Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nuclearfuels

Sanhedrin and Apostasy?

Recommended Posts

Y'all know that lesson with the cups?

12 Disciples of Jesus - pics of them on one side - pics of the current 12 Apostles on the other side.

Then you build the cups up into a pyramid / tower and the cups have labels on them like priesthood, tithing, scriptures, fasting, Temple, etc.

Been wonderin' about the Sanhedrin - read somewhere that they were the literal/genealogical descendants of the quorum of the 70 from the time of Moses

Was the Sanherin apostate?  

Seems like they practiced what they were supposed to / followed the rules they had in place.

If they got the Levitical priesthood from their elders (did they?), as did John the Baptist who followed his own path, clearly not the Sanhedrin's path.

Seems like if the Sanhedrin didnt have authority , then how did John?

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/sanhedrin?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/john-the-baptist

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Seems like if the Sanhedrin didnt have authority , then how did John?

Since there isn't all that much written about John the Baptist, it might be better to ask "then how did Jesus have authority?" and extrapolate from there about the source of John's authority.

The Gospels contain a number of events in which the mortal Messiah was challenged on his authority, which gave Jesus the opportunity to  compare the Jewish understanding at the time about how authority was established as contrasted with what Jesus preached was the true source of authority. 

From what I gather, the Jews back then believed that their authority, in addition to the priest and ruling class, was a function of: a) heritage ("we have Abraham to our Fathers"); b) wealth and station ("the upper rooms"),  c) the scriptures, and d) strict adherence to the law of Moses, among other things.

In contrast, Jesus intimated, using the words of John, "...A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven....he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all."  (Jn 3:27, 31

There is so much more in the scriptures, but this should get the ball rolling.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Seems like if the Sanhedrin didnt have authority , then how did John?

I hope you will forgive an old man for being confused by your question because this is in the link that you posted about John the Baptist.   "We learn that he was “ordained by an angel,” when he was eight days of age, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews and to prepare a people for the Lord. We learn also that he was baptized while yet in his childhood (D&C 84:27–28)."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

John may have been an Essene.  Would they have had authority?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Even Jesus told the woman at the well that, at least until he died, salvation came through Judaism. They had authority but since power comes through righteousness power was much more rare.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Worth noting that Judaism at the time of Jesus wasn't a centralized movement like we have today. There are strong hints that what we consider the Melchezedek Priesthood was in ancient Israel. The school of the prophets sounds like it as do the Sons of Moses - particularly in light of D&C 84. The narratives of Elijah and Elisha suggest something that rivaled the formal Levitical Priesthood as well. Unfortunately during the exile most of those texts were stamped out. We now just have fragments in our existing Old Testament that scholars speculate over due to a compelling theory of the Priestly and Deuteronomist traditions from the time of Josiah up through the formation of the Old Testament centuries later. From a Mormon perspective the Melchezedek Priesthood just no longer was in general circulation.

John was a Levite, and so had a right to priesthood in that sense. 

The Sanhedren was a very late development in Judaism. While there were precursors in the pre-exilic period, especially during the pre-monarchal era with judges what took place in the Hellenistic and Roman eras was different. The overall history is pretty speculative but by the early Roman era there was a court called the Sanhedrin. The first account of it appears to be around 50 BC. It is part of the rise of the rabbinical movement although the rabbinical movement proper doesn't really arise until after the destruction of Jerusalem. Most of the accounts of the Sanhedrin come from later talmudic sources though.

In any case, the Sanhedrin's authority largely derives from popular scholarly prominance of various figures like Hillel and Gamaliel. That'd be what we'd call soft power and arose from how respected a figure's pronouncements were. Then there was hard power which really was wrapped up in the power of the King derived from Roman authority. Authority such as we think in terms of the apostles really isn't a part of it.

In the precursors to the Sanhedrin of the Roman era the High Priest acted as a the de facto leader. According to later sources though around 191 BC the Sanhedrin lost confidence in the High Priest and formed their own leader called the Nasi. Due to the prominence of Hillel most Nasi around the time of Christ were descendants of Hillel. Again though a lot of this comes from later sources so there's always reasons to be a bit distrustful of the details of how the Sanhedrin broke from the High Priest and evolved. The organization became more oriented to scholarship (thus the rise of the Rabbis and eventually the talmud) rather than formal authority.

Almost certainly the Sandhedrin evolved out of perceptions of the Judges of the pre-monarchal era, the 70 others mentioned, pseudo-democratic elements of the community, and then the rise of the Maccabean/Hasmonean rule starting towards the end of the Hellenistic era. The Maccabean revolt is 164 BC but the Seleucids operating out of Syria controlled the region for several more decades. The Romans then conquer Jerusalem in 63 BC. So it's that era of waning control before the rise of Roman authority that really develops the Sanhedrin.

It's an interesting question to how the early Christians, the Essenes, and other Jewish movements viewed the Sanhedrin given that the Sanhedrin was largely a Pharisee controlled body. It'd also be interesting to better know the relationship of the Sanhedrin in practice to the Sadducees given they are in some ways rivals. 

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Y'all know that lesson with the cups?

12 Disciples of Jesus - pics of them on one side - pics of the current 12 Apostles on the other side.

Then you build the cups up into a pyramid / tower and the cups have labels on them like priesthood, tithing, scriptures, fasting, Temple, etc.

Been wonderin' about the Sanhedrin - read somewhere that they were the literal/genealogical descendants of the quorum of the 70 from the time of Moses

Was the Sanherin apostate?  

Seems like they practiced what they were supposed to / followed the rules they had in place.

If they got the Levitical priesthood from their elders (did they?), as did John the Baptist who followed his own path, clearly not the Sanhedrin's path.

Seems like if the Sanhedrin didnt have authority , then how did John?

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/sanhedrin?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/john-the-baptist

Yeshua didn't say they didn't have authority - He said they burdened the people with THEIR traditions, so He told the people they were OK to do what they were told by the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees, but not to do as they do, because they were doing it for the wrong reasons. To really understand what Yeshua is talking about here, one has to understand Judaism. When the Jews came back to Jerusalem from Babylon, they began to build a religion called Judaism. The scribes began to interpret their scriptures, and to assert their interpretations were more important than the scriptures. They built up a system of rules according to what various rabbis had said, and these became the traditions Yeshua denounced. Was it really important which shoe one put on first? There is a myriad of these silly rules which Yeshua was saying are not important. 

I believe the Levites still had authority to perform the daily sacrifices in the temple, but they didn't really understand why they were doing it. Years before the Lord had told them he was full of their meat and their appointed feasts. He had appointed them, but they didn't understand why. What He wanted was a humble heart and to do right by your neighbor. The Jews spent 600 years drifting away from the law into traditions - and they are still there. The High priesthood had to be restored because the high priest had become a political appointee of Rome rather than an appointee of God. So yes, there was complete apostasy in the Melchisedek priesthood, which was restored by Yeshua, and there was spiritual apostasy in the levitical priesthood. For the most part they were just going through the motions with little or no understanding, and had built up their own system of rules which were not of God. As I have tried to relate on this forum, having authority and being correct are not the same thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

..............................................

Been wonderin' about the Sanhedrin - read somewhere that they were the literal/genealogical descendants of the quorum of the 70 from the time of Moses

Was the Sanherin apostate?  

Seems like they practiced what they were supposed to / followed the rules they had in place.

If they got the Levitical priesthood from their elders (did they?), as did John the Baptist who followed his own path, clearly not the Sanhedrin's path.

Seems like if the Sanhedrin didnt have authority , then how did John?...................................

The Sanhedrin has nothing to do with the authority of John the Baptizer.  Like his father, the temple priest (kohen) who received an angelic visitation, John was an Aaronic Priest.  That was the source of his authority to baptize Jesus., as well as to confer that authority upon Joseph & Oliver (D&C 13).  It is a matter of both LDS and Jewish doctrine that such authority is permanently lineal, from father to son (D&C 68:15-21, 84:18, 107:16-17).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Since there isn't all that much written about John the Baptist, it might be better to ask "then how did Jesus have authority?" and extrapolate from there about the source of John's authority.

The Gospels contain a number of events in which the mortal Messiah was challenged on his authority, which gave Jesus the opportunity to  compare the Jewish understanding at the time about how authority was established as contrasted with what Jesus preached was the true source of authority. 

From what I gather, the Jews back then believed that their authority, in addition to the priest and ruling class, was a function of: a) heritage ("we have Abraham to our Fathers"); b) wealth and station ("the upper rooms"),  c) the scriptures, and d) strict adherence to the law of Moses, among other things.

In contrast, Jesus intimated, using the words of John, "...A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven....he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all."  (Jn 3:27, 31

There is so much more in the scriptures, but this should get the ball rolling.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

A number of New Testament scholars agree that baptism was an invention of John the Baptist.  I know Christians like to look at Old Testament references to washing rituals inside and outside the temple and count this as evidence of baptism, but this is a big leap without historical or theological evidence.  Men and women would wash themselves.  No priestly oversight was needed for those washings.

The point is this: I agree with you that John's authority is irrelevant (in that light).  However, if a Mormon or Catholic wants to argue that John must have had authority from somewhere to perform baptism as a priestly ordinance as it is known today, they are in for a very difficult search for evidence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Worth noting that Judaism at the time of Jesus wasn't a centralized movement like we have today. There are strong hints that what we consider the Melchezedek Priesthood was in ancient Israel. The school of the prophets sounds like it as do the Sons of Moses - particularly in light of D&C 84. The narratives of Elijah and Elisha suggest something that rivaled the formal Levitical Priesthood as well. Unfortunately during the exile most of those texts were stamped out. We now just have fragments in our existing Old Testament that scholars speculate over due to a compelling theory of the Priestly and Deuteronomist traditions from the time of Josiah up through the formation of the Old Testament centuries later. From a Mormon perspective the Melchezedek Priesthood just no longer was in general circulation.

John was a Levite, and so had a right to priesthood in that sense. 

The Sanhedren was a very late development in Judaism. While there were precursors in the pre-exilic period, especially during the pre-monarchal era with judges what took place in the Hellenistic and Roman eras was different. The overall history is pretty speculative but by the early Roman era there was a court called the Sanhedrin. The first account of it appears to be around 50 BC. It is part of the rise of the rabbinical movement although the rabbinical movement proper doesn't really arise until after the destruction of Jerusalem. Most of the accounts of the Sanhedrin come from later talmudic sources though.

In any case, the Sanhedrin's authority largely derives from popular scholarly prominance of various figures like Hillel and Gamaliel. That'd be what we'd call soft power and arose from how respected a figure's pronouncements were. Then there was hard power which really was wrapped up in the power of the King derived from Roman authority. Authority such as we think in terms of the apostles really isn't a part of it.

In the precursors to the Sanhedrin of the Roman era the High Priest acted as a the de facto leader. According to later sources though around 191 BC the Sanhedrin lost confidence in the High Priest and formed their own leader called the Nasi. Due to the prominence of Hillel most Nasi around the time of Christ were descendants of Hillel. Again though a lot of this comes from later sources so there's always reasons to be a bit distrustful of the details of how the Sanhedrin broke from the High Priest and evolved. The organization became more oriented to scholarship (thus the rise of the Rabbis and eventually the talmud) rather than formal authority.

Almost certainly the Sandhedrin evolved out of perceptions of the Judges of the pre-monarchal era, the 70 others mentioned, pseudo-democratic elements of the community, and then the rise of the Maccabean/Hasmonean rule starting towards the end of the Hellenistic era. The Maccabean revolt is 164 BC but the Seleucids operating out of Syria controlled the region for several more decades. The Romans then conquer Jerusalem in 63 BC. So it's that era of waning control before the rise of Roman authority that really develops the Sanhedrin.

It's an interesting question to how the early Christians, the Essenes, and other Jewish movements viewed the Sanhedrin given that the Sanhedrin was largely a Pharisee controlled body. It'd also be interesting to better know the relationship of the Sanhedrin in practice to the Sadducees given they are in some ways rivals. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the traditional LDS view of 'authority' is very different from that of the priests/Levites of that time period.

Do we need to view 'authority' differently than the lens through which we do today?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Yeshua didn't say they didn't have authority - He said they burdened the people with THEIR traditions, so He told the people they were OK to do what they were told by the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees, but not to do as they do, because they were doing it for the wrong reasons. To really understand what Yeshua is talking about here, one has to understand Judaism. When the Jews came back to Jerusalem from Babylon, they began to build a religion called Judaism. The scribes began to interpret their scriptures, and to assert their interpretations were more important than the scriptures. They built up a system of rules according to what various rabbis had said, and these became the traditions Yeshua denounced. Was it really important which shoe one put on first? There is a myriad of these silly rules which Yeshua was saying are not important. 

The matter is a whole lot more complicated than that.  Jesus and Paul were both Pharisaic rabbis, and each of them preached the ethical and moral norms typical of rabbinic Judaism (and which can be found in the Mishna and Talmud) -- of Beth Hillel.  Jesus was harshly critical of hypocrisy and of elite domination of the lower classes, something also characteristic of the Essenes.  Moreover, both emphasized apocalyptic Messianism.

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I believe the Levites still had authority to perform the daily sacrifices in the temple, but they didn't really understand why they were doing it. Years before the Lord had told them he was full of their meat and their appointed feasts. He had appointed them, but they didn't understand why. What He wanted was a humble heart and to do right by your neighbor. The Jews spent 600 years drifting away from the law into traditions - and they are still there. The High priesthood had to be restored because the high priest had become a political appointee of Rome rather than an appointee of God. So yes, there was complete apostasy in the Melchisedek priesthood, which was restored by Yeshua, and there was spiritual apostasy in the levitical priesthood. For the most part they were just going through the motions with little or no understanding, and had built up their own system of rules which were not of God. As I have tried to relate on this forum, having authority and being correct are not the same thing.

The tribe of Levi was indeed the priestly tribe -- all of them dedicated to holy ordinances -- but only the Aaronides among them were the formal "priests."  John the Baptizer and his father, for example, were Aaronides. The remaining Levites were merely "helpers" (deacons), assisting the priests and singing in the temple choir.

As to apostasy, the rabbis of Judaism have taught for two thousand years that the Jews were exiled by God for their failure to obey his holy word.  The Jews have been fully aware that entire time of their shortcomings.  Most non-Jews just don't get that.  Read Jacob 5-6, and Romans 11 to get the full flavor of God's will in the matter.  The Gentiles only imagine some advantage, not realizing that they are not going to have an easy time of it at the end.  There is an unhappy reversal in the offing.  Jesus will come directly to his chosen people at the end (D&C 45:48-53, Zech 12:10, 13:6, 14:4), and the sons of Levi will offer an offering in righteousness.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

A number of New Testament scholars agree that baptism was an invention of John the Baptist.

Nonsense.  No scholar agrees with you, and no one asked John what he was doing at the Jordan.  Baptism was entirely normal within Judaism and had been long before the appearance of John the Baptizer.  Jews know it under the heading mikveh, and it entails full immersion.  It is used even today among Jews as a purification rite, but also as a rite of initiation into Judaism.  That is how Christians use it.

12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

  I know Christians like to look at Old Testament references to washing rituals inside and outside the temple and count this as evidence of baptism, but this is a big leap without historical or theological evidence.  Men and women would wash themselves.  No priestly oversight was needed for those washings.

The point is this: I agree with you that John's authority is irrelevant (in that light).  However, if a Mormon or Catholic wants to argue that John must have had authority from somewhere to perform baptism as a priestly ordinance as it is known today, they are in for a very difficult search for evidence.

The Essenes of Qumran spoke constantly of baptism:  1QS (Rule of the Community/Manual of Discipline)  3:1-12, 5:13-14, those who “turn from wickedness” and take the oath of allegiance may be baptized and “partake of the pure meal of the Saints.”[1]  1QS 4:18-23 "...God...will purify...him with the holy spirit...will sprinkle upon him the spirit of truth like waters for purifica­tion from all abominations..."  CD 10:10-13, 11:22  purification by water.  And this continues in the Gospel of Phillip (Nag Hammadi Codex II,3) 115:27-30,[2] as the first rite in a five-stage initiation process surprisingly similar to the LDS temple sequence.  Cf. Alma 5:62, 7:14 Matthew 3:11, "baptize...unto repen­tance."

Jeremiah 4:14   Wash your heart of wickedness, O Jerusalem, That you might be saved

Psalm 51:2       Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, Purify me from my sin.

Isaiah 1:16, 18       Wash you, Make you clean, .....  Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red as crimson, They shall be like wool.


[1] S. J. Pfann, “The Essene Yearly Renewal Ceremony and the Baptism of Repentance,” online at http://www.uhl.ac/Baptism%20article/Baptism.pdf , citing at 1 n. 2, Levitical immersion in Judith 12:7, and Ecclus 31(34):30; M. A. Daise, “The Temporal Relationship between the Covenant Renewal Rite and the Initiation Process in 1QS,” 150-160, in M. T. Davis & & B. A. Strawn, eds., Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007).

[2] James Robinson, ed., Nag Hammadi Literature in English3 pp. 144,151,153,155.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense.  No scholar agrees with you, and no one asked John what he was doing at the Jordan.  Baptism was entirely normal within Judaism and had been long before the appearance of John the Baptizer.  Jews know it under the heading mikveh, and it entails full immersion.  It is used even today among Jews as a purification rite, but also as a rite of initiation into Judaism.  That is how Christians use it.

The Essenes of Qumran spoke constantly of baptism:  1QS (Rule of the Community/Manual of Discipline)  3:1-12, 5:13-14, those who “turn from wickedness” and take the oath of allegiance may be baptized and “partake of the pure meal of the Saints.”[1]  1QS 4:18-23 "...God...will purify...him with the holy spirit...will sprinkle upon him the spirit of truth like waters for purifica­tion from all abominations..."  CD 10:10-13, 11:22  purification by water.  And this continues in the Gospel of Phillip (Nag Hammadi Codex II,3) 115:27-30,[2] as the first rite in a five-stage initiation process surprisingly similar to the LDS temple sequence.  Cf. Alma 5:62, 7:14 Matthew 3:11, "baptize...unto repen­tance."

Jeremiah 4:14   Wash your heart of wickedness, O Jerusalem, That you might be saved

Psalm 51:2       Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, Purify me from my sin.

Isaiah 1:16, 18       Wash you, Make you clean, .....  Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red as crimson, They shall be like wool.


[1] S. J. Pfann, “The Essene Yearly Renewal Ceremony and the Baptism of Repentance,” online at http://www.uhl.ac/Baptism%20article/Baptism.pdf , citing at 1 n. 2, Levitical immersion in Judith 12:7, and Ecclus 31(34):30; M. A. Daise, “The Temporal Relationship between the Covenant Renewal Rite and the Initiation Process in 1QS,” 150-160, in M. T. Davis & & B. A. Strawn, eds., Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007).

[2] James Robinson, ed., Nag Hammadi Literature in English3 pp. 144,151,153,155.

You've provided a number of insights.

How did it come to be that Christians only baptize once as a symbol, and require authority and performance by a priest?

The Book of Mormon teaches that it is not baptism that cleanses us from sin, but the Holy Ghost.  How did this transition happen?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

A number of New Testament scholars agree that baptism was an invention of John the Baptist.  I know Christians like to look at Old Testament references to washing rituals inside and outside the temple and count this as evidence of baptism, but this is a big leap without historical or theological evidence.  Men and women would wash themselves.  No priestly oversight was needed for those washings.

The point is this: I agree with you that John's authority is irrelevant (in that light).  However, if a Mormon or Catholic wants to argue that John must have had authority from somewhere to perform baptism as a priestly ordinance as it is known today, they are in for a very difficult search for evidence.

My post made no mention of baptism. So, I am not sure why you are specifically bringing it up in relation to what I said. For that matter, I don't see how much of anything in your response speaks to what I actually said--making it quite unlikely that you agree with me.

To assist in your comprehension, my post dealt with the source of Jesus' authority, and thus by extension the source of John's authority as well, which has nothing directly to do with the history of baptism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by Wade Englund
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

My post made no mention of baptism. So, I am not sure why you are specifically bringing it up in relation to what I said. For that matter, I don't see how much of anything in your response speaks to what I actually said--making it quite unlikely that you agree with me.

To assist in your comprehensive, my post dealt with the source of Jesus' authority, and thus by extension the source of John's authority as well, which has nothing directly to do with the history of baptism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe I did miss something.

Explain to me how John's authority came from Jesus?  I am not aware of John's ordination at Jesus' hand.  Or is there another way that John received Christ's authority?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, SouthernMo said:

Maybe I did miss something.

Explain to me how John's authority came from Jesus?  I am not aware of John's ordination at Jesus' hand.  Or is there another way that John received Christ's authority?

My point wasn't that John received his authority from Jesus, but that he received it from the same source as Jesus--that source being heaven, as contrasted with the Jews of that day, who received their authority from earth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

My point wasn't that John received his authority from Jesus, but that he received it from the same source as Jesus--that source being heaven, as contrasted with the Jews of that day, who received their authority from earth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I must be dense.  Help me out?

Jesus was born with the same priesthood as John - "heaven" gave it to them?  Please explain that process of how they got their authority.

Jesus and John weren't considered Jews (or separate from Jews?)

Explain what you mean by "the Jews of the Day" and how the 'earth' gave them their authority?

Share this post


Link to post

In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr contrasts Christian baptism with the Jewish baptism, writing:

By reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God’s people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life. But the cisterns which you have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless to you. For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? (ch. 14)

So at least from his perspective, the Jews DID perform a ritual analogous to the Christian baptism, but for purification only. However, from our perspective, John performed an enhanced baptism to include preparing the Jews for a coming new kingdom, and Jesus introduced that Kingdom of God on earth, continuing with John's type of baptism as a requisite.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

My understanding was that John was authorized to perform the ritual purification washings by virtue of being Cohen. His ability to introduce the baptism of entrance to the new Kingdom came from his ordination by the angel to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews. Both of these were Aaronic, or priestly in nature. Jesus's authority was different. My understanding is that his priesthood was the royal priesthood, that which Melchizedek had, and that which gave Jesus' forebears David and Solomon the authority to supervise and regulate the  priests and Levites. Peter states that the priesthood the Saints held was that royal priesthood given them by Christ. One of the things I have always been intrigued by, is that Jesus' fellow rabbis never quizzed him on that  account... at least not as mentioned in the Christian writings I have read.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Que said:

In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr contrasts Christian baptism with the Jewish baptism, writing:

By reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God’s people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life. But the cisterns which you have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless to you. For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? (ch. 14)

So at least from his perspective, the Jews DID perform a ritual analogous to the Christian baptism, but for purification only. However, from our perspective, John performed an enhanced baptism to include preparing the Jews for a coming new kingdom, and Jesus introduced that Kingdom of God on earth, continuing with John's type of baptism as a requisite.  

No.  Mikveh for purification is always distinct in Judaism from mikveh for initiation into Judaism (membership within the Jewish people).  Jews have regular purification rituals which are distinct from initiation into Judaism.  Circumcision is another required ritual of initiation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

..........Jesus was born with the same priesthood as John - "heaven" gave it to them?  Please explain that process of how they got their authority.

Jesus was a member of the tribe of Judah.  He had no lineal Levitical priesthood authority.  John the Baptizer was a kohen (an Aaronide), a member of the tribe of Levi, and a direct descendant of Aaron.  Jesus was, however, a prophet and the Son of God, whose priesthood was after the Order of Melchizedek (after the Order of the Son of God), and you can read about that in the Letter to the Hebrews.  All Roman Catholic and Orthodox priests claim that Melchizedek Priesthood.

Quote

Jesus and John weren't considered Jews (or separate from Jews?)

Explain what you mean by "the Jews of the Day" and how the 'earth' gave them their authority?

"Jews" in that sense refers to the larger cultural or ethnic association, even though Paul is a Benjaminite, and Jesus a Judahite, and John the Baptizer a Levite.  All are "Jews" only in the broad sense of the Jewish people.  The BofM also uses the term Jew in both senses.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wade Englund said:

My point wasn't that John received his authority from Jesus, but that he received it from the same source as Jesus--that source being heaven, as contrasted with the Jews of that day, who received their authority from earth.......................

John's priestly authority came from his father, down from Aaron.  However, he was also a prophet, with authority from the Divine Council in Heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jesus was a member of the tribe of Judah.  He had no lineal Levitical priesthood authority.  John the Baptizer was a kohen (an Aaronide), a member of the tribe of Levi, and a direct descendant of Aaron.  Jesus was, however, a prophet and the Son of God, whose priesthood was after the Order of Melchizedek (after the Order of the Son of God), and you can read about that in the Letter to the Hebrews.  All Roman Catholic and Orthodox priests claim that Melchizedek Priesthood.

"Jews" in that sense refers to the larger cultural or ethnic association, even though Paul is a Benjaminite, and Jesus a Judahite, and John the Baptizer a Levite.  All are "Jews" only in the broad sense of the Jewish people.  The BofM also uses the term Jew in both senses.

I’m sorry, but I’m still missing something.

Maybe @Wade Englund can answer?  What heavenly power did both Jesus and John the Baptist have that these other Jews did not?  Weren’t their many Levites and Kohen?

And - What is the “earthly” power that the other Jews had?

This seems like such a non-specific discussion with terms that are ambiguous in their application, yet stated with such cocksurety.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

John's priestly authority came from his father, down from Aaron.  However, he was also a prophet, with authority from the Divine Council in Heaven.

If prophets receive their authority in heaven, why do they need to be ordained today?  Russell Nelson must have already had this authority and been born with it?

I’ve never heard this doctrine. Tell me more.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

..............................How did it come to be that Christians only baptize once as a symbol, and require authority and performance by a priest?

Both Jews and Christians only baptize once for initiation into the religion.  Only Christians use either a priest or a non-priest pastor to officiate in the name of the Triune God.

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

The Book of Mormon teaches that it is not baptism that cleanses us from sin, but the Holy Ghost.  How did this transition happen?

Water immersion is symbolic of death-rebirth and of coming forth again from the womb ("born again"), while the Holy Spirit purifies with fire (Acts 2:3).  John the Baptizer himself emphasized the difference (Matt 3:11).

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By blueglass
      Why do members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood were taken from the earth? 
      1)  Not all apostles were killed, John an apostle who held Apostolic keys was granted "apower over bdeath, that I may live and bring souls unto thee. " according to D&Cov7 Joseph and Oliver use the seer stone and receive a vision of a parchment of John and given power to translate it that they may obtain an answer to their question.   https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/7?lang=eng
      2)  Paul teaches immortal church that the gospel of Christ Jesus would be upon the earth "throughout all ages, world without end." Ephesians 3:21
      3)  The letter of 1Clement (first century dated 80 - 140AD) says the Apostles themselves instructed the bishops and ordained them with power to call and ordain other bishops to retain succession and authority.  1Clem 44:1 And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. 1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.
      4)  Brigham Young teaches robust quorum succession in the event of catastrophe (see Wilford Woodruff journal July 28, 1860) that if either the first presidency or the twelve or both are killed the seventy can recreate the church and can re-organize the higher quorums - which matches the letter of Clement. 
      Quote:  "The President of the Church holds the keys of the sealing powers & his Council act in Concert with him [in] all things.  Should the Presidency die The Twelve Could organize another Presidency & should the Presidency & Twelve all be slain the Seventies being Equal in power & Authority to the Twelve or first Presidency Could organize both Quorums.   He also taught that a high priest is a primal seed and can re-organize the church if all authorities are dead (nuclear holocaust, alien uprising, voyages to new planets etc). Quote: "The High Priest Could organize the Church in all its parts if all other Authorities were dead for they have the Melchizedek Priesthood out of which grow all of the Higher offices of the Church."
      5)  John Taylor teaches of revelations received during the time of "darkness" which coincides with Ephesians 3
      John Taylor, 7-Sept 1873 "Say some—'Oh, we are so enlightened and intelligent now. In former ages, when the people were degraded and in darkness, it was necessary that he should communicate intelligence to the human family; but we live in the blaze of Gospel day, in an age of light and intelligence.'  Perhaps we do; I rather doubt it. I have a great many misgivings about the intelligence that men boast so much of in this enlightened day. There were men in those dark ages who could commune with God, and who, by the power of faith, could draw aside the curtain of eternity and gaze upon the invisible world. There were men who could tell the destiny of the human family, and the events which would transpire throughout every subsequent period of time until the final winding-up scene. There were men who could gaze upon the face of God, have the ministering of angels, and unfold the future destinies of the world. If those were dark ages I pray God to give me a little darkness, and deliver me from the light and intelligence that prevail in our day;"
      Just to be clear I believe in restoration - these points arose as I studied the matter more closely when I served as a ward mission leader and the update of Preach my gospel released. 
    • By Navidad
      Good morning all: I have been absent from the board for a year and a half or so. I have a question with which I hope someone here can help me. I am wrapping up a book on Anglo influence on Mexican religion and have been reading a 1968 book by Ernest Lee Tuveson a former UC Berkeley professor on the history of the United States as a millenial kingdom. To my surprise I got to around page 150 and he has a whole section on LDS millenial beliefs as epitomizing the concept of the US and the future reign of Christ. In this section he talks about the LDS concept of the apostasy. He quotes the Pratt brothers in a way that is difficult to follow. Apparently in his writings, one of the brothers used the term "a terrible silence" to refer to the apostasy. I think that is a terrific phrase; one I would like to use. Dr. Tuveson doesn't provide a source for the quote. I am wondering if any of you gurus might have heard this term before and can help me with a citation? Is there a source where the writings of the Pratts could be searched to find that term?  I trust you all are doing well and that maybe someone has a way I might be able to track down this phrase?
    • By mfbukowski
      Mormons believe that the fall of Adam was "fortunate" and actually part of God's plan, since it gave us choice between good and evil and therefore able to merit praise for our actions and to overcome evil in our lives, or alternately follow a sinful path and cut ourselves off from our Father and make repentance harder, if not impossible in some cases.
      Without the choice to overcome temptation, we cannot overcome the "natural" or "carnal" tendencies within ourselves and attempt to become Christlike- many scriptures speak of "overcoming the world", and that is not possible without fully experiencing both the good and the bad within the world.
      The follower of Christ is to be IN the world but not OF the world.
      It appears that this idea varies from the view of Pope Francis in a recent interview.
      https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/01/deliver-us-from-dynamic-equivalence
      And at least from this article, it seems some scholars would come down more on the idea that we should be proactive in overcoming temptation rather than avoiding it.
      What do you think?
      Are there any defenders of Pope Francis here?
       
    • By mfbukowski
      When I was a nice little Catholic altar boy, I was taught that I should wear the "brown scapular" which on one side had some religious symbols, and on the other side it had some brown cloth.
      I was told that it represented a garment like the habit of Catholic "Brothers" ("monks" to non-Catholics though that is a very vague term which really doesn't grasp all the nuances) and Catholic "Sisters" ("nuns" to non-Catholics- but that is at least as vague as "monks" is, and barely scratches the surface of all that is entailed)
      I thought that was VERY cool that I could be a "kind of Brother" even as a kid and resolved to be extra good to live up to the promise I had made to God.
      Later I studied Mormonism and thought it weird that everyone called each other "brother" and "sister", then I found out that they too wore a special kind of garment like the habit of monks and nuns.
      Then suddenly it became reasonable.  Mormons also wore special clothing and were all kind of like monks and nuns who made covenants with God.
      So the parallels instead of being something "weird" suddenly became very comforting to me, and I could not wait to get to the temple to get my very own "garment"
      But I know that many here are not aware of scapulars, though I have mentioned them in passing before and since we have some Catholics who visit here,  I thought it might be fun to discuss.   No Protest-ants please.  (Just kidding  )
      Catholics also believe that scapulars offer a kind of spiritual protection for wearing them, which also parallels a Mormon belief about garments.
      http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/put-on-our-ladys-protection-with-the-brown-scapular#.WkwHvtWnHrd
       
       
       
       
    • By kiwi57
      It is something of a truism among Christians generally, and Latter-day Saints more specifically, that martyrdom has frequently been what Hugh Nibley (who the Church's enemies love to hate) called "a prophet's reward." The cases of Zechariah, Abinadi, Stephen, James the Just, most of the original 12 Apostles, not to mention Jesus himself, demonstrate that the world - not excluding the religious world - has little tolerance for any who have the temerity to remind them that God expects something better than the mere polite navigation of societal currents.
      While it is easy, with hindsight, to respond to such events with platitudes like "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church," in every case that I know of, those who followed a martyred prophet regarded the prophet's death as nothing less than tragic, if not outright disastrous. Authentic martyrs don't go out of their way to court martyrdom, and the followers of authentic martyrs don't seek to throw their prophets to the lions.
      We do not live in a time when the message delivered by the Lord's prophets is at all popular. As usual, that message runs counter to prevailing cultural winds. But we are blessed to live in a time - and long may it continue! - when they are able to deliver their message in relative safety.
      But as dreadful as the martyrdom of a prophet is, it isn't irrecoverable. After the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, a few dissenters and ambitious individuals left the Church, in some cases taking some followers with them; but the body of the Church recovered from the emotional shock, picked themselves up, and followed the legitimate leadership of the Twelve. And the Church, despite often-fierce opposition from various quarters, has survived and even thrived ever since.
      What is - and always has been - far more disastrous to the Church than the death of any leader, is the spectre of apostasy. Not apostasy from the Church - that always happens - but apostasy of the Church. Nibley, again, in arguing that the primitive Church was always expected to be taken from the earth, pointed out that its demise wasn't expected to be brought about by destruction, or even defection, but by the Church abandoning its faith. As he put it, the Church in that generation was faced with a choice between "saving its soul by remaining true to the faith, or saving its skin by coming to terms with the world." (Quoted from memory.)
      To those who see the Church as faced with the same choice in our generation, the lesson is clear. The martyrdom of Joseph the Prophet was in every sense a disaster - but a recoverable one. But if the Church in the latter days were to surrender to the world on matters of faith and morality, as the Church in former days did, then that would be a disaster from which the Church could never recover.
      That is why I, along with many others, am so frankly bewildered by those who claim to be Latter-day Saints, but who seem to be urging just such a surrender on a currently fashionable issue.
      There may be some who will interpret this as some kind of "slam" or insult. I assure you that it is no such thing. It represents my sober, calm and considered position. I have held it for a number of years now, and I have never been presented with any arguments that might make me reconsider that position.
      So the question for discussion is this: why should the Church's abandoning its doctrinal position on conjugal marriage, if such an abandonment were to happen, not be seen as a mere surrender to the shifting fashions of a fallen world?
×
×
  • Create New...