Jump to content

Archived

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

Zakuska

Aronic Priesthood done away with at the Time of Christ?

Recommended Posts

I've heard it argued by critics of the LDS church that the necessity for the Aaronic priesthood was done away with at the time of Christ. If that is so then Isaiah is a false prophet.

Here Isaiah is prophecying about the Gospel being taken to the Gentile nations...

Isaiah 66

18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

19 And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.

20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord.

21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord.

So much for Aaronic Priests having to be Levites!?

Share this post


Link to post

Zakuska,

The context of Isaiah 66:21 expresses the future redemptive work of the Lord in thoroughly Zion-centered language. Brethren from all the nations will come to Jerusalem, like Israelites bringing grain offerings to the temple. The language used reflects an ancient cultural context as well as Isaiah's ancient religious context: they will come riding horses, chariots, mules, and camels. One must either take all of this language literally as well as the references to priests and Levites, or one must understand the whole passage to be using such Jerusalem-centered language metaphorically. Picking and choosing is not a sound hermeneutic.

I've heard it argued by critics of the LDS church that the necessity for the Aaronic priesthood was done away with at the time of Christ. If that is so then Isaiah is a false prophet.

Here Isaiah is prophecying about the Gospel being taken to the Gentile nations...

Isaiah 66

18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

19 And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.

20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord.

21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord.

So much for Aaronic Priests having to be Levites!?

Share this post


Link to post

Ah yes... the age tested apologetic... it must be a Metaphor.... thats the ticket!

Was the Gospel merely taken to the Gentiles "Metaphorically" Rob?

Share this post


Link to post

One must either take all of this language literally as well as the references to priests and Levites, or one must understand the whole passage to be using such Jerusalem-centered language metaphorically. Picking and choosing is not a sound hermeneutic.

All or nothing?

Is this verse all literal or is it all metaphorical?

Luke 13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Share this post


Link to post

Zakuska,

It's not an apologetic, it's a hermeneutic. You didn't even try to address the reasons I gave. Of course, the gospel was taken literally to the Gentiles. But in extending the gospel to the Gentiles, the nature of the covenant community changed. I am guided here by the NT's interpretation of the OT, as I'm sure you understand. I take literally what the NT teaches us to take literally. Again, you haven't offered an alternative. Until you offer an alternative interpretation of the whole passage, you're fighting something with nothing.

Ah yes... the age tested apologetic... it must be a Metaphor.... thats the ticket!

Was the Gospel merely taken to the Gentiles "Metaphorically" Rob?

Share this post


Link to post

Zakuska,

It's not an apologetic, it's a hermeneutic. You didn't even try to address the reasons I gave. Of course, the gospel was taken literally to the Gentiles. But in extending the gospel to the Gentiles, the nature of the covenant community changed. I am guided here by the NT's interpretation of the OT, as I'm sure you understand. I take literally what the NT teaches us to take literally. Again, you haven't offered an alternative. Until you offer an alternative interpretation of the whole passage, you're fighting something with nothing.

I say Rob that the Aaronic Priesthood didn't disappear at all. That it's outward manifestation merely changed.

Hebrews 7:12

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

Priests still offer the Shewbread in the form of the Sacrament.

Share this post


Link to post

I am guided here by the NT's interpretation of the OT, as I'm sure you understand. I take literally what the NT teaches us to take literally.

You are guided mostly by your presumptions and assumptions, not by what the NT actually says.

NO where does the NT say that the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood was eliminated. In fact there are indications that the priesthood and its non-animal sacrifice functions continued.

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly Vance....

I always wonder when anti-mormons are going to get it that their "Bible Only" religions are simply "their own" religions, interpretations, etc., not what the Bible actually states. And that includes history. The records both Biblically and otherwise clearly show that the "literal" Priesthood continued both during and even after Christ. Despite the flaws of the Catholic Church, it IS the original deal retaining much of what was originally in the Church Christ established. Any religion that doesn't have at least as a starting point to be "like" that Church simply doesn't have a leg to stand on.

It's no wonder both the LDS Church and the Catholic Church are so similar, yet there having been no connection in the LDS Churches establishment to the Catholic Church. It's because WE are the "real deal" restored again to the earth. Logic would dictate that if the LDS Church was just another man-made religion we would have more in common with Protestantism, or Methodism, etc. in how we operate and in what we believe, since nearly everyone when the Church was established was from Protestant backgrounds.

Rob and others like him have no legitimate foundation to base his religion on, other than his feelings toward Christ in his life, and whatever by his own intellect can glean from study. Everything else is his own religion, views, traditions, and experiences.... not scripture, not the absolute truth and doctrines of God, etc. as he/they believe.

Share this post


Link to post

bump.

Share this post


Link to post

I say Rob that the Aaronic Priesthood didn't disappear at all. That it's outward manifestation merely changed.

Hebrews 7:12

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

Priests still offer the Shewbread in the form of the Sacrament.

Doh. :P

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...