Is there a scripture some were in the bible that says that the indwelling of the HS is the authority to act in the name of God?

1 Corinthians 12 teaches that the Spirit who indwells believers in Christ also gives them gifts, among which are gifts of teaching. So if someone has the Spirit dwelling in him and is given the gift of teaching, he has "authority" to exercise that gift.

Share this post


Link to post

If you just keep reading from chapter 5 through chapters 7 and 8, it becomes clear that the earthly high priests had been displaced in God

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

He sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in me.

That, IF it were true, isn't the same as receiving authority. Of course if you really had authority you would know that.

Share this post


Link to post

Even Paul mentioned his own "priestly service".

(ESB) Rom 15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

(NASB) to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

(ISV) to be a minister of the Messiah Jesus to the gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering brought by gentiles may acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

(GWT) to be a servant of Christ Jesus to people who are not Jewish. I serve as a priest by spreading the Good News of God. I do this in order that I might bring the nations to God as an acceptable offering, made holy by the Holy Spirit.

(YLT) for my being a servant of Jesus Christ to the nations, acting as priest in the good news of God, that the offering up of the nations may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

WHAT?! Paul was a "priest" and he wasn't even a Levite!

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Oh the tangled webs we weave!

Share this post


Link to post

That, IF it were true, isn't the same as receiving authority. Of course if you really had authority you would know that.

If being "filled with the Holy Ghost" had anything whatsoever to do with ones Authority... I'd like Rob to explain why the Apostles where teaching and casting out demons prior to the day of Pentecost when they received the Holy Ghost?

John 7:39

(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Luke 9:1

Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

I wrote: "If you just keep reading from chapter 5 through chapters 7 and 8, it becomes clear that the earthly high priests had been displaced in God

Share this post


Link to post

The following examples from the New Testament show how Christ used spitting for healing people:

  • Christ spits and touches the tongue of a deaf and nearly mute man, after laying hands on him, to heal him (Mark 7:32-33)
  • Christ spits on the eyes of a blind man and lays hands on him to heal him (Mark 8:23, 25)
  • Christ spits on the ground and uses the muddy spittle to heal a blind man's eyes (John 9:6)

Obviously, the true church will do likewise. :P

I suspect that Christ, as the Living Water, was using his "water" to purify/bless. I suspect it is a parallel of using oil to anoint in healing.

At any rate, your point is rather weak. The fact that Christ did some unique things (using spittle to heal), but both Christ and early Christians did other shared ritual things (laying on hands), doesn't demonstrate that there is nothing we should do as a ritual. It demonstrates that not everything needs to be a ritual.

Is your objection that we should not lay hands on for blessing? Or that we don't need to? (Of course, LDS also pray for blessings without laying on of hands, right?)

Another interesting issue is that no one in the NT is described as baptizing himself. If Christians can act based on the Holy Spirit alone, why, in the NT, do they never baptize themselves? (By the way, some contemporary Christians do--I've seen it at Yardenit in Israel.) Clearly there is minimally a ritual involved in baptism. Right?

Share this post


Link to post

Again, Hebrews 5-8 teaches that instead of an earthly high priest who has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, and whose sacrifices never really took away sins, we now have a heavenly high priest, Jesus Christ, who offered himself as the perfect, spotless sacrifice that takes away sins once for all. The entire line of argument is that Christ "displaces" the earthly high priests, just as Christ displaces their animal sacrifices.

Does Christ displace the other earthly "high priests" who are making "spiritual sacrifices"?

1 Peter 2:5

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post

John 20:22 says nothing about laying on of hands. But perhaps the LDS Church should institute breathing on people as part of its rite for imparting the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Of the six passages in Acts in which someone receives the Holy Spirit, only two mention laying on of hands. From this evidence, you infer that laying on of hands is necessary for someone to receive the Holy Spirit (or at least to receive the Holy Spirit in a particular sense). That simply does not follow from the evidence.

As for Simon Magus's attempt to buy the power to give the Holy Spirit, yes, he clearly thought this was a power associated directly with the physical act of laying hands on someone. That's what we would expect a magician to think! What is shocking is that you think this magical view of the matter is correct.

Of course, it doesn't say Jesus didn't lay his hands on them, did it? What it does say, however, is that Jesus preformed a ritual act to give the Holy Ghost. It didn't just spontaneously come. It didn't come because Jesus told it to. It came in association with a ritual act. Jesus' "breath," by the way, is the divine Spirit/Pneuma/Ru'ach, right? Jesus can uniquely breathe the breath/spirit/pnuema/ru'ach of God. (Also, note that speaking is breathing; it is impossible to speak without breath.)

The fact that Acts does not expressing mention the laying on of hands does not mean it was not done. Just as I can say "I drove to Salt Lake" or "I drove my car to Salt Lake." One explicitly say I drove a car, the other that I just drove, but any modern reader would know that both meant driving a car, while a hundred years ago "I drove to Salt Lake" would mean I drove a wagon or carriage. So, it is quite possible that laying on of hands is implied in many cases where it is not explicit. What is clear, however, is that a laying on of hands ritual was performed by early Christians.

The idea that Simon Magus believed the HS was received by laying on of hands is not a uniquely magical belief, since that is exactly what the Christians did. It was, without question, a Christian practice. Guilt by association is a rather feeble tactic.

I note that you ignored this passage:

Acts 19:1

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that Acts does not expressing mention the laying on of hands does not mean it was not done. Just as I can say "I drove to Salt Lake" or "I drove my car to Salt Lake." One explicitly say I drove a car, the other that I just drove, but any modern reader would know that both meant driving a car, while a hundred years ago "I drove to Salt Lake" would mean I drove a wagon or carriage. So, it is quite possible that laying on of hands is implied in many cases where it is not explicit. What is clear, however, is that a laying on of hands ritual was performed by early Christians.

I wonder if after he spit in the dirt if he threw the mud on their eyes. He would have had to touch them with his hands so he DID "lay hands on them".

The obvious implications of this text is that belief in Jesus is not sufficient. A proper baptism in the name of Jesus, and the laying on of hands was also required. This case demonstrates that the fact that it is not always mentioned does not mean it was not the standard Christian practice.

I as Paul am amazed at how much milk these guys don't understand!

Heb 6

1 Therefore aleaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto bperfection; not laying again the foundation of crepentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

I mean these are the "Baby Steps" of the Gospel and "doctrines" and they still cant get it.

Share this post


Link to post

With regard to Acts 6, a question: Are deacons in the LDS Church chosen by the whole congregation, as were the deacons in Acts 6:5?

Concerning Acts 13:2-3, you forgot to mention fasting. May we infer from this passage that leaders must fast before commissioning someone to ministry?

LDS deacons are always chosen by the whole congregation. We call it "sustaining."

Fasting is frequently done by LDS in making commissions to the ministry.

But, your reasoning is still flawed. The fact that there are some things that are optional does not demonstrate that there is nothing that is necessary.

Take marriage, for example. People do all sorts of things in marriages--cakes, receptions, dancing, rings, etc. But the necessary elements are that they are married by someone with civic and/or religious authority to do so. So, the fact that you can demonstrate that some weddings have cakes and others don't have cakes does not demonstrate that a legal wedding doesn't need a license and an authorized person to perform the ceremony.

Thus, the fact that every single NT practice described as happening is not necessarily required for an ordination or the reception of the Holy Spirit does not demonstrate that there was no required ritual performed.

It's a fundamental logical fallacy on your part, and I'm not quite sure why you think this is such a profound objection.

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.

×