A Misconception Regarding Catholicism And Mormonism's Exclusivity Claims.

[Paul Ray]

What this says is that no one becomes a priest unless he's called by God (as, of course, Aaron was). Jesus has been called by God and become the final priest for all of us.

Do you honestly believe there were no more (Christian) priests after Jesus Christ was made a priest?

If so, when was Jesus Christ made a priest for all of us?

And how do you define what a priest is, exactly?

Why is it "untenable" that the Holy Spirit gives authority?

How can we know when the Holy Spirit gives authority to someone?

What is the evidence to indicate it ever happened?

I think it's more untenable to suggest that priesthood-- which isn't even predicated in the NT of any Christian save Jesus himself-- is what gives authority.

Just so we're on the same page, priesthood refers to the authority to act for and in behalf of God, in the name of God.

... and a person can receive the holy priesthood without being ordained to the office of "priest".

[Oceansun]

What are you talking about? Athanasius was the first to propose the 27 book New Testament canon. The best claim I have seen from people is that by 200 A.D. 20 of the 27 books of the New Testament has been accepted. Last time I checked my math skills, 20 does not equal 27. Also other books not found in the New Testament where accepted by many as being scripture. Even after the 27 book canon was drawn up, books like Revelation and Hebrews was still contested for centuries.

"[T]he early Christians used a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. This translation . . . contained an expanded canon which included a number of the so-called "deuterocanonical" (or "apocryphal") books. Although there was some initial debate over these books, they were eventually received by Christians into the Old Testament canon.

In reaction to the rise of Christianity, the Jews narrowed their canons and eventually excluded the deuterocanonical books - although they still regarded them as sacred. The modern Jewish canon was not rigidly fixed until the third century A.D. Interestingly, it is this later version of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, rather than the canon of early Christianity, that is followed by most modern Protestants today. When the Apostles lived and wrote, there was no New Testament and no finalized Old Testament....

[T]he first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. (The first complete listing was given by St. Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367.) . . . Most [early Christian] churches only had parts of what was to become the New Testament...

During the first four centuries A.D. there was substantial disagreement over which books should be included in the canon of Scripture. The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. He wanted the Church to reject its Jewish heritage, and therefore he dispensed with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion's canon included only one gospel, which he himself edited, and ten of Paul's epistles. Sad but true, the first attempted New Testament was heretical." (Father A. James Bernstein "Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament," The Christian Activist, Vol. 9, Fall/Winter 1996, p. 1,4-7

Does it really make sense to you that the Book of Revelation and Hebrews were contested by the active body of true believers in Jesus Christ. Both books were written by men who knew Jesus, John personally and physically walked with Christ and Paul had met Jesus on the road to Demascus and had been accepted as an authentic Apostle of Jesus Christ by the rest of the Apostles!

I'm sorry but I don't believe these books were ever contested by those who truly followed Jesus Christ.

2.) The true scriptures were known to the true christians. They did not need a council to approve, uphold, or rubber stamp anything! Please consider your sources. Please consider the writtings of Iraneus.

[jwhitlock]

Part of the problem with quoting early church fathers is that they are all over the board as far as doctrinal and historical pronouncements go. Sometimes they sound curiously Mormon in their doctrinal pronouncements. Other times they have agendas concerning the power and authority struggles of their times. They deal with what they see as heresies, and sometimes they are not quite forthright in their portrayal of facts. Other times they appear to be right on the mark, consistent with primitive Christian doctrine.

Early church writers can be used to justify a variety of conflicting viewpoints.

The one thing that reading the early church fathers does show is that there was significant upheaval and change going on in the Christian world from the last part of the first century onward. The NT itself is full of examples of that conflict and its extensive infiltration into the early church. By the time the apostles and the revelatory direction they gave were gone, it was pretty much every congregation for itself. The power struggles between not only the various groups later labeled heretical, but also within early "orthodoxy" itself are quite interesting to read about.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

2.) The true scriptures were known to the true christians. They did not need a council to approve, uphold, or rubber stamp anything! Please consider your sources. Please consider the writtings of Iraneus.

And I look forward to the day when the Book of Enoch is recognized by "true Christians" once again.

[jwhitlock]

And I look forward to the day when the Book of Enoch is recognized by "true Christians" once again.

Not to mention, Shepherd of Hermas.

[Paul Ray]

Seems to me that Catholics have a system of no apostasy with contining succession through popes.

LDS system is an apostasy with a restoration of Priesthood and office of apostles/prophets with additional scripture and prophecy

Protestants have no apostasy but no need for any succession of authority but this "priesthood of all believers" view.

Its up the the individual to decide which one makes most sense to them.

I think that before we can individually decide which one makes the most sense to us, individually, we need to understand what we're talking about, exactly.

Protestants don't believe the priesthood of all believers means the priesthood of each and every believer is just as good as anyone else's priesthood, and I think it helps to understand that to understand what they're really saying.

[Paul Ray]

... The true scriptures were known to the true christians. They did not need a council to approve, uphold, or rubber stamp anything! Please consider your sources. Please consider the writtings of Iraneus.

Please consider what you are saying?

Do you believe all true Christians today really know what the true scriptures really are?

If so, I do too, and I know that by knowing the true voice of my Master.

[bluebell]

I wonder if he was baptized. If he was married in the temple, if he had taken the sacrament, if he was a member of any organized religion.

My guess is his belief and repentance if any, was direct.

There was no earthly church built yet, no one to claim they were the way, other than Christ (the one who's authority was given by the Father).

You are assuming though son that I believe Christ meant that the theif was going to inherit eternal life when He claimed that he would be with Him in paradise that day.

I don't believe that's what Christ meant at all.

But i've never met a protestant that didn't believe such so the question applies to ocean.

[BCSpace]

What this says is that no one becomes a priest unless he's called by God (as, of course, Aaron was). Jesus has been called by God and become the final priest for all of us.

The greatest, the ultimate, not the final.

It's telling that neither here nor anywhere else in the first two centuries of Christianity do we read about Christian "priesthood authority".

"And say I, Honour thou God indeed, as the Author and Lord of all things, but the Bishop as the high priest, who bears the image of God - of God inasmuch as he is a ruler, and of Christ, in his capacity of a priest." Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 9, in ANF 2:107

"Every first-fruit, thereof, of the products of the wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and give to the prophets [and Apostles], for they are your high priests." Didache 13, in ANF 7:381

A "truly kingly man; he is that sacred high priest of God." says Clement about those who have been entrusted with the mysteries. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:7, in ANF 2:533

"In the same way the Apostles also and their successors, priests according to the great High Priest" Origin, On Prayer 28:9

etc.

[Paul Ray]

The greatest, the ultimate, not the final.

"And say I, Honour thou God indeed, as the Author and Lord of all things, but the Bishop as the high priest, who bears the image of God - of God inasmuch as he is a ruler, and of Christ, in his capacity of a priest." Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 9, in ANF 2:107

"Every first-fruit, thereof, of the products of the wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and give to the prophets [and Apostles], for they are your high priests." Didache 13, in ANF 7:381

A "truly kingly man; he is that sacred high priest of God." says Clement about those who have been entrusted with the mysteries. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:7, in ANF 2:533

"In the same way the Apostles also and their successors, priests according to the great High Priest" Origin, On Prayer 28:9

etc.

You could have simply summed it all up by simply saying "Wrong" to everything.

Why explain it?

Do you believe he is open to changing his opinion?

I'm starting to wonder why we discuss ANYTHING.

What's the point?

Oh, and btw, you don't really have to answer my questions.

I know the answers.

[freakin a man]

Does it really make sense to you that the Book of Revelation and Hebrews were contested by the active body of true believers in Jesus Christ. Both books were written by men who knew Jesus, John personally and physically walked with Christ and Paul had met Jesus on the road to Demascus and had been accepted as an authentic Apostle of Jesus Christ by the rest of the Apostles!

I'm sorry but I don't believe these books were ever contested by those who truly followed Jesus Christ.

2.) The true scriptures were known to the true christians. They did not need a council to approve, uphold, or rubber stamp anything! Please consider your sources. Please consider the writtings of Iraneus.

It does not matter whether it makes sense to me. The fact is Hebrews and Revelations where disputed far beyond the 4th century. You assume that Paul is the author of Hebrews. That is one reason it was disputed. It can't be concluded who exactly is the author. Paul is just a guess.

The fact is "true believers" did for centuries debate on what books where authorative. Many different canons where proposed during those early centuries. Why should I consider the writings of Iraneus. Even he does not accept all 27 books. Once again, if you are looking for a person to first propose the 27 book canon, you need to look into the 4th century. Not to the late 2nd century.

[BCSpace]

You could have simply summed it all up by simply saying "Wrong" to everything.

Why explain it?

Well, I didn't explain "the greatest" or "the ultimate". Challenging him to come up with BCV otherwise was the intent. It will be difficult in light of ECF evidence (which would contradict the Bible if he tries to come up with Bible evidence).

Do you believe he is open to changing his opinion?

Highly unlikely.

I'm starting to wonder why we discuss ANYTHING.

What's the point?

-To provide a comparison and a competing logic for those who have not yet formed a hardened opinion.

-To give aid and comfort to those laboring against those who are opposed to our Church.

-To test my conclusions in the heat of debate.

-"Crush the enemy, see him driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women." (In other words...FUN!!!)

Oh, and btw, you don't really have to answer my questions.

I know the answers.

My answers are unusual enough that I'm betting you didn't know with much surety.

[Paul Ray]

-To provide a comparison and a competing logic for those who have not yet formed a hardened opinion.

Yeah, that's why I think I usually do it too, sometimes.

-To give aid and comfort to those laboring against those who are opposed to our Church.

You can consider me to have been strengthened by you and your whole post. Honestly.

-To test my conclusions in the heat of debate.

I think I know what you are saying. I think I also develop patience in my "battles" of wit.

-"Crush the enemy, see him driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women." (In other words...FUN!!!)

Heh, yeah really. If it wasn't fun I would have left long ago.

And sometimes I think this actually improves my sense of humor.

... and I am far from being an expert on that issue.

My answers are unusual enough that I'm betting you didn't know with much surety.

Actually, I did already know my answers. I just didn't know what your answers would be.

And it is my pleasure to know you, personally, BCSpace.

[Son]

You are assuming though son that I believe Christ meant that the theif was going to inherit eternal life when He claimed that he would be with Him in paradise that day.

I don't believe that's what Christ meant at all.

But i've never met a protestant that didn't believe such so the question applies to ocean.

No.... I wasn't..... I understand that the thief died on the cross.

Nothing eternal about that, he will need to go through the ressurection like everyone else that dies.

My point was that he was saved. If not, paradise is pretty easy to get into.

[bluebell]

No.... I wasn't..... I understand that the thief died on the cross.

Nothing eternal about that, he will need to go through the ressurection like everyone else that dies.

My point was that he was saved. If not, paradise is pretty easy to get into.

that he died wasn't my point-

I don't believe that going to paradise means that one is 'saved' in the sense that they will inherit eternal life with God.

I believe that the thief was promised to be in the spirit world with Christ that day-not 'heaven' in the sense that most mainstream Christians understand it. In the Spirit world he would be taught the principles of the Gospel of Christ and eventually have access to every principle and ordinance (baptism, temple etc.) necessary for salvation.

Therefore, again, my question is a valid one (in regards to ocean's beliefs, though he seems to have forgotten to answer it) but it is not a valid question in regards to my beliefs...

which means that your question to me also is not valid since it was assuming that i was trying to prove a point that i wasn't actually trying to prove-the point that the man was saved without doing anything but believing in Christ.

at least, that is how i understood your first post to me. If i misunderstood i am sorry.

[PacMan]

Pants,

If youâ??d really like to prove your self a twit in public (again) Iâ??ll be happy to oblige.

Knock off the personal attacks. ~Mods.

The fact is that your strawman was here:

You have to show that they were successful in detaining 1,500 pro Arius Bishops.

That is a narrow-minded false dilemma, and not representative of my position at all. Simply put, I donâ??t know how the delay occurred. But a certain possibility is that multiple Bishops (with no affiliation to Arius) could have also been detained, or done the detaining themselves. More importantly, I never said that there were 1,500 pro Arius Bishops. Again, you posed a most incorrect strawmanâ?¦and should feel awfully silly for trying to defend it!

You scream "strawman" on this board all the time and you almost never use it right.

On the contraryâ?¦Iâ??ve used it impeccably.

Oceansun,

Iâ??m aware of Hippo (and Trent). But when you say â??the churchâ? recognized these booksâ?¦what church are you referring to? It was the Catholic Church that itemized the Bible, and Martin Luther that later gave us the Bible minus the apocrypha. But more importantly, the articulation was deeply controversial. Revlations nearly got the boot, so it was not a fluid process in the least.

If you'd like to attempt a correction of my view on the trinity, I'd be more than willing to discuss your concerns.

Fantastic. Juxtapose John 10, 17, and Stephenâ??s experience in Acts 7. But, please so do consistently.

I'm not confident you do understand John 10 & 17â?¦

Heheheâ?¦weâ??ll see.

Where in Ephesians does Paul state that he is an Apostle who serves beneath a prophet? Where is the Quarum of the 70's mentioned? Infact where does it state that we will continue to REQUIRE "prophets" and "apostles"? However, the scripture IS clear that there would be FALSE prophets and apostles!

1) Youâ??re confounding terms. The â??Prophetâ? as you refer to is one of many. All the Apostles are also prophets. Paul served â??beneathâ? Peter, the senior Apostle.

2)

Luke 10:1 AFTER these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

Thereâ??s your Quorum of the 70.

3)

Ephesians 4:11-13 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Waitâ?¦so we need them â??Till we all come in the unity of the faith?â? Last time I checkedâ?¦weâ??re not united.

4) Better questionâ?¦whereâ??s the Bible say thereâ??d be no more such positions?

5) There is NO PROOF there were â??non-denominationalâ? Christians in the scriptures! Are you kidding? Not only is it an anachronistic term, but youâ??re completely wrong. Christians were most definitely a single organization with definite leadership that all were subject to the Apostles, so I donâ??t know where you get this idea that they were non-deonominational.

During the prominence of the RCC, christians who were independent were indeed a minority, I'll even conceed a great minority, but they were NEVER extinct. It is silly to presume as much.

Yes. Iâ??m sure some heretics survived the inquisitions (donâ??t get offendedâ?¦Iâ??d be one of them).

Ohâ?¦on Irenaus: Heâ??s a bitâ?¦removed. As for what he is to the LDS, he was likely deep into the apostasy and hence a rather less-than-stellar authority. Not only is that at issue, but his relationship to Polycarp is a bit unfounded. His words were that he â??knew of Polycarp in his youth.â?? Heckâ?¦Iâ??ve known multiple Presidents of the US, and they hadnâ??t the foggiest whom I was!

I tell you what, you provide me with "evidence" for Laminites, Nephites, and Native Americans who were already knew and spoke of Jesus Christ before the Spanish arrived in the New World and I'll convert TODAY!!!

Well, the Book of Mormon is evidence (although certainly not proof). Not to mention the Stella 9 (or was it 11), Quetzalcoatl, etc., etc. I think you might toâ?¦rephrase your invitation. TOO LATE!! Whereâ??s the baptism?

Take care,

PacMan

[PacMan]

CK:

What this says is that no one becomes a priest unless he's called by God (as, of course, Aaron was). Jesus has been called by God and become the final priest for all of us.

Authority was always explicitly via the Priesthood. Do you disagree? Moreover, that He became a final priest is unfounded. John says he himself was made a priest. Why continue to perpetuate this blatantly false notion?

A. That the baptism of the Holy Spirit comes by laying on of hands because that's how it always is in the Bible and [Yup…do you disagree?]

B. Indwelling events that don't occur by the laying on of hands aren't really the baptism of the Holy Spirit, because the baptism of the Holy Spirit must occur by laying on of hands.

Don't you see the circularity there? A because of B, and B because of A.

Circularity? Regardless, it’s the fact of the matter. Galatians talks of the fruits of the spirit, and a number of locations talk of the gifts of the spirit. Do not confound these for baptism by fire simply because they’re from the same source. When the Apostles’ bosoms burned within them, was that not the Holy Ghost confirming the presence of the Lord? Yet this was certainly not a baptism by fire.

Surely you at least acknowledge that in the upper room, when tongues of fire descended, there was no laying on of hands. No?

Certainly. But let’s continue the entire account to illustrate what I was just saying. From Acts 2:

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

So this was a fulfillment of prophecy, for the Spirit was certainly poured out.

AND THEN

37

[BCSpace]

No.... I wasn't..... I understand that the thief died on the cross.

Nothing eternal about that, he will need to go through the ressurection like everyone else that dies.

My point was that he was saved. If not, paradise is pretty easy to get into.

Actually, the Bible is quite clear that he wasn't saved, at least not then. John 20:17 tells us that where Jesus went, the Father was not, therefore, this paradise is not the place of salvation and hence there is no evidence whatsoever that confessing Christ just before death will get one saved.

It is certainly possible that the thief accepted the gospel preaching in the afterlife and maybe (but highly unlikely imho), someone was baptised on his behalf (all as per Biblically supported ECF doctrine). In that case, perhaps he arose in the first resurrection (Matthew 27:52).

And it is my pleasure to know you, personally, BCSpace.

The pleasure is all mine.

[Son]

that he died wasn't my point-

I don't believe that going to paradise means that one is 'saved' in the sense that they will inherit eternal life with God.

I believe that the thief was promised to be in the spirit world with Christ that day-not 'heaven' in the sense that most mainstream Christians understand it. In the Spirit world he would be taught the principles of the Gospel of Christ and eventually have access to every principle and ordinance (baptism, temple etc.) necessary for salvation.

Therefore, again, my question is a valid one (in regards to ocean's beliefs, though he seems to have forgotten to answer it) but it is not a valid question in regards to my beliefs...

which means that your question to me also is not valid since it was assuming that i was trying to prove a point that i wasn't actually trying to prove-the point that the man was saved without doing anything but believing in Christ.

at least, that is how i understood your first post to me. If i misunderstood i am sorry.

Oceans tide must be out.

Wow, I think I actually get what you are saying.

So you believe that the Thief on the cross was not saved, but had the opportunity in the spirit plane to be instructed into salvation?

I've never heard that. Is that an LDS teaching?

Heaven is a big place, is the telestial not part of heaven, I think that is where the thiefs go. I think that is being saved, just a low position.

Saved in the most base level to me is not being in prisoned by Satan, and not experiencing the second death. What says bluebell?

[BCSpace]

Wow, I think I actually get what you are saying.

So you believe that the Thief on the cross was not saved, but had the opportunity in the spirit plane to be instructed into salvation?

I've never heard that. Is that an LDS teaching?

That the gospel is preached between death and the resurrection is LDS doctrine. Obviously it is Biblical, it is also found among the ECF.

Those who do not have the opportunity to hear the gospel in this life get it in the next. Those who reject the gospel in this life, but afterwards receive it, still receive a degree of glory (Terrestial at best), but not the highest. Therefore, this is not a 'second chance'.

Heaven is a big place, is the telestial not part of heaven, I think that is where the thiefs go. I think that is being saved, just a low position.

Saved in the most base level to me is not being in prisoned by Satan, and not experiencing the second death.

That is indeed salvation, the lowest degree. However, since God's purpose is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39), we speak of slavation most often in terms of the highest degree especially when speaking about the requirements for it.

IMHO, and especially if the thief had never heard the gospel, I believe it is possible for him to be forgiven enough that he has a shot at the highest degree.

[Oceansun]

Pants,

If you’d really like to prove your self a twit in public (again) I’ll be happy to oblige. The fact is that your strawman was here:

That is a narrow-minded false dilemma, and not representative of my position at all. Simply put, I don’t know how the delay occurred. But a certain possibility is that multiple Bishops (with no affiliation to Arius) could have also been detained, or done the detaining themselves. More importantly, I never said that there were 1,500 pro Arius Bishops. Again, you posed a most incorrect strawman…and should feel awfully silly for trying to defend it!

On the contrary…I’ve used it impeccably.

Oceansun,

I’m aware of Hippo (and Trent). But when you say ‘the church” recognized these books…what church are you referring to? It was the Catholic Church that itemized the Bible, and Martin Luther that later gave us the Bible minus the apocrypha. But more importantly, the articulation was deeply controversial. Revlations nearly got the boot, so it was not a fluid process in the least.

Fantastic. Juxtapose John 10, 17, and Stephen’s experience in Acts 7. But, please so do consistently.

Hehehe…we’ll see.

1) You’re confounding terms. The “Prophet” as you refer to is one of many. All the Apostles are also prophets. Paul served “beneath” Peter, the senior Apostle.

2) There’s your Quorum of the 70.

3)

Wait…so we need them “Till we all come in the unity of the faith?” Last time I checked…we’re not united.

4) Better question…where’s the Bible say there’d be no more such positions?

5) There is NO PROOF there were “non-denominational” Christians in the scriptures! Are you kidding? Not only is it an anachronistic term, but you’re completely wrong. Christians were most definitely a single organization with definite leadership that all were subject to the Apostles, so I don’t know where you get this idea that they were non-deonominational.

Yes. I’m sure some heretics survived the inquisitions (don’t get offended…I’d be one of them).

Oh…on Irenaus: He’s a bit…removed. As for what he is to the LDS, he was likely deep into the apostasy and hence a rather less-than-stellar authority. Not only is that at issue, but his relationship to Polycarp is a bit unfounded. His words were that he ‘knew of Polycarp in his youth.’ Heck…I’ve known multiple Presidents of the US, and they hadn’t the foggiest whom I was!

Well, the Book of Mormon is evidence (although certainly not proof). Not to mention the Stella 9 (or was it 11), Quetzalcoatl, etc., etc. I think you might to…rephrase your invitation. TOO LATE!! Where’s the baptism?

Take care,

PacMan

Hola Pacman,

1.) Go ahead and shoot sraight on John 10, 17 and Acts 7. What is it you don't understand about these scriptures?

2.) My point in regards to the Bible is simple, the truth is that the New Testament was written before the close of the first century by those who either knew Christ personally, had encountered Him, or were under the direction of those who were his disciples. If the RCC did anything at all, all it did was (just as you say) "itemized" the Holy Bible placing the books in the exact order they are located in today. As I have already demonstrated, the writings of Iraneus in 180 AD prove that the books of the New Testament were already known and accepted by christians long before the RCC ever even existed. If the book of Revelation nearly got the "boot" at Nicea it would have only been for political considerations. John the Apostle wrote the book and this was NEVER in dispute among christians as the writings of Iraneus clearly indicate many years before Nicea.

In regards to Nicea, The First Ecumenical Council, held at Nicea, located in what is now Turkey in 325 AD was a response to the Arian Heresy, which denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. It was revised at the Second Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople in 381 as a response to the Macedonian or Pneumatomachian heresy, which denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This was not a council that was held in order that these men might decide what was to be considered scripture, but rather they already knew what was authentic scripture and were looking to make it clear. It was held so that heresy would not seep in!

3.) I am confounding nothing, you claim that Paul served under Peter as he was "Senior Apostle". I challenge you to provide scriptural, or even secular documentation that Peter was ever given the charge of senior Apostle. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."(Matt.16:18) But does this really mean that Peter was the "head" of Christ's church? Let's walk through this together...

There are a few problems with your interpretation of Peter being the literal "rock" Jesus was refering to. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English translation. Jesus states "you are Peter (netpoc, petros) and upon this rock (netpa, petra) I will build my church..." In Greek, nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was NOT the masculine "petros" but rather the feminine "petra".

Allow me to illustrate by using the words actor and actress: "You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie." Do you see how the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was NOT saying His church would be built upon Peter the man, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?

The feminine word "petra" as we've established, is exactly what Jesus says he will build His church on, and appears four times in the Greek New Testament:

a.) Matt.16:18- "And I also say to you that you are Peter (PETROS), and upon this rock (PETRA) I will build My church; and the gates of hades shall not overpower it."

b.) Matt. 27:60- "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (PETRA); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."

c.) 1 Cor. 10:4- "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (PETRAS) which followed them; and the rock (Petra) was Christ."

d.) 1 Pet. 2:8- speaking of Jesus, says that he is " A stone of stumbling and a rock (PETRA) of offense"; for they stumble for they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word "PETRA" (nominative singular; "PETRAS" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immoveable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet.2:. Note that Peter HIMSELF in the last verse referred to PETRA as being Jesus!!! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus Christ, then shouldn't we???

And remember there is nothing in the writings of Paul that would even come close to suggesting he deferred to Peter. In fact, Paul put in quite a larger body of work in regards to scripture than did Peter, and above all else Peter himself speaks nothing of his leadership role in God's church in 1 & 2 Peter. All of this is to say nothing of the fact that other New Testament writers fail to give deference to Peter as well. Hmmm...

The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The ONLY rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we need to keep our eyes on Him and Him alone. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope in which the church is built. The church is built upon Jesus, NOT Peter.

1 Cor. 3:11- For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

4.) Well if your group of 70 is anything like the one Jesus employed then they would be out evangelizing the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ right this very moment. Now that doesn't mean serving a two year mission for a corporate church body at the age of 19 and prior to being a member of the 70's and delivering a "grace plus works plan of salvation" with additional books that add unto God's word. Jesus had his 70 out evangelizing and delivering a gospel of "salvation through faith", and they preached a very different Jesus than the one your 70 promote, but that's another topic and I don't have the time.

5.) Evangelical Christians are "united" and perfectly so when it comes to what actually saves us. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not at all what divides us. It's the minor things that often bring us disagreement (practices).

6.) Quit getting so hung up on the term "non-denominational" when I describe the christians who lived after Jesus Christ had returned to Heaven. It is my point that there were christians alive at that time (the scriptures prove this) and they were NOT part of any denominational church. They belonged to a "body of believers" known as christians. Yes they were organized in some ways but the first of the "for profit churches" (churches like yours, the RCC, the JW's and various other protestant groups) had yet to spring up. We know what life was like for the early church because we have the writings of Acts, Paul, Peter, and John etc. to go on. It is not exactly a mystery we're solving here. There was NOTHING mentioned in the above writings by the men who actually walked with Christ about temples being necessary (other than our bodies being one), "sacred" under-garmets,[edited by mods], theosis, God once being a man who walked on another planet, Jesus and Satan being brothers, polygamy in heaven, a three level heaven with no real Hell (boy did they all agree there was a Hell or what!?) On and on and on. We know exactly what these men thought and taught and mormonism/catholicism was definately NOT it!

They were simply christians. They had accepted the books of the New Testament LONG before Nicea which was itself a means to weed out heresy not an opportunity to decide what was scripture as if the people didn't already know. The Old Testament had been preserved beautifully by the Jews, thus there was no doubting it's authenticity and Iraneus may have been a "bad boy" at times but his merely mentioning the books of the New Testament in his time (180 AD) is solid proof that the christians were not at all confused as to what scripture actually was real and what was heresy.

7.) The Bible states that we should test men claiming to be "prophets". Joseph Smith fails miserably, but I know, I know you have plenty of excuses. The LDS "JOD" is another great place to go if you want to read these "prophets" speaking horrible blasphemies, and speaking total falsehood. You'll say "they were not speaking as prophets" but I'd also conclude they were not speaking as true followers of God would, muchless as God's hand-picked representatives here on the whole of the Earth. Test them to see what fruit they bear!

That's it for a while, I shall leave with a smile !

Sorry if I have offended you as it was completely unintentional and without malice. I pray that you will accept the Jesus Christ of the Bible as your personal diety and savior by faith if you haven't already! Though no matter what, I wish you the best life has to offer (and doing the above is key to making life great )

God Bless You and Keep You,

Oceansun

John 3:16

Mod note: Next time you make temple references and do not use the proper terminology of signs and tokens you will find yourself off our board. This is an LDS board, and treating sacred things to them with contempt and no regard for what they mean to LDS is rude. Read the Board Guidelines again.

Momus

[Chris Smith]

Authority was always explicitly via the Priesthood. Do you disagree?

I do disagree. Jesus "taught as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the Law." The priests of Jesus' day had no authority, but Jesus did because he was the Son of Man and had received it from his Father (Jn 5:27). Do a word search in the New Testament for "authority" and show me where it is "explicitly" via the priesthood. There are only three places:

Acts 9:14: And here he [saul] hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

Acts 26:10: Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.

Acts 26:12: Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests

Ironically, all three places in the New Testament where authority is associated explicitly with priesthood, it is illegitimate authority: authority to kill Christians! The truth is, priestly authority is empty authority. The true authority is had by all followers of Jesus who believe in and call upon his name and follow his teachings.

Mark 9:38-40:

"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."

"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.

When some Jewish priests tried to do this (Acts 19:13-16) even though they were not followers of Jesus, the demon kicked their butts. Obviously the name of Jesus is not a magical talisman, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit isn't to be taken lightly as Simon Magus tried to do. But those who are truly followers of Jesus need only call on his name, and demons tremble. That is authority.

Since it's bound to come up, let's make mention of the two places in the Bible where authority is used with respect to church leadership. We find them in the second letter from Paul to the Corinthians, where he does a little tongue-in-cheek boasting about the authority God has given "us" ("us" presumably referring to Paul and Timothy, named as the senders in 1:1) "to build you up, not to tear you down." This boasting is in response to the false "superapostles" who had ridiculed him in his absence and set themselves up in self-aggrandizing leadership positions over the church at Corinth.

2 Corinthians 10:8

For even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than pulling you down, I will not be ashamed of it.

2 Corinthians 13:10

This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority, the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.

It is interesting, though, that when Paul deals with this challenge to his leadership in chapters 10-13 he does not make any appeal to priesthood received from the Twelve, to his ordination, to his receipt of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. Rather he boasts of his service, of his hardships, and of the revelations and miracles that followed his ministry. These are the things he calls "the mark of an apostle". Apostle, of course, means "one who is sent". Paul certainly believed he had been "sent," not by the Jerusalem leaders, but by God himself. His authority in both the above verses comes from God. In fact, in Galatians 1 Paul brags that he went out a' preachin' without any sanction from the apostles. Rather, his commission came directly by revelation. When he visited Jerusalem, the apostles extended "the right hand of friendship," but that's apparently the only hand they laid on him. He says they

"added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (Gal 2:6-10)

And so we see from the italicized portion that Paul was already an apostle when he came to Jerusalem. Of course he was. He was "one who was sent" by Christ himself to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles! Paul needed no ordination from the hands of the Twelve in order to be sent out by Jesus to do his work.

And so we see that nowhere in the New Testament is legitimate "authority" associated-- explicitly or otherwise-- with priesthood.

Moreover, that He became a final priest is unfounded.

The Old Covenant had many priests. The New Covenant has only Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is the final priest. This notion is not unfounded. Rather, it is founded in the teachings of the Book of Hebrews.

John says he himself was made a priest.

John says that he is part of a kingdom of priests. Parallel passages predicate this of all the saints and of all who partake of the first resurrection. Both categories include Christian women as well as Christian men. See 1 Pet. 2:9, Rev. 1:6, 5:10, and 20:6. As I explained in another thread, the duties of the priesthood have been fulfilled by Jesus the Great High Priest, while the rights and privileges have been passed on to all Christians. Thus the priesthood is at once ended and extended, depending upon which aspect of it you're talking about. Doesn't it tell you something that the only places in the Bible that speak of Christian priests seem to be speaking of all Christians as priests, and in all cases seem to be speaking or a metaphorical fulfillment of Exodus 19:6?

In order to see that this is metaphorical, take a look at 1 Peter 2. This whole chapter, really, is an artful weave of magnificent metaphors: we are living stones in a spiritual house (temple), and we are holy priests offering spiritual sacrifices. The two word pictures are complementary.

Certainly. But letâ??s continue the entire account to illustrate what I was just saying. From Acts 2:

So this was a fulfillment of prophecy, for the Spirit was certainly poured out.

So if something is a fulfillment of prophecy, it can violate the rules? Why then did JS have to be ordained by John the Baptist? Why didn't God just send tongues of fire? This strikes me as an ad hoc explanation for something that doesn't fit neatly into the LDS paradigm.

AND THEN

This prick in the heartâ?¦where did it come from? Did they have pins in their pockets? Certainly it was the Holy Ghost (whom ALSO blessed them with the gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation of tongues), which convinced them to be baptized so that they could after which, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. But waitâ?¦the Holy Ghost had already come upon them at least twice before? Wowâ?¦confusing. Thank goodness for the circular A, B; B, A!!

The "they" whose hearts were pricked was the crowd. As for the apparent duplication of the apostles' baptism, you're right: there is a duplication. Jesus breathes on them in John, but in Acts they receive it later in the upper room. I view this as a contradiction, not as something to be alleviated by circular reasoning. In both passages, it's quite evident that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is described. Unfortunately for the LDS formula, neither version involves the laying on of hands.

Except, Priesthood and authority was always synonymous and that never ended. How do we know? Consider: What usefulness does the Melchizedek Priesthood hold for Christ if it isnâ??t authority?

Who said that Jesus derives some "benefit" from the Melchizedek priesthood? The order of Melchizedek is another allegory. Melchizedek was a type of Jesus, because he was both a priest and a king. In Israel that was a no-no. So in this sense Jesus was unique. His dual function as priest and king meant that he fulfilled the prediction of Psalm 110:4: "The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.'" Hebrews goes to great lengths to show how Jesus fulfilled this prophecy. This is no different than any other place in the New Testament where Jesus is made the fulfillment of a variety of Old Testament prophecies (most of which really have nothing to do with Jesus).

But the reason Christ is called a priest is that he performed the duty and function of a priest by sacrificing himself for us and entering the heavenly holy of holies to make atonement on our behalf. He doesn't benefit from this; we do!

Even so, whether confession was done before the congregation or not, the fact of the matter that in this instance, the church was discriminated against. In the following verse, â??ye,â? not church was usedâ?¦referring directly to the apostels.

Since the disciples were part of the church, it is only natural that Jesus should blur the two in this passage. There is no indication, in any case, that he is limiting his promise to the Twelve disciples. Rather, this binding and loosing is clearly available to all disciples wherever two or three gather in his name.

The possibility of holding the Priesthood of Aaron if Christ was disqualified as a Jew from holding the Levitical Priesthood?

You mean why did Paul describe Jesus as a priest if he wasn't descended from Aaron? Well, two points: 1) not that it matters, but the author of Hebrews probably wasn't Paul. 2) Melchizedek was neither a descendant of Aaron nor even a Jew. So describing Christ as a priest in the context of this prophecy makes disregard for the lineage requirement somewhat allowable. It's not that this problem didn't occur to the author of Hebrews, of course, for he writes,

"If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to comeâ??one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life."

But he was a member of the Church. I thought the authority of the HG was given to the church?

The Holy Ghost grants a certain kind of authority (power might be a better word) in that it endows one with gifts to do God's work. But I think it would be a mistake to propose a one-to-one correspondence between the Holy Ghost and "authority". Authority comes from God, and can take many forms. Kings, according to the Bible, are given a measure of authority. Satan is given authority over the earth. Believers are given authority over demons, and authority to bind and loose. Prophets are given authority to prophesy. Healers are given authority to heal. I don't see any evidence in the Bible that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is the fount of all "authority".

Blessings,

-CK

[freakin a man]

My point in regards to the Bible is simple, the truth is that the New Testament was written before the close of the first century by those who either knew Christ personally, had encountered Him, or were under the direction of those who were his disciples. If the RCC did anything at all, all it did was (just as you say) "itemized" the Holy Bible placing the books in the exact order they are located in today. As I have already demonstrated, the writings of Iraneus in 180 AD prove that the books of the New Testament were already known and accepted by christians long before the RCC ever even existed.

Yes it is true that the book sof the New Testament where known in 180 A.D. as well as many other books not found in the New Testament. What you said earlier was:

"In the writings of Iraneus, 180 AD, he attests the canonical recognition of the four Gospels and Acts, of Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus, of 1 Peter, and 1 John, and of the book of Revelation- THAT'S MOST OF OUR NEW TESTAMENT DECIDED 150 YEARS BEFORE NICEA!!!"

Most of the New Testament was decided. Most however is not all. That is the point that needs to be made. Of the books that you listed from Iraneus, what is missing?

Philemon

Hebrews

James

2 Peter

2 John

3 John

Jude

Seems to me this is rather significant. Also there where books seen by the early Christians as scripture on par with those that Iranaus listed. Also the order of the New Testament books are not in chronological order so whether Titus comes after 1st and 2nd Timothy really is not important. It could be placed before them is one chose to.

[freakin a man]

I am confounding nothing, you claim that Paul served under Peter as he was "Senior Apostle". I challenge you to provide scriptural, or even secular documentation that Peter was ever given the charge of senior Apostle.

I sort of agree. I believe that there was a two president system in the early Church like in the LDS Church. There is a president of the twelve and there is the President over the entire Church. I believe that James was highest ranking apostle and President over the entire Church. He outranked both Peter and Paul. As Ed Watson noted in his book "Mormonism: Faith of the 21st Century"

"Despite the lack of an explicit description of the structure of the early church in the New Testament, certain facets of it can be discerned in the texts. The most obvious is Peter was the head of the quorum of the Twelve, not as one possessing superior authority over the rest of the apostles, but being the first among equals. However, James, the brother of Jesus, appears to occupy the presiding position in the church.

It was James, not Peter who presided over the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2-22) and it was James, not Peter, who settled the issue of the requirements of the Gentiles for admission into the church (Acts 15:13-21 esp. vv.13,19-20).

Paul obeyed the order to appear before the council (Acts 15:2) and was on one side of the two opposing parties. The traditionalists, or conservatives insisted that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and keep the laws of Moses (Acts 15:5) while Peter (15:7-11) and Paul (15:12) took the opposite view. After both sides presented their cases, James decided in favor of Paul and Peter's position. James said, "my sentence is. . ." which proves he really presided in the council and everyone, including Peter and Paul submitted to his decision.

Because of the conduct of James, and of Peter and Paul deferring to his authority, reporting to him and being sent by him (Acts 21:18; 8:14; 15:13-21; 12:17; Gal 2:12), we can assume that James, the brother of Jesus, was the president of the early Christian church, (1) while Peter was the president of the Twelve (just as Joseph Smith was the president of the church in 1843 and Brigham Young was the president of the Twelve). This will also explain why the surviving apostles deemed it so important to convene another council to replace James after his death, not as a bishop of one particular church (out of over thirty) (2) but as the head of the entire church. Simon, the cousin of Jesus was unanimously chosen to be the next president of the church. (3)

The traditional view that James and Simon were merely bishops of the church of Jerusalem is untenable due to the actions of the surviving apostles. If they viewed James as a bishop of one church, why would they go through the trouble of assembling all of the surviving apostles and the other leaders of the church just to replace a bishop? If Simon was only a bishop of one particular church why didn't all of the apostles and leaders of the church gather in councils whenever a new bishop had to be appointed? Why is it that this tremendous effort was never done to any other church? Not even the bishop of Rome received the privilege of having all of the surviving apostles and other leaders of the church ordain him. On the other hand, if Simon was only a mere bishop of one church and he received this ordination whereas the bishop of Rome (if there was one at the time) never did, doesn't this mean that the apostles viewed the bishop of Jerusalem as being more important than any other bishop, including the bishop of Rome? The importance of James shows he had to be the president of the early church.

This will explain why James was considered by certain Christians to be "the Supreme Pontiff who rules Jerusalem . . . and the communities everywhere." (4)

St. Epiphanius said,

"He (James) first received the See (of Jerusalem); it is to him first that the Lord intrusted his throne upon the earth." (5)

ENDNOTES

1. THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.88.

2. THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.986.

3. Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 3, Chapter 11.

4. Clementine Homilies. Epistle of Clement to James. See also The Gospel of Thomas. Logion 12; Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 2, Chap. 1.

5. St. Epiphanius, Heres. 78.

[Oceansun]

Yes it is true that the book sof the New Testament where known in 180 A.D. as well as many other books not found in the New Testament. What you said earlier was:

"In the writings of Iraneus, 180 AD, he attests the canonical recognition of the four Gospels and Acts, of Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus, of 1 Peter, and 1 John, and of the book of Revelation- THAT'S MOST OF OUR NEW TESTAMENT DECIDED 150 YEARS BEFORE NICEA!!!"

Most of the New Testament was decided. Most however is not all. That is the point that needs to be made. Of the books that you listed from Iraneus, what is missing?

Philemon

Hebrews

James

2 Peter

2 John

3 John

Jude

Seems to me this is rather significant. Also there where books seen by the early Christians as scripture on par with those that Iranaus listed. Also the order of the New Testament books are not in chronological order so whether Titus comes after 1st and 2nd Timothy really is not important. It could be placed before them is one chose to.

First and foremost, understand that the mere fact that the 4 Gospels were made know to Iraneus is of chief importance. It is they that lay out the plan of salvation for all of mankind, and are the prime documents of the NT.

The above books you named of the NT are all in line with the scriptures Iraneus touted theologically and boast inspired authorship. They could not be classified as heresies, and thus were not rejected by the whole of christianity.

God Bless You,

Oceansun