Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sky

The Name of the Church

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

After thinking about this for a week, I don't think this pertains to the average member at all. I think it is instruction to the institutional church, and to the media.

But does the style guide really pertain to the average member having a personal conversation, either verbal or written? Isn't the style guide meant to be direction for the media to follow? That's all that's really happening, right? Members haven't been told to only refer to things in one way, the media has, through the style guide. In addition to the focus on the media, it seems the other directive is to the institutional church to refer to itself properly.

I don't see why you would conclude this does not pertain to the average member.

For many years now, there have been recurring instructions to Church members not to remove the name of Christ from the name of the Church as they refer to it in their conversation. (I could cite general conference addresses to this effect, but I don't think I should have to.) Why would this be changed now?

Furthermore, in the scriptural account that this directive is drawn from, the commandment of Christ recorded in 3 Nephi, Christ is not speaking to outsiders. He is speaking to His own disciples, who had posed the question to Him that they were conveying from the members of the church, who were asking what the church should be called.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, california boy said:

Yeah. I think the church is asking a lot to have others figure that out.  I would think most people would feel it was giving permission to call the church by that name. And in all likelihood it would become known as the LDS Church. 

Just going by my professional experience in these things.  I used to call it the alphabet soup syndrome. It has nothing to do with the church.  It is just human nature

Going by my own professional experience, I disagree that it is asking a lot of others to have them refer to an organized entity by its proper and preferred name. I did it constantly throughout my career in journalism. I regarded it as a routine mark of professionalism, and I never found it difficult or troublesome.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At the end of the day, outsiders are going to do what they will. All we can do is politely and patiently make requests of them as it pertains to referring to the Church of Jesus Christ. I recognize that. But it does not alter my obligation under the covenants I have made to receive the words of Jesus Christ from His anointed servant as though coming from HIs own mouth (see Doctrine and Covenants 21:5) and to apply them as best I can "in all patience and faith."

Further, as one who does "work in media and communication," you of all people ought to know that any writer or speaker worth his salt should be able to find a way to make himself understood while using the full and proper name of the Church of Jesus Christ and/or any shortened forms thereof that comply with the updated style guide.
 

You don't have to use that phrase if it gives you heartburn. You could phrase it as "the doctrine" or "the teachings" or "the culture/lifestyle of the Latter-day Saints" or "of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and be well within the parameters of the updated style guide. You ought to be able to do that much without compromising your integrity as an unbeliever. I could easily and comfortably do something comparable when discussing a church or religion or faith group to which I do not adhere.

Or, you could go on saying "Mormon" or "Mormonism," if you must. I predict that no one is going to visit destruction upon you or even think ill of you for doing so. But I don't have to let your behavior or inclination influence what I do as a believing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It’s not a question of giving me heartburn. 

It’s the practicality and also the implication for a news or academic publisher, as well as for a regular secular conversation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, canard78 said:

It’s not a question of giving me heartburn. 

It’s the practicality and also the implication for a news or academic publisher, as well as for a regular secular conversation.

Again, a news or academic publisher is quite free to accept or reject at will this expressed preference by the Church of Jesus Christ. If it is rejected, I predict there will be no great protest or expression of indignation on the part of the Church or its membership generally. But it doesn’t hurt to ask. 

And it has been my experience over many years that a dedicated and faithful Latter-day Saint can without a great deal of difficulty carry on a “regular, secular conversation” while conforming to guidelines such as those that President Nelson has recently given or re-emphasized under divine inspiration. I think it has been decades since I have used the expression “Mormon Church.” It has become second nature to me to apply the name of the Savior to His Church, even in shortened forms. I'm never embarrassed in doing so, even in secular contexts and settings, because, like the apostle Paul, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ" (see Romans 1:16).

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Quote

 

68 The duty of the members after they are received by baptism—The elders or priests are to have a sufficient time to expound all things concerning the church of Christ to their understanding, previous to their partaking of the sacrament and being confirmed by the laying on of the hands of the elders, so that all things may be done in order.

69 And the members shall manifest before the church, and also before the elders, by a godly walk and conversation, that they are worthy of it, that there may be works and faith agreeable to the holy scriptures—walking in holiness before the Lord.

 

(Doctrine and Covenants 20:68-69, bold emphasis mine.)

It has long been my understanding that the word conversation in the above scriptural passage is to be understood in its now-archaic sense, meaning behavior or conduct.

In the matter at hand, however, I believe it can be taken to convey the more common, contemporary sense of meaning: "oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas."

That is to say, in the choosing of the expressions by which we refer to the Savior's church, we as members thereof manifest our dedication to the Lord and to the covenants we have taken upon ourselves at baptism and that we renew weekly in our partaking of the sacrament.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Last Saturday in Nuevo Casas Grandes we had an all-day festival celebrating the four cultures of our region - The slogan was "Four Cultures - One Family." From 9 in the morning till 11 at night we celebrated, mingled and enjoyed eating, singing, learning, etc. our four cultures are the Mormons, the Mennonites, the Chinese, and the Mestizo. To our surprise more than 7,000 turned out for the day's activities. Each culture had its special pavilion area to showcase its culture. The word Mormon was ubiquitous. The culture was the Cultura Mormona as it has been for the 133 years the Mormons have been in our area. It is both a term of endearment and of dissonance. Saturday it was a term of endearment. It was wonderful to see folks laughing and talking to each other and eating each other's foods. I think it will be doubtful that the thousands of Mexicans in our area who know the Mormon colonies, the Mormon academy, the Mormon apple and peach orchards, etc etc. are going to change. In fact I think that would be counter-productive to the Mormon influence in the area.   Oh, and I walked into the tent where the Mormon bake sale was going on. I announced that I was there to inspect the product to ensure that the word Mormon was not used on anything that was being sold. One delightful lady pulled out two huge cookies on which were written Ser Mormona . . .es ser Feliz. They were 15 pesos a piece. I told her it was my duty to destroy the evidence! So I bought both cookies and proceeded to do my best to get rid of the offending cookies. We all had a good laugh about it. The Mormon cookies were wonderful!  I got to give a talk during the festival history sessions on how the Mexican revolution impacted each of the four cultures. It was wonderful to see people of Chinese heritage, mestizos, old order Mennonites and Mormons all sitting in one room to learn about their shared heritage. We need much more of that in my humble opinion. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Last Saturday in Nuevo Casas Grandes we had an all-day festival celebrating the four cultures of our region - The slogan was "Four Cultures - One Family." From 9 in the morning till 11 at night we celebrated, mingled and enjoyed eating, singing, learning, etc. our four cultures are the Mormons, the Mennonites, the Chinese, and the Mestizo. To our surprise more than 7,000 turned out for the day's activities. Each culture had its special pavilion area to showcase its culture. The word Mormon was ubiquitous. The culture was the Cultura Mormona as it has been for the 133 years the Mormons have been in our area. It is both a term of endearment and of dissonance. Saturday it was a term of endearment. It was wonderful to see folks laughing and talking to each other and eating each other's foods. I think it will be doubtful that the thousands of Mexicans in our area who know the Mormon colonies, the Mormon academy, the Mormon apple and peach orchards, etc etc. are going to change. In fact I think that would be counter-productive to the Mormon influence in the area.   Oh, and I walked into the tent where the Mormon bake sale was going on. I announced that I was there to inspect the product to ensure that the word Mormon was not used on anything that was being sold. One delightful lady pulled out two huge cookies on which were written Ser Mormona . . .es ser Feliz. They were 15 pesos a piece. I told her it was my duty to destroy the evidence! So I bought both cookies and proceeded to do my best to get rid of the offending cookies. We all had a good laugh about it. The Mormon cookies were wonderful!  I got to give a talk during the festival history sessions on how the Mexican revolution impacted each of the four cultures. It was wonderful to see people of Chinese heritage, mestizos, old order Mennonites and Mormons all sitting in one room to learn about their shared heritage. We need much more of that in my humble opinion. 

That sounds awesome. I would like to attend something like that myself, and learn more about the Mennonites particularly. It seems to me that the Mennonites are a little more open to outsiders than the Amish. I've always had a certain attraction to the simplicity and community spirit of the Amish, but it seems the more I learn about them, the less "perfect" their culture seems. I imagine the same would happen with the Hutterites. It seems to me the Mennonites strike the best balance of the three groups of anabaptists. 
P.S. I am glad you were able to so expeditiously destroy that evidence of "Mormon" cookies. :) 

Share this post


Link to post

Whenever I hear a Latter-day Saint use the term "the Church" or "The Church" I think they are talking about "The Church" - the Christian Church. - the ekklesia - the called out ones. All Christians of all faiths - those who have used their agency to trust in the atonement of Christ. I can't say I find its use to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints offensive. That is too strong a word. It does however bother me. Outside the Latter-day Saint culture it will confuse people, especially other Christians.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Rev - I don't want to hijack this thread; for almost a year now my wife and I have been the resident Mennonites in the old first ward in Colonia Juarez. We attend all three services pretty much every Sunday when I am home. In Sacrament Service I have sung a solo, given a 20 minute talk (testimony). and am a substitute teacher for the adult Sunday School Class. I have done a fireside talk on the history of our area and on the differences and similarities between Mennonites and Mormons. We have been graciously welcomed into fellowship with the folks. They call me a "dry Mormon." I am not sure what my new nickname will be! Our bishop has introduced us as members of the ward, but not of the church. I like that. I know there isn't such a thing - but that has a good ring to it for us. I am thrilled with the new Elder's Quorum format, especially when we simply discuss things. I get to ask all my questions. The guys seem to enjoy figuring out how to answer them, even if sometimes there are three different answers to the same questions! Oh, and at this year's presidential banquet for the MHA conference, they asked me to give the opening prayer. I looked down at the General Authorities sitting there, looking like "who is this guy?" I gave my best Menno-Mormon prayer. Several of the GA's came up to me afterwards and thanked me for such a beautiful prayer. That made me feel welcomed. Best, Phil

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Rev - I don't want to hijack this thread; for almost a year now my wife and I have been the resident Mennonites in the old first ward in Colonia Juarez. We attend all three services pretty much every Sunday when I am home. In Sacrament Service I have sung a solo, given a 20 minute talk (testimony). and am a substitute teacher for the adult Sunday School Class. I have done a fireside talk on the history of our area and on the differences and similarities between Mennonites and Mormons. We have been graciously welcomed into fellowship with the folks. They call me a "dry Mormon." I am not sure what my new nickname will be! Our bishop has introduced us as members of the ward, but not of the church. I like that. I know there isn't such a thing - but that has a good ring to it for us. I am thrilled with the new Elder's Quorum format, especially when we simply discuss things. I get to ask all my questions. The guys seem to enjoy figuring out how to answer them, even if sometimes there are three different answers to the same questions! Oh, and at this year's presidential banquet for the MHA conference, they asked me to give the opening prayer. I looked down at the General Authorities sitting there, looking like "who is this guy?" I gave my best Menno-Mormon prayer. Several of the GA's came up to me afterwards and thanked me for such a beautiful prayer. That made me feel welcomed. Best, Phil

As far as I'm concerned, hijack away, because I like you! - and as a non-member you have valuable insights into the issue of the name of our Church or how to call ourselves. On this board I do refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS as the Church in short, but I realize that to outsiders that is confusing. Typically when referring to my Church to outsiders I have used LDS Church, but I think now I will have to be more proper and use the full name all the time rather than some of the time. Are Mennonite services open to non-members?

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/24/2018 at 1:15 AM, RevTestament said:

Was Yeshua a high priest during His ministry? If so, then He was already God's "begotten Son." You see it was this oath that made Yeshua the only begotten of the Father. Before that he was a son like others. 

Jesus is our only High Priest.  That is why there are no earthly high priests in the New Testament.

Thanks,
Jim

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, theplains said:

Jesus is our only High Priest.  That is why there are no earthly high priests in the New Testament.

Thanks,
Jim

 And what about the high priests in the OT? They weren't for us? God didn't teach us anything through Moses? 

And I disagree. There are high priests in the NT.

Heb 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

Peter also mentions the priesthood. In fact history reveals priests accompanied the bishops to the Nicene Council which virtually all Christianity insists on laying claim to. Yet, you like to spout off what you have heard, and end up ignoring scripture and history. The truth is that after Jerusalem was destroyed, the Church quickly lost its original organization. 'The other seventy" Yeshua selected, and apostles were probably killed and not replaced - which left the bishops in the various churches  in the various cities of the empire to run things - which they had to do clandestinely since Christianity was illegal. Nevertheless, History does reveal a certain organization and office of priest survived. Do you not believe this history?

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/24/2018 at 3:12 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Going by my own professional experience, I disagree that it is asking a lot of others to have them refer to an organized entity by its proper and preferred name. I did it constantly throughout my career in journalism. I regarded it as a routine mark of professionalism, and I never found it difficult or troublesome.

What if the requested "proper and preferred name" is confusing or at odds with other organizations?  There are many religious groups who call themselves "The Church of Jesus Christ", or "The Church of Christ".  or "The Church".  All of those abbreviations are confusing, and do not apply to any single group - they apply to all Christian groups.  

If the CoJCoLDS wishes a shortened name, that name needs to be unique, rather than "stealing" the name of other organizations.  

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, changed said:

What if the requested "proper and preferred name" is confusing or at odds with other organizations?  There are many religious groups who call themselves "The Church of Jesus Christ", or "The Church of Christ".  or "The Church".  All of those abbreviations are confusing, and do not apply to any single group - they apply to all Christian groups.    

I think many (most?) who hear those names may think of the Catholic Church (I know my relatives who are members of that church do).  To differentiate, we’d need to give the full name (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), but time will tell how many will use that full name other than church publications or Utah  newspapers or other areas that have a high church member population.  Even if the full name is used in other areas, they will need to put “The Mormon Church” in parenthesis or somewhere in the article most likely.

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Rev: Might I offer a slightly different view of Protestants and the Nicene Council? I would simply like to offer that the church councils are not nearly as important to most Protestants and especially to evangelicals as LDS folks seem to think. They are of no importance to anabaptists of which I am one. As the evangelical community grows and yes, even the fundamentalist community grows, the more creed conscious part of Protestantism shrinks more and more. I never was taught a creed, I studied them as part of my theological education, but only like I would study the Treaty of Paris. They were historical occurrences, therefore they were important. What constantly surprises me is how similar LDS theology is to that of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Anyway, just thought I would offer a different perspective without making yours wrong. Thanks, Phil

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi Rev: Might I offer a slightly different view of Protestants and the Nicene Council? I would simply like to offer that the church councils are not nearly as important to most Protestants and especially to evangelicals as LDS folks seem to think. They are of no importance to anabaptists of which I am one. As the evangelical community grows and yes, even the fundamentalist community grows, the more creed conscious part of Protestantism shrinks more and more. I never was taught a creed, I studied them as part of my theological education, but only like I would study the Treaty of Paris. They were historical occurrences, therefore they were important. What constantly surprises me is how similar LDS theology is to that of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Anyway, just thought I would offer a different perspective without making yours wrong. Thanks, Phil

Well, I brought up the point because I think the history is inconsistent with the view that there were no priests in the early Church, and the oft stated claim that Yeshua is our only high priest. Like you I wasn't really taught the creeds nor early Church history. I was raised Baptist. Every once in awhile a creed was spouted off at the time of communion, but other than that, I had virtually no experience with them until going to a Catholic high school, although I probably had some contact I don't recall offhand at an Episcopalian school. Anyway, after joining the Church of Jesus Christ at age 13, the creeds made me very uncomfortable, and I would leave out "objectionable" parts. I didn't bring up the Nicene council for the creed tho. I merely brought it up for the history that priests attended with their bishops. The evangelical movement really has no priests. Their idea of the priesthood is being somehow automatically inducted into the royal priesthood when they accept Yeshua as their Savior. I am merely showing scriptures and history are not really compatible with that view. Unfortunately in my view, what survives of the Eastern Orthodox Church is merely a portion of the Roman State Church which survived after the empire split and the Roman bishop began to insist on primacy. Nevertheless, I think the Christianity retained by the Eastern Orthodox was more akin to early Christianity than the Roman Catholic, so it is not surprising to me that you see a lot in common between the Eastern Orthodox, and the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in His restored Church - there is no baggage of doctrines like the eternal virginity of Mary, indulgences, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/25/2018 at 12:00 PM, RevTestament said:

As far as I'm concerned, hijack away, because I like you! - and as a non-member you have valuable insights into the issue of the name of our Church or how to call ourselves. On this board I do refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS as the Church in short, but I realize that to outsiders that is confusing. Typically when referring to my Church to outsiders I have used LDS Church, but I think now I will have to be more proper and use the full name all the time rather than some of the time. Are Mennonite services open to non-members?

Hi Rev. -  Certainly Mennonite services are open to non-members. Some of the very conservative Mennonites practice "closed" communion; they probably wouldn't let me take it either. Any Mennonite Church affiliated with the Mennonite Church USA would certainly welcome you. Having attended a ton of LDS Sacrament Services I would suggest you would find a lot of similarities. Many Mennonite churches have lay ministers. The sacrament is once a month and sometimes less. The singing is (sorry to say this) so much better than in any LDS ward I have ever attended. The folks here who have gone to Mennonite churches (all are conservative) in our area come back amazed at the singing. I would also suggest the children are a bit better behaved in a Mennonite church. The LDS Chapel has the children involved more; I like that a lot. You would also hear virtually no testimonies, references, etc. to being Mennonite. In the LDS chapel the testimonies, etc. are predominantly about The Church, rarely if ever referring to the greater Christian church, but to the LDS Church. We love attending our chapel . Yesterday we went to a baptism. Afterwards the father who had baptized his 8 year old son asked me how the Mennonite baptism service was different? I told him, not at all. There is no difference at all in the baptism method or process. There is no confirmation immediately thereafter in the Mennonite world. As I think you know Mennonites do not baptize for remission of sin. It is a public testimony (witness) to a previous confession of faith and acceptance of the atonement. We look at that in an aorist sense; Saints look at it in a present or perfect tense sense. I don't know where you live but if you want to contact me privately and can let you know if I know of a Mennonite church in your area. Best, Phil

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/25/2018 at 3:59 PM, RevTestament said:

there is no baggage of doctrines like the eternal virginity of Mary,

Eastern Orthodoxy most assuredly believes in the eternal virginity of Mary. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Eastern Orthodoxy most assuredly believes in the eternal virginity of Mary. 

I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/25/2018 at 3:59 PM, RevTestament said:

there is no baggage of doctrines like the eternal virginity of Mary, indulgences, etc. 

I assumed that there were no indulgences in Eastern Orthodox, too, but I guess it's not a clear cut issue. According to wikipedia, there were certificates of absolution that were sold up to the 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Eastern_Orthodox_Church

Quote

The Eastern Orthodox Churches believe one can be absolved from sins by the Sacred Mystery of Confession. Because of differences in the theology of salvation, indulgences for the remission of temporal punishment of sin do not exist in Eastern Orthodoxy, but until the twentieth century there existed in some places a practice of absolution certificates (συγχωροχάρτια – synchorochartia).

While some of these certificates were connected with any patriarch's decrees lifting for the living or the dead some serious ecclesiastical penalty, including excommunication, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, with the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, had the sole privilege, because of the expense of maintaining the Holy Places and paying the many taxes levied on them, of distributing such documents in large numbers to pilgrims or sending them elsewhere, sometimes with a blank space for the name of the beneficiary, living or dead, an individual or a whole family, for whom the prayers would be read.

Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheos Notaras (1641–1707) wrote: "It is an established custom and ancient tradition, known to all, that the Most Holy Patriarchs give the absolution certificate (συγχωροχάρτιον – synchorochartion) to the faithful people … they have granted them from the beginning and still do."[65]

An unknown and unverified Russian Orthodox source says that these certificates were in use among Greek Orthodox until the middle of the twentieth century, and were "certificates which absolved from sins, which anyone could obtain, often for a specified sum of money. The absolution granted by these papers, according to Christos Yannaras, had no connection with any participation of the faithful in the Mystery of Penance, nor in the Mystery of the Eucharist".[66]

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I assumed that there were no indulgences in Eastern Orthodox, too, but I guess it's not a clear cut issue. According to wikipedia, there were certificates of absolution that were sold up to the 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Eastern_Orthodox_Church

 

We have a certificate issued through the authority of Plus XII in 1953 in my father's name that he and his family get a plenary indulgence if on their deathbed they speak the name of "Jesus".

So I'm covered either way. ;)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/25/2018 at 2:27 PM, changed said:

What if the requested "proper and preferred name" is confusing or at odds with other organizations?  There are many religious groups who call themselves "The Church of Jesus Christ", or "The Church of Christ".  or "The Church".  All of those abbreviations are confusing, and do not apply to any single group - they apply to all Christian groups.  

If the CoJCoLDS wishes a shortened name, that name needs to be unique, rather than "stealing" the name of other organizations.  

if they "apply to all Christian groups," why aren't we as entitled as they to use them? Especially since "Church of Jesus Christ" has been part of our full name almost from the beginning?

It is outlandish to say we are "stealing the name of other organizations," even when you put scare quotes around "stealing."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/25/2018 at 4:19 PM, RevTestament said:

 And what about the high priests in the OT? They weren't for us? God didn't teach us anything through Moses? 

And I disagree. There are high priests in the NT.

Heb 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

Peter also mentions the priesthood. In fact history reveals priests accompanied the bishops to the Nicene Council which virtually all Christianity insists on laying claim to. Yet, you like to spout off what you have heard, and end up ignoring scripture and history. The truth is that after Jerusalem was destroyed, the Church quickly lost its original organization. 'The other seventy" Yeshua selected, and apostles were probably killed and not replaced - which left the bishops in the various churches  in the various cities of the empire to run things - which they had to do clandestinely since Christianity was illegal. Nevertheless, History does reveal a certain organization and office of priest survived. Do you not believe this history?

Let's agree to disagree maybe.

The high priests in the Old Testament were for those in the OT.  Hebrews 5:1 is talking about the OT.  We have only
one high priest in the New Testament.

Hebrews 7:23-27. "And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them
to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high
priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who
needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this
he did once, when he offered up himself."

The priesthood of the New Testament is the royal priesthood of believers (including women) which Peter taught. 
But I know from history that the Roman Catholic Church set up its priesthood with confessionals, etc.

Thanks,
Jim

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, theplains said:

Let's agree to disagree maybe.

The high priests in the Old Testament were for those in the OT.  Hebrews 5:1 is talking about the OT.  We have only
one high priest in the New Testament.

Hebrews 7:23-27. "And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them
to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high
priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who
needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this
he did once, when he offered up himself."

The priesthood of the New Testament is the royal priesthood of believers (including women) which Peter taught. 
But I know from history that the Roman Catholic Church set up its priesthood with confessionals, etc.

Thanks,
Jim

Are you saying that the priests which showed up for the Nicene Council were all Roman Catholic?

There is nothing in the Bible which says Yeshua is the only High Priest. Just the opposite really. 

Heb 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

In other words Melchizedek is still a high priest. I guess only those who lived in OT times can be high priests...(at least according to EV Christianity)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Are you saying that the priests which showed up for the Nicene Council were all Roman Catholic?

There is nothing in the Bible which says Yeshua is the only High Priest. Just the opposite really. 

Heb 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

In other words Melchizedek is still a high priest. I guess only those who lived in OT times can be high priests...(at least according to EV Christianity)

I don't know what credentials the people who attended the Nicene Council were.

According to the writer of Hebrews (7:13-17) Jesus is considered a priest in the order of Melchizedek because, like
Melchizedek, Jesus was not a descendant of Aaron, and thus would not qualify for the Jewish priesthood under the
Law of Moses. 

In the Old Testament there was only one high priest at a time.  Only he was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies once
a year.  In the New Testament, all believers are priests (temples of the living God).

This is why I believe it is incorrect for a church today to have multiple (and fallible) high priests in existence at the
same time.  Jesus is our High Priest and we have no need for High Priests Quorums.

Jim

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...