A Misconception Regarding Catholicism And Mormonism's Exclusivity Claims.

[Paul Ray]

Anijen,

Don't fear the PacMan, your wearing a helmet.

Guys with helmets are worth bonus points, I believe.

... at least when they are bouncing and flashing.

And the only way that I know to get rid of the PacMan is to get rid of the dots.

... and I'm still working on that one. I'm not perfect.

[PacMan]

PR:

And the only way that I know to get rid of the PacMan is to get rid of the dots.

It doesn't get rid of me...just takes things to a whole new level!

PacMan

[Paul Ray]

Anijen,

Hehe...thanks for the "cheerleading." Just don't turn in the helmut for a mini-skirt!

But, I really do appreciate it.

PacMan

FYI, I was also "cheerleading" for you too.

I said you had a pretty high horse. Didn't I?

P.S. If something is incorrect or logically incoherent, isn't the best way to identify it by saying it's "incorrect," or explaining how it's logically incoherent? I guess I can't win...

I think it's perfectly acceptable to tell someone when we don't agree with them, when we don't.

... as long as we try to be graceful about it.

... and I didn't think it was graceful to tell Ocean he was ignorant, repeatedly.

... or to say he was immature.

... since all of us are.

... < those are just free dots... in case you still have the munchies.

[Son]

Anijen,

Hehe...thanks for the "cheerleading." Just don't turn in the helmut for a mini-skirt!

But, I really do appreciate it.

PacMan

P.S. If something is incorrect or logically incoherent, isn't the best way to identify it by saying it's "incorrect," or explaining how it's logically incoherent? I guess I can't win...

Seeing as we are picking teams, and not all of us have helmets, you still have not addressed what specifically I said that was not biblical, and which prompted this head chewing.

Issue resolved thanks Pac man

You did say please and I appreciate that, but would like further clarification, so I don't have to duck again.

California Kid, it is post #71. I guess someone was bad.

[Chris Smith]

California Kid, it is post #71. I guess someone was bad.

No, I was just calling attention to the much-neglected #72...

[Son]

No, I was just calling attention to the much-neglected #72...

oops, sorry, my bad

[PacMan]

[whisper]pssst... post number 72...[/whisper]

I got it...and responded (go back a page...I divided into 2 posts). I do think I miss read the search was for NT accounts on "authority and priesthood." Just excuse the gnashing of teeth on that one.

PacMan

[Chris Smith]

I got it...and responded (go back a page...I divided into 2 posts). I do think I miss read the search was for NT accounts on "authority and priesthood." Just excuse the gnashing of teeth on that one.

PacMan

Ah, I missed that somehow. Thanks.

I actually am on my way to the river and then have church tonight, but I'll read and respond ASAP.

-CK

[cdowis]

That isn't correct, there are tons of writings showing the Bishop of Rome to have primacy over the other Bishops.

To say "Apparently the Christians at that time did not recognize Rome in any way prominent in Christian leadership. Certainly not the Seat of Peter" is patently false.

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

The Little Labyrinth

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

You are pretending that I am arguing against a central leadership in the early church, which I am not. At the time of the Council of Nicea, there was no acknowledgement of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, as evident from the proceedings of the Council itself.

If the Bishop of Rome were pre-eminent, the other bishops, and most likely the Emporer himself, would have looked to him for guidence. His representative at the council was simply a peer among peers. When certain bishops voted against the creed, it was the emporer who had to punish them.

Your citations were from 200AD but by the time of the Council, the church had been taken over by the false leaders ("false bishops"). The heretics were now running the show, with the backing of the Emporer himself.

If the Bishop of Rome were in charge at that time, nobody seemed to know it. The inspired, authorized leadership of a century previous -- 200AD -- was now gone and the heretics had taken over. The bishop of Rome was just one of the guys.

[rhinomelon]

P.S. If something is incorrect or logically incoherent, isn't the best way to identify it by saying it's "incorrect," or explaining how it's logically incoherent? I guess I can't win...

It's fine if you say it's incorrect. No problem there. I think what the other folks are picking up on is that you tend to go beyond that. Simply making a bad argument or misunderstanding something you say doesn't make someone immature, malicious, idiotic, ignorant, etc. You seem to make personal judgments about people based on the quality of their arguments, which is hardly a good criteria to use. A person can be quite mature, educated and nice without learning how to avoid the dozens of logical fallacies out there.

Just don't make it personal. That's how you can win!

Okay, I'll get off the dogpile on Pacman now...

Take care, everyone

[Paul Ray]

It's fine if you say it's incorrect. No problem there. I think what the other folks are picking up on is that you tend to go beyond that. Simply making a bad argument or misunderstanding something you say doesn't make someone immature, malicious, idiotic, ignorant, etc. You seem to make personal judgments about people based on the quality of their arguments, which is hardly a good criteria to use. A person can be quite mature, educated and nice without learning how to avoid the dozens of logical fallacies out there.

Just don't make it personal. That's how you can win!

Okay, I'll get off the dogpile on Pacman now...

Take care, everyone

Who ever said Evangelical Christians weren't really good people, or anything?

It wasn't me.

edit: and btw, the topic of this thread involves some "exclusivity" claims.

... and I would rather we not be against any Christians.

[PacMan]

Rhino,

No worries...certainly if enough people complain, it's a good indication that things whould be re-looked at. What puzzled me about this last incidents with Oceanspray (or whatever its name is), is that he blatant tossed inflammatory red herrings then pulled a 180, "I hope I didn't offend" comment. If such a person is so disatached from reality to notice that thread-derailing and inflammatory comments could be construed as offensive, I don't know that they are at all academically competent to objectively participate on a apologist forum. And sure...it's my judgment, I admit. But you really need to go back and read the transcript. I'm actually pretty darn proud of myself at the pulled punches!

PacMan

[Anijen]

Where do I get one of those? I never thought it could be used for that.

hey you ever had a chigger under that helmet? or are they just in Missouri.

no chiggers but a ute once, he didn't last too long hehe...

[Paul Ray]

Rhino,

No worries...certainly if enough people complain, it's a good indication that things whould be re-looked at. What puzzled me about this last incidents with Oceanspray (or whatever its name is), is that he blatant tossed inflammatory red herrings then pulled a 180, "I hope I didn't offend" comment. If such a person is so disatached from reality to notice that thread-derailing and inflammatory comments could be construed as offensive, I don't know that they are at all academically competent to objectively participate on a apologist forum. And sure...it's my judgment, I admit. But you really need to go back and read the transcript. I'm actually pretty darn proud of myself at the pulled punches!

PacMan

Uh.

... nevermind.

Oh what the heck. It won't hurt. It's just my own opinion.

Please read this statement, PacMan, and tell me what you honestly think about it.

If such a person is so disatached from reality to notice that thread-derailing and inflammatory comments could be construed as offensive, I don't know that they are at all academically competent to objectively participate on a apologist forum.

... from the perspective that Ocean may have about your statements.

... and I'm referring to the comments I highlighted in my post to you.

How do you think Ocean would construe your statements about being "ignorant" and "immature".

Do you still feel competent to participate on this forum?

[PacMan]

PR:

Look again. "Could" should have been italicized... But I think this personal thread has probably run it's course. Not that I care...I'm one of my favorite topics!

PacMan

[Paul Ray]

PR:

Look again. "Could" should have been italicized... But I think this personal thread has probably run it's course. Not that I care...I'm one of my favorite topics!

PacMan

All threads are about people and what people believe, so in that sense all threads are personal.

This is not what I would call a personal thread, however, you are entitled to your own opinion.

[Chris Smith]

Hello, Pac,

The river fell through till tomorrow, so I have some time to respond.

Ummâ?¦except Jesus had the authority, and it was called the Priesthood.

When did Jesus receive this priesthood?

So Christâ??s authority and Johnâ??s (considering he was a priest) is useless?

Neither Christ's nor John's authority came from priesthood. Priesthood is not about authority. Priesthood is a function in which someone who is purer than the average Joe stands between the average Joe and God and performs a variety of rites on his behalf. A priest is someone who is set apart to perform this function, because most people are not pure enough to enter God's presence. The priest belongs to a holy (set apart) tribe and has a responsibility to maintain absolute holiness by means of various purification rituals. I would equate priesthood with holiness and with priestly duties rather than with authority. True, when one is "holier" than one's companions it lends itself to a feeling of superiority and authority over them. But I don't think that was the design; it's just human nature at work.

Actually, thatâ??s a false dilemma. Moreover, I agree that there is inherent power in the name of Christ. All those with bodies have power over the demons (assuming they havenâ??t given that power away). Those demons without bodies are inherently of lesser authority than those that do.

The New Testament doesn't seem to be aware of this inherent bodily advantage. Why do the seven sons of Sceva get their butts kicked by a demon? Why are the Apostles unable to cast out a certain demon because "this kind comes out only by prayer"?

Moreover, your list of â??sourcesâ? are tremendously short. Maybe you should use www.lds.org, because it seems to work better than your limited few.

Mark 13:34

Luke 9:1

Just says the twelveâ?¦

Mark 13:34 does not just say the Twelve. Luke 9:1 does say Jesus gave the Twelve authority over demons and sickness (didn't you just say they already inherently had authority over demons?), but I can't imagine that you believe this was exclusive to them. How did God do miracles through the sisters of the Relief Society back in the pioneer days if they lacked this authority?

2 Cor 10:8

Now concerning 2 Cor 10:8, tongue in cheek or not, Paul makes it clear that he was given authority. But just the fact that Paul admits to it as â??boasting,â? is reason enough to understand why such authority wasnâ??t spoken about very often.

I agree. Paul was given authority directly by God. But he never received priesthood from the hands of the Jerusalem apostles.

This is silly, because Paul WAS an Apostle! He received his personal mandate from Christ himself.

What are you trying to prove? You are only leveraging ignoratium. That there was a hand of friendship says nothing about authority. Youâ??re drifting from the topic, friendâ?¦

Are you saying all that's required to be an apostle is a mandate from Christ himself? That's quite the change from your earlier insistence upon the laying on of hands as the way authority is conveyed.

Except when itâ??s devastating to your case, i.e, tongue-in-cheek or just altogether skipped.

Corinthians, tongue-in-cheek or not, does not associate priesthood with authority. It doesn't even mention priesthood. Nor does anything I "skipped".

Then you sayâ?¦

John says that he is part of a kingdom of priests.

What??? No he doesnâ??t! He explicitly states that they had been made a â??king and priests.â?

No, basileian is "kingdom", not "kings". The KJV apparently is in error at that point.

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.

And I reject it completely! You twist Revelations in such a way to disassociate John from being a priest and make it nearly unrecognizable in the process!

Let's not get hysterical. It's very clear in Revelation 1:6 that John is not the only one who is a priest. He is writing to the seven churches in Asia, and says that God "loves us", that he "released us from our sins by His blood", and that he "has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father." All Christians. Not just John. I haven't twisted this passage at all. It's your John-only reading that twists it.

But you bring up 1 Peter 2:9, and Iâ??m glad you do. Here Peter specifically refers to being a holy priesthood. So 1) We know there IS a priesthood. Which one? What is it called? 2) Hebrews 5 speaks directly on how it transmitted. How is this any clearer?

OHHHHâ?¦thatâ??s how! When Peter DOES speak about priesthood, heâ??s speaking metaphorically! Except, heâ??s not. â??AS lively stones are built up a spiritual house, AN holy Priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices!â? There is nothing metaphoric about it! They as a holy Priesthood are AS lively stones. If this is all metaphor, then be consistent and explain of â??offering up spiritual sacrificesâ? isnâ??t what it says.

You're not making any sense. I frankly don't understand your oturage over my taking this metaphorically. Perhaps you think that if you get outraged enough I'll be intimidated and back off my position? It ain't gonna happen.

Let's take stock of what the New Testament tells us about priesthood:

1) There were many Aaronic priests under the old covenant, but that covenant was imperfect and did not bring life.

2) There has been a change in the priesthood, and now we have Jesus, the perfect high priest who put an end to the old covenant and made the temple and priesthood past-tense realities.

3) The only places in the New Testament where priesthood is applied to Christians apply it to all Christians. Three of these occur in the highly metaphorical book of Revelation, and two occur in a highly metaphorical and poetic 1 Peter passage.

4) In what sense are we priests? We can only go by what the Bible tells us. Paul tells us we may approach God freely, which is very similar to OT priestly formulas about approaching God. 1 Peter tells us we offer "spiritual sacrifices", which are worship and service (the functions of all Christians; see 1 Pet. 2:9 and Romans 12:1).

What can we conclude, then? All Christians are priests in the sense that they 1) fulfill Ex. 16:9, 2) offer spiritual sacrifices, and 3) have the priestly privilege of approaching God. The functions of the priesthood, however, have been fulfilled in Jesus and therefore no longer exist. The priesthood of believers is metaphorical. Period. I will not be intimidated away from so obvious a conclusion.

What are you talking about? Iâ??m completely lost. The inspiration and gifts of the HG are not left only to those that have received the gift of the HG (baptism by fire), else the Jews would never have understood what was being said, nor would have had their hearts pricked. But whatâ??s clear is that they didnâ??t there receive the gift of the HG, because Peter goes on to explain how they might receive it after their baptism. To simply say that the presence of the HG is thus a baptism by fire, is confounding the many roles of the HG.

Again, youâ??re confounding the gifts of the spirit with the baptism by fire. They are mutually exclusive and needs be for any of this to makes sense. And yes, the crowd of Jews had already received the gift of translation to hear the words of the Apostles (every man in their own tongue), and had their hearts pricked ALL before being baptized and receiving the baptism by fire.

As such, it is quite evident that baptism by the Holy Spirit is NOT describedâ?¦for Peter explicitly states that it has yet to come to them!!

I am at least partially in agreement with you, at least in the sense that the Spirit can prick someone's heart without indwelling them first. But I haven't the slightest where you're going with this. Are you going to tell me that when people are indwelled by the Holy Spirit as John was from birth or as the Apostles were in the upper room, that's not the baptism of the Holy Spirit because there was not laying on of hands? That does not follow from your pricking illustration.

I don't think I will respond to your second post. I see a lot of semi-hysterical protestation, but not much substance. I think I've made my case very well, and I'm going to let it stand as is. If you care to synthesize the relevant biblical passages in order to make a sort of summary closing statement of your own, I think that would be a great way to end this discussion.

Blessings,

-CK

[Paul Ray]

Neither Christ's nor John's authority came from priesthood. Priesthood is not about authority.

... in your personal opinion, you mean.

You don't seem to be aware that some people have other ideas.

I say you don't correctly understand what the term "priesthood" refers to.

Priesthood is a function in which someone who is purer than the average Joe stands between the average Joe and God and performs a variety of rites on his behalf.

Nope.

Priesthood is the authority of God.

Would you care to guess again?

I have all day.

A priest is someone who is set apart to perform this function, because most people are not pure enough to enter God's presence.

Not quite. You came kinda close, though. Would you like me to tell you?

A priest is a person who has the authority of God that God has given that person for a purpose.

The priest belongs to a holy (set apart) tribe and has a responsibility to maintain absolute holiness by means of various purification rituals.

I guess so, in a sense. Do you also consider yourself to be part of a tribe?

I would equate priesthood with holiness and with priestly duties rather than with authority.

That is where you are going wrong. It is authority.

True, when one is "holier" than one's companions it lends itself to a feeling of superiority and authority over them. But I don't think that was the design; it's just human nature at work.

You might benefit from looking up the definition of authority.

It has nothing to do with personal feelings.

[Son]

... in your personal opinion, you mean.

You don't seem to be aware that some people have other ideas.

I say you don't correctly understand what the term "priesthood" refers to.

Nope.

Priesthood is the authority of God.

Would you care to guess again?

I have all day.

Not quite. You came kinda close, though. Would you like me to tell you?

A priest is a person who has the authority of God that God has given that person for a purpose.

I guess so, in a sense. Do you also consider yourself to be part of a tribe?

That is where you are going wrong. It is authority.

You might benefit from looking up the definition of authority.

It has nothing to do with personal feelings.

Paul Ray..........Son here, hows your day goin'

To the point,

I am pretty sure that there is a list of requirements based in righteous living that go along with the priesthood.

I am not seeing that represented in the above dissertation, did you over look the attitudes of a priestholder or just did not feel like addressing them with the one you are bantering with at the moment?

Clearly not all priesthood holders observe the discipline of the the priesthood as well as others, but I believe they are admonished to not practice the forms while going astray.

what says, Sir Ray?

son

[Paul Ray]

Paul Ray..........Son here, hows your day goin'

Pretty good, in the overall eternal perspective.

My wife has been having bouts with her diabetes, though, and that's frustrating.

I'd like to just make it go away, but I'm not God.

To the point,

I am pretty sure that there is a list of requirements based in righteous living that go along with the priesthood.

In a sense, yes, but more to the point, not really.

While God gives and has given us some guidelines to live by, priesthood power (or authority) isn't conditional upon anything other than the power God gives to a person.

I am not seeing that represented in the above dissertation, did you over look the attitudes of a priestholder or just did not feel like addressing them with the one you are bantering with at the moment?

To put it simply, priesthood is the power (or authority) of God.

There may be some other things that are related to that issue, but those are all separate issues.

Clearly not all priesthood holders observe the discipline of the the priesthood as well as others, but I believe they are admonished to not practice the forms while going astray.

Yes, we have been given some rules of conduct, but the power of God is the power of God.

what says, Sir Ray?

Clear enough?

In all things I try to submit to the will of my Father regardless of my other personal interests.

[Chris Smith]

... in your personal opinion, you mean.

You don't seem to be aware that some people have other ideas.

I say you don't correctly understand what the term "priesthood" refers to.

I was speaking, of course, of the Jewish priesthood, not of the Mormon priesthood.

You might benefit from looking up the definition of authority.

It has nothing to do with personal feelings.

My point was that the Jewish priests of Jesus' day exercised authority over people not because that is part of the inherent function of a priest, but because they had taken that authority upon themselves. In the Law, the function of a priest is primarily ritual rather than leadership.

-CK

[Paul Ray]

I was speaking, of course, of the Jewish priesthood, not of the Mormon priesthood.

Do you agree that the Jews were led by Jesus Christ, aka Jehovah?

If so, you should see the Jews had a Christian priesthood, even though they later rejected their Leader.

My point was that the Jewish priests of Jesus' day exercised authority over people not because that is part of the inherent function of a priest, but because they had taken that authority upon themselves. In the Law, the function of a priests is primarily ritual rather than leadership.

I think you would benefit from understanding and believing that Jews were personally led by Jesus Christ.

You seem to want to think that they weren't led by Jesus Christ simply because they later chose to reject their Leader.

Our Lord came to his own but his own (or least a lot of them) didn't believe it was him who led them.

... and even today, they still do not know that.

[Son]

Pretty good, in the overall eternal perspective.

My wife has been having bouts with her diabetes, though, and that's frustrating.

I'd like to just make it go away, but I'm not God.

In a sense, yes, but more to the point, not really.

While God gives and has given us some guidelines to live by, priesthood power (or authority) isn't conditional upon anything other than the power God gives to a person.

To put it simply, priesthood is the power (or authority) of God.

There may be some other things that are related to that issue, but those are all separate issues.

Yes, we have been given some rules of conduct, but the power of God is the power of God.

Clear enough?

In all things I try to submit to the will of my Father regardless of my other personal interests.

Thankyou for sharing,

Now I can envision your love in perfect health, free from any disease or discomfort.

May the power of Christ flow through her members making her whole.

The promise is they shall mount up as eagles, they shall run and not be weary.

Being married to you must make her worthy of this.

True you are not God, or you would say, I am God.

But you do have all that is His, we must believe this, in order to operate like Him.

Godspeed,

If you are so inclined let her know Son is rooting for her perfect health.

[Paul Ray]

Thankyou for sharing,

Now I can envision your love in perfect health, free from any disease or discomfort.

I can envision that too.

Her diabetes was discovered pretty recently, and all the while she seemed normal.

It's hard to watch her go through so much unpleasantness.

May the power of Christ flow through her members making her whole.

I ask for that often, and I am still asking for it.

At least she's not suffering like Job did.

The promise is they shall mount up as eagles, they shall run and not be weary.

At this point I am waiting for that fulfillment.

Being married to you must make her worthy of this.

Nothing can make us worthy of the power of God.

It must be God's will for her to be healed if she ever is healed.

True you are not God, or you would say, I am God.

But you do have all that is His, we must believe this, in order to operate like Him.

We can operate like him only to the extent that we have his power.

I do have the holy priesthood, but that authority is limited to certain bounds.

Godspeed,

If you are so inclined let her know Son is rooting for her perfect health.

Thank you, and please pray for her too.

[Chris Smith]

Do you agree that the Jews were led by Jesus Christ, aka Jehovah?

No. The equation of Jesus with Yahweh is a uniqely Mormon development.