A Misconception Regarding Catholicism And Mormonism's Exclusivity Claims.

[Paul Ray]

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

Hmm.

Let me just try to make sure that I understand what you are saying.

You believe the being we now know by the name of Jesus Christ was:

NOT the God of the Old Testament

NOT the being the Jews knew as God back in those days

NOT doing or being God until he was born on Earth as a mortal

Am I reading you right?

What are your beliefs concerning Jesus Christ, exactly?

I thought you were a "regular" Christian.

[Chris Smith]

Hmm.

Let me just try to make sure that I understand what you are saying.

You believe the being we now know by the name of Jesus Christ was:

NOT the God of the Old Testament

NOT the being the Jews knew as God back in those days

yes.

NOT doing or being God until he was born on Earth as a mortal

no.

What are your beliefs concerning Jesus Christ, exactly?

That he is divine, but a separate "person" from God the Father.

I thought you were a "regular" Christian.

My beliefs about Jesus as described above are fairly typical, but on the whole I am much more liberal in my theology and frankly and much less certain about the truth of Christianity as a whole than most "regular Christians".

-CK

[cksalmon]

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

Hey bro--

As with so many places in the Pauline corpus, one finds an incredibly interesting and fairly strange passage in 1 Corinthians 10.

I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,

and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

and all ate the same spiritual food,

and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10.1-4)

Granted we've got Christ following the fathers here (rather than leading), but the spiritual Rock was Christ!

What does that mean?!

Best to you.

CKS

(PS: Now, there's a sermon crying out to be preached. By someone more knowledgeable than I.)

[Chris Smith]

Hey bro--

As with so many places in the Pauline corpus, one finds an incredibly interesting and fairly strange passage in 1 Corinthians 10.

Granted we've got Christ following the fathers here (rather than leading), but the spiritual Rock was Christ!

What does that mean?!

Best to you.

CKS

(PS: Now, there's a sermon crying out to be preached. By someone more knowledgeable than I.)

Hi CKS,

One possibility is that what Paul was doing here was finding in the rock a type or allegory of Christ. It's similar to what he does in 1 Corinthians 9:9, Romans 5:14, and most importantly Galatians 4:22-26:

"For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and the other by a free woman. But the one by the slave was born according to the flesh, while the one by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things are illustrations, for the women represent the two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slaveryâ??this is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother."

This is one of the earliest examples of the allegorical interpretation of scripture; it's enough to make Augustine proud (and many of the rest of us red in the face).

In the Biblical account there is no rock that follows the Israelites around, but one could easily derive from the Bible that theory, and indeed the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan does so. In Philo's allegorical interpretation the rock symbolizes Wisdom. Given Paul's interest in identifying Jesus with pre-existent Wisdom, it's not surprising that he would identify it with Christ.

I'm not saying that I don't think Jesus was divinely active prior to his incarnation. I'm just saying that YHWH is generally identified with the Father, not with Jesus.

-CK

[cksalmon]

I'm not saying that I don't think Jesus was divinely active prior to his incarnation. I'm just saying that YHWH is generally identified with the Father, not with Jesus.

-CK

Hi CK--

Quite agreed.

But then there're YHWH's Ἐγώ εἰμι (LXX Ex. 3.14) and, apparently echoing it, Jesus' ἐγὼ εἰμί (John 8:58). What would this sound like in Aramaic? Ehyeh? (I don't know. Woefully, I don't know a lick of Aramaic.)

Best.

CKS

PS: Hope California's treating you well. You still coming to Asbury?

[Chris Smith]

Hi CK--

Quite agreed.

But then there're YHWH's Ἐγώ εἰμι (LXX Ex. 3.14) and, apparently echoing it, Jesus' ἐγὼ εἰμί (John 8:58). What would this sound like in Aramaic? Ehyeh? (I don't know. Woefully, I don't know a lick of Aramaic.)

Best.

CKS

PS: Hope California's treating you well. You still coming to Asbury?

Hey CKS,

I haven't the slightest what that would be in Aramaic. But it does seem clear that Jesus is identifying himself with the Father in some significant way. In Wisdom literature and Hellenistic Jewish logos-theology, Wisdom and logos are usually just aspects of God, despite being very personified; similarly, the gnostic aeons are all aspects of one God. In all these cases, the function of the personified aspect is to serve as a bridge between an infinite God (who in and of himself is really just a sort of passive realm of divine light) and the finite material world. Some early Christians may have thought of Jesus in a similar way (think Johannine school, for starters). When it comes to the nuts and bolts of the Trinity I don't really have an opinion, though I do see three distinct persons and some kind of oneness between them testified of in the Bible.

No, I'm not coming to Asbury anymore. Wheaton turned out to be a better program and a better deal.

-CK

[Beowulf]

Haven't had time to read this entire thread, so I just skipped through at random. Very interesting stuff. Especially PacMan's contributions.

Just thought I would add one more layer to this Catholic vs LDS vs Evangelical standoff. (heh)

The Evangelical posters here were right in saying that the Catholic Church was NOT the original church of Jesus Christ, and that the Pope doesn't have a leg to stand on... But for a radically wrong reason.

The original Church, as we LDS understand it, was led by the Twelve Apostles. This is an assertion that is generally acknowledged by historians.

But what happened when they passed on? The Twelve did not continue as a cohesive organization, and they left behind bishops who were in charge of local congregations. Once it became clear that the bishops had no one higher in authority, they began to extend their influence, appointing bishops over other towns.

These first-tier bishops treated each other as equals, but while taking advice from each other, they generally did not accept orders from the other bishops. Eventually they drifted so far afield that they became independent churches, each as prominent as any other.

In the 2nd C there were five such bishoprics: Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Ephesus. Note that Rome was never pre-eminent over the others. It only reached a higher level when Roman military power collapsed in the West and the Church stepped into the void. The other bishoprics NEVER DID acknowledge Rome as pre-eminent.

Not even today.

Ephesus moved to Constantinople and is now the Greek Orthodox Church. Alexandria became the Coptics. From Antioch can be traced the Armenians and the Nestorians. From Jerusalem derive the Mandaeans and other assorted Middle Eastern Christian sects.

So Catholic Rome is not so much a direct link to the Primitive Christian Church as it is to the First Generation of the Great Apostacy (together with the other four bishoprics).

And the Protestants? Sad to say, their fate is tied with the Catholics, since they were merely reacting to the Catholic view of Christianity, and not harking back to the Primitive Christianity (how could they, since they were more than a 1000 years removed...).

Beowulf

[Chris Smith]

And the Protestants? Sad to say, their fate is tied with the Catholics, since they were merely reacting to the Catholic view of Christianity, and not harking back to the Primitive Christianity (how could they, since they were more than a 1000 years removed...).

Their intent was certainly to hark back to the Primitive Christianity. This is particularly true of the Anabaptists (ancestors of modern evangelicalism). While they were 1000 years removed, they did have some pretty early documents to work from, no?

-CK

[PacMan]

CK:

When did Jesus receive this priesthood?

I donâ??t see how thatâ??s relevant. Did He have the authority called Priesthood or not?

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.

Wellâ?¦considering this â??functionâ? is limited to those with the Priesthood, how is that it is therefore not authority? Be it the priest in the tabernacle, Christ as our advocate before the Father, or an Apostle to lead us to know the will of the Lordâ?¦theyâ??re all functions of authority. You seem to be going to extremes to distance the priesthood from being authority when they are by definition, intertwined.

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"?

It has much to do with, â??what are demons?â? Simple maladies seem to be related as simply â??demons.â? The problem is that the NT doesnâ??t discriminate against real possessions and problems of development, etc. Clearly, faith needs to be exercised, etc. Certainly, Iâ??m not sure on the relationship of such possessions. They seem to be much less frequent today than they were in the past, and I attribute much of it with misdiagnosis.

Even so, the sons of Sceva are interesting because this demon (whatever it is) clearly recognizes Christ and Paulâ??s authority but not those of the seven sons. Our interpretation of this authority is certainly going to be different.

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.

Amos 3:7â?¦I find that the clearest definition of whom His servants are. Again, the demons are likely a confounded term in the NT.

How did God do miracles through the sisters of the Relief Society back in the pioneer days if they lacked this authority?

Faith works miracles. Understand, the only thing the Priesthood does that faith can is effectuate those ordinances (such as baptism) that are necessary for salvation. Through it can one know where to find â??one Lord, one faith,â?? and receive, â??one baptism.â??

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

If Christ put his hands on Paulâ??s headâ?¦why need the Apostles? The accounts are simply insufficient to know how it all happened, or if the Apostles DID give Paul the priesthood under their hands. But it is clear that where Christ did the choosing, Peter and the others accepted it as authoritative.

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.

Yet another false dilemma. The Apostles received their mandate under the hand of Christâ?¦why not Paul?

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

I see.

It's very clear in Revelation 1:6 that John is not the only one who is a priest.

Glad you agree.

All Christians. Not just John.

The fact is I never suggested it was just Johnâ?¦I said at least John. If it were ONLY John, thatâ??d actually hurt my position. But considering that all of our churchâ??s HAVE priests (like you believe Rev 1:6 suggests), I canâ??t but help to think youâ??re bolstering my position. The issue is that John says that there are priests, and Peter says the church is a holy Priesthood. I would ask what type of priests, and what type of Priesthood, and why Hebrews 5 doesnâ??t apply to â??thisâ? Preisthood.

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.

Outrage? Wishful thinking. The issue is that Peter is not speaking metaphorically that they are an holy priesthood. In other words, he is saying â??as a holy Priesthood they are AS lively stonesâ?¦building together a spiritual house.â?? The fact is that youâ??re not a stone. Thatâ??s impossibility. But holding the priesthood WAS (and is) a possibility. It something that DID (and does) existâ?¦and youâ??d agree that is at least through Christ. That being the fact, I wonder if your argument is that there is no Priesthood, or if you simply being a Christian hold it. Again, if you didnâ??t receive it as Hebrews 5 relates, then itâ??s not heldâ?¦but certainly exists as Peter explains.

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.

Imprecise. With the change in Priesthood came the necessity for a change in the law, fulfilling the old law.

3) The only places in the New Testament where priesthood is applied to Christians apply it to all Christians.

The problem is that it never says â??all Christians,â? and that those with the Priesthood would have necessarily received it as Hebrews outlines. That is the only statement that pertains to the transmission of the Priesthood, and that the authority is simply given out to all Christians is unfounded. I believe that the early Christians DID have the Priesthoodâ?¦having received it by the laying on of hands.

Three of these occur in the highly metaphorical book of Revelation, and two occur in a highly metaphorical and poetic 1 Peter passage.

Except I reject the usage of the Priesthood in 1 Peter is metaphoric.

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).

And within the context of the LDS church, it is completely consistent. Individuals have individual baptisms and may do so freely. I disagree with your implication that â??freelyâ? insinuates that there is no authority needed to effectuate such. IF the county courthouse were offering free marriages, that doesnâ??t mean I can now perform one myself.

What can we conclude, then? All Christians are priests in the sense that they 1) fulfill Ex. 16:9, 2) offer spiritual sacrifices,

And I think this will hit it on the head. They are not priests because they offer spiritual sacrifices, but offer spiritual sacrifices (baptism, etc.) because they are priests.

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.

The reason this works is because youâ??re confounding the term â??priesthood.â? Of course the levitical prieeshood was fulfilled, but the Priesthood DOES existâ?¦in the simplest case via Christ and the Melchizedek Priesthood. Itâ??s a Priesthood for a reason, but you have yet to detail what the Preisthood consists of. Moreover, the priesthood of believers is NOT metaphorical and I donâ??t see how you have a leg to stand on. The Greek in 1 Peter 2:9 has no metaphoric indicatorsâ?¦but calls them (indeed) a royal priesthood. I donâ??t understand how thatâ??s possible without the priesthood, and find Peter using â??holy Priesthoodâ? and â??royal priesthoodâ? consistently in versus 5 and 9â?¦literally. It makes no sense as a metaphor.

As per the post you skipped, there are some pretty important points. Again, Christ either has, or does not have the Priesthood of Melchizedek. You said that its allegorical which insinuates it doesnâ??t really exit, or at a minimumâ?¦Christ doesnâ??t really have it.

You said:

So describing Christ as a priest in the context of this prophecy makes disregard for the lineage requirement somewhat allowable.

Again, considering only the Levites could hold the Levitical Priesthood, I donâ??t understand how itâ??s allowable in the least. The possibility of holding the Aaronic Priesthood was expressly permissible (which it seems you agree). There must, therefore, be a distinction between the two.

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.

Yes. Thatâ??s exactly what we see at the day of Pentecost. Amongst their gifts of their spirit and pricking of their hearts, we see that the influences of the Holy Spirit does not equate with the gift of the Holy Ghost. It sounds like your position is, it could beâ?¦but not necessarily. Is that correct?

PacMan

P.S. I think part of the problem is that weâ??re looking at now 3 topics: The Priesthood as Authority, the role of the Melchizedek Priesthood, and differentiating the influences and Gift of the Holy Ghost. The discussions get long (and hopefully Iâ??ve been much more moderate in this post). Perhaps they need their individual threads.

[Paul Ray]

yes

no

That he is divine, but a separate "person" from God the Father.

So you believe Jesus was NOT the God of the Old Testament, or the being the Jews knew as God back in those days, but he WAS doing or being God before he was born on Earth as a mortal?

I think I got that right.

Very interesting.

So what do you believe Jesus was doing before he was born on Earth?

I agree that he is divine and a separate person from God, our Father.

And I can also agree that our Father's name is actually Jehovah, even though we (LDS) often refer to our Father as Elohim.

I believe that since the fall of Adam Jesus has been our Mediiator with our Father, and as our Mediator he has acted in our Father's name... which is what I mean when I say Jesus is the one who we now know as Jehovah.

I think you and I, and other LDS, are in agreement on a lot of this.

Maybe someday we will agree on everything.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Pac,

This thread is already too long, and I really don't have time to continue, even if I wanted to. But I would like to clarify one point:

I donâ??t see how thatâ??s relevant. Did He have the authority called Priesthood or not?

My position is that no, he did not. Jesus is our "high priest" only in the sense that he made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf, and therefore performed the function of a priest. I don't believe there is such a thing as Priesthood with a capital "P", nor do I think that lowercase priesthood is, at its core, about authority.

-CK

[PacMan]

Hi Pac,

This thread is already too long, and I really don't have time to continue, even if I wanted to. But I would like to clarify one point:

My position is that no, he did not. Jesus is our "high priest" only in the sense that he made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf, and therefore performed the function of a priest. I don't believe there is such a thing as Priesthood with a capital "P", nor do I think that lowercase priesthood is, at its core, about authority.

-CK

CK:

As much I I hate to admit it, I think the differences in interpretation really are at the crux of the matter (and hence the growing thread). Thank you for identifying them (at least it). If you reject the Melchizedek Priesthood as something that actually exists, certainly there is very little conversation on the matter that can be held. I do believe, however, that considering the extent of which Paul represents the new law (a very literal thing) as a derivative of a new Priesthood, I cannot fathom to juxtapose why then the law did change, if the Priesthood it refers doesn't truly exist. The writings of Paul (and Peter) go far beyond extolling Christ, but describing other important issues where a existent (yet new) Priesthood is necessitated, and where a "metaphoric" symbol holds no substance whatsoever.

Cheers,

PacMan

[Chris Smith]

It's actually unlikely that Paul wrote Hebrews. In any case, I think we can agree to disagree.

-CK

[PacMan]

It's actually unlikely that Paul wrote Hebrews. In any case, I think we can agree to disagree.

-CK

I'm content considering it scripture, regardless who did (I don't know that Paul didn't, and consider tradition for a lack of anything else). Anyone that does in a similar fashion (considers Hebrews scripture) needs to justify those points I noted above that cannot be strictly considered metaphoric.

But certainly, you're agreeable in disagreeing.

PacMan

[Son]

It's actually unlikely that Paul wrote Hebrews. In any case, I think we can agree to disagree.

-CK

Your right, he had a scribe write it, he dictated it according to the Spirits leading. Unless you have proof otherwise.

[Chris Smith]

Your right, he had a scribe write it, he dictated it according to the Spirits leading. Unless you have proof otherwise.

Why would we assume Pauline authorship by default? Just curious.

EDIT: Check out the authorship section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Hebrews .