The Order Of Melchizedek

[Cold Steel]

This is not correct. Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. He is our High Priestâ??the only High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. The apostles and other NT members did not have the Melchizedek priesthood.

Not if we're correct. If God called Joseph Smith to be a prophet, what does that mean? It means that the revelations contained in the D&C are true. And if they're true, all the information about the Melchizedek priesthood also is true. And it lastly means that your assertions are false.

You say that the apostles did not have the Melchizedek priesthood. How do you know? How can you possibly prove they did not? You can only state your opinion; otherwise, where is your proof? Cite the scripture that states specifically that they weren't high priests in the Melchizedek priesthood. You can't do it.

The Book of Mormon never mentions the Melchizedek priesthood by name, but it outlines it in Alma 13. Elder Bruce R. McConkie states: â??Book of Mormon prophets gave the title priest to officers known in this dispensation as high priests. That is, they were priests of the Melchizedek Priesthood, or as Alma expressed it, â??the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son.â?? (Alma 13:1-20.) Since there was no Aaronic Priesthood among the Nephites in Alma's day (there being none of the lineage empowered in pre-meridian times to hold that priesthood), there was no need to distinguish between priests of the lesser and greater priesthoods.â? (Mormon Doctrine, p. 599)

Now you can say, "Hey, I don't agree with that at all!" but you can't disprove anything either he or Alma says. In the same vein, we can't prove that what we say is true from the Bible, either. We can refer to the "saviors" on Mount Zion, the 144,000 high priests, and we can point out that there's no distinction between a Melchizedek high priest or any other kind (though the "high priest" officiator in the Old Testament was assuredly a Levitical position). We can refer to our own scriptures, but what's the point?

What you believe is mainly from modern revelation.

By George, I think he's got it.

What I believe is from the Bible.

Now I'm sure of it!

You have to decide what you believe more, either the Bible or Joseph Smith, that is the bottom line.

Oh, and you were doing so well! Zeeeeeech! Wrong answer. Actually, one can actually believe option 3: one can believe both the Bible and Joseph Smith's revelations. They actually derive from the same source. If Peter were here you could ask him, but it's unlikely that will happen.

How do you know that the Bible lacks vast sums of knowledge?

Well, that's a topic for another thread. Simply put, the Lord, Himself, tells us in the Book of Mormon and in other revelations. There are many things not explained in the Bible; for example:

1) who can baptize?

2) what is the precise manner of baptism?

3) what words are stated?

4) how is one ordained? What words are said?

5) how is the Holy Ghost conferred? What words are said? Who can do it?

6) what is the precise interrelation of offices within the church?

7) which offices preside over others?

how is the sacrament administered? By whom? Words?

9) can women become priests? Can they baptize?

I have many more questions that can't be answered by the Bible, including: "Was the priesthood of Melchizedek limited solely to Christ, or did/will others hold it?" Regarding number 5, keep in mind that the New Testament itself states that some could baptize, but not confer the gift of the Holy Spirit. But it never says why, who, etc.?

But if Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God, then the fact that he revealed to you that the Bible lacks vast sums of information is a false idea. I admit that enough is known, so does that mean that you lost the debate?

No, you contend that enough is known. Unless you can answer the questions above and cite chapter and verse, I win. Keep in mind that throughout recorded history, God has never left it up to man how to officiate ordinances. He has always revealed it. Even before the priesthood was divided, Saul presumed to sacrifice when Samuel was late in arriving before a battle. For this presumption, the Lord said through Samuel: "Thou has done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever; now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee." (1 Samuel 13:13-14)

Saul learned the hard way that a king is not a priest (something that was apparently lost on King Henry VIII). Saul did not have the priesthood and was not authorized to offer sacrifices. True, Saul did not lose his kingdom for a number of years, a point, had it been in the Book of Mormon, would have been the subject of some controversy, I'm sure. Nevertheless, he did lose it and Samuel's pronouncements were fulfilled.

[Billy]

As far as a priest being only from the line of Levi, IIRC, there was in the days of the first temple another priesthood, a priesthood of Melchizedek, and a high priest who offered the sacrifice of a goat in the temple, cleansed the temple which was a representation of all creation of all sin, and placing all those sins upon another goat and sending it out into the wilderness. Isn't that similitude of what Christ did?

I believe some here have said the Zadok was not from the line of Levi, but he appears to be from the Levitical line in the passage below.

1 Chronicles 24:3 "And David distributed them, both Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar, according to their offices in their service." (read the first two verses, which shows their lineage back to Aaron)

http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article12.html

Also this article mentions Zadok. I don't recommend the website per say, but find that specific article interesting.

3. I believe that Christ was very actively involved in the OT since he is Jehovah, but I don't believe that Jehovah was Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid his tithes and was the king and high priest of Salem.

Everybody seems to have a different opinion of Melchizedek. If it was indeed Christ, then I would think that they would use a different word than "like", but who knows.

Heb :3 . . .but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

[Phinehas]

I suppose they had the same authority that we have today in the LDS Church. I donâ??t believe there is a quote from the Bible that would verify this, but I can assure you the authority to baptize was not divided up among 900 plus denominations of Christianity. It was one authority controlled by the apostolic leaders of the first Church.

A house divide cannot stand. Christianity is divided by doctrine and various claims of authority or the belief that no specific authority is required or the belief that all authority is universally heard by the faithful. This is heresy and hypocrisy at its worst.

It was not like that in the first Church.

Zemah

And yet these heretical christians have been around for two thousand plus years... Must not be so divided

[urroner]

This is not correct. Christ is a priest after the order of Melchezedek. He is our High Priest--the only High Priest after the order of Melchezedek. The apostles and other NT members did not have the Melchezedek priesthood.

Agree

What you believe is mainly from modern revelation.

What I believe is from the Bible.

You have to decide what you believe more, either the Bible or Joseph Smith, that is the bottom line.

How do you know that the Bible lacks vast sums of knowledge? Because as you said above it was a revealed fact--by Joseph Smith. But if Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God, then the fact that he revealed to you that the Bible lacks vast sums of information is a false idea.

I admit that enough is known, so does that mean that you lost the debate?

And you just got through saying that salvation in not in the Bible and yet it seems to me that you aren't saying that here.

Oh, a logical fallacy of false dichotomy is not so good Billy. You only offered two choices and tried to make it look like those are the only choices when there are additional choices. And you were crying about us doing the logical fallacy of ad hominem on you.

[Phinehas]

How can you say that Christ is the only High Priest after Melchizedek's order , when Melchizedek also held that priesthood? There of necessity were two who held the Melchizedek priesthood under your view...Christ and Melchizedek.

It also seems strange to say that Melchizedek held the priesthood after himself, while Christ seems inferior to Melchizedek, as Christ didn't receive the priesthood after His own order, but after the order named for someone else.

Because Christ IS Melchezedek

[Billy]

And you just got through saying that salvation in not in the Bible and yet it seems to me that you aren't saying that here.

Oh, a logical fallacy of false dichotomy is not so good Billy. You only offered two choices and tried to make it look like those are the only choices when there are additional choices. And you were crying about us doing the logical fallacy of ad hominem on you.

The other thread was closed as I was writing my response to you on this same question.

My point was that the Bible IS important, but the words on the page do not save you. Many people know Biblical passages, but are not born again. The point of the scripture that I quoted in John 5 quoted below is that you are not saved by knowing the scriptures, but by knowing Jesus Christ. Salvation is by faith in Christ, but this is done in part by the word which leads you to Christ.

John 5

39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

[urroner]

Because Christ IS Melchezedek

Christ was a mortal in the days of Abraham. Interesting Phinehas, tell me more. How many times was Christ mortal? Each time he was mortal, did he die?

I thought that Melchizedek was a representation of Christ like the High Priest in the Temple who wore the name of Jehovah on his forehead on the Day of Atonement. I could be wrong here. Please help me out.

[Billy]

Not if we're correct. If God called Joseph Smith to be a prophet, what does that mean? It means that the revelations contained in the D&C are true. And if they're true, all the information about the Melchizedek priesthood also is true. And it lastly means that your assertions are false.

I agree with you here. If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, then likely the B of M, D and C, etc. are all true, including his idea on Polytheism, God who was once a man, God who was married, Jesus who is our brother and the brother of Satan, the idea that we can become Gods, that we can be married to multiple wives in heaven. . .

You say that the apostles did not have the Melchizedek priesthood. How do you know? How can you possibly prove they did not? You can only state your opinion; otherwise, where is your proof? Cite the scripture that states specifically that they weren't high priests in the Melchizedek priesthood. You can't do it.

You are right, you can't prove a negative. If I believed that Paul had a big pink elephant, you could not prove that he did not by the scriptures. But a reasonable person would not believe that Paul did own a big pink elephant. Likewise, the fact that not once does it mention in the entire NT that the apostles had either the Aaronic or Melchezedek Priesthood is strong evidence against them having either priesthood.

the 144,000 high priests

Where do you get the 144,000 HIGH PRIESTS from?

[urroner]

You are right, you can't prove a negative. If I believed that Paul had a big pink elephant, you could not prove that he did not by the scriptures. But a reasonable person would not believe that Paul did own a big pink elephant. Likewise, the fact that not once does it mention in the entire NT that the apostles had either the Aaronic or Melchezedek Priesthood is strong evidence against them having either priesthood.

Dude, that's like deciding whether Christ was married or not. It doesn't mention whether he was married or not in the Bible, but a reasonable person would not believe that a Jewish man could ever do what he did without being married since it was a practically a requirement for them to be married.

Logical fallacy - argument from silence or for us edchumakated types, "argumentum ex silentio."

[Billy]

Dude, that's like deciding whether Christ was married or not. It doesn't mention whether he was married or not in the Bible, but a reasonable person would not believe that a Jewish man could ever do what he did without being married since it was a practically a requirement for them to be married.

Logical fallacy - argument from silence or for us edchumakated types, "argumentum ex silentio."

You have the analogy backwards. May point was that Paul did not have a pink elephant because it is not mentioned and likewise they did not have the priesthood because it is not mentioned. Also it is unlikely that Christ was married because it is also not mentioned. But I understand your point that it certainly is POSSIBLE.

[urroner]

You have the analogy backwards. May point was that Paul did not have a pink elephant because it is not mentioned and likewise they did not have the priesthood because it is not mentioned. Also it is unlikely that Christ was married because it is also not mentioned. But I understand your point that it certainly is POSSIBLE.

Just because something isn't mentioned in the Bible is not proof in any way that it didn't exist. In the early Church, there was definitely a priesthood and it wasn't a priesthood of the members. What priesthood was it that the Early Church had? AFAIK, there were only two priesthoods mentioned in the Bible the Levitical and the Melchizedek. Do you believe there was a third priesthood.

You also also declaring something about the Bible as doctrine or quasi-doctrine that isn't even mentioned in the Bible and that is the Bible is complete and if something isn't mentioned in the Bible, then it's not true and isn't doctrine. I can't understand that belief because it's such a contradiction. It's a belief that disproves itself before it even gets started.

[consiglieri]

Gen 14:18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

* * *

1. King and a Priest. In the OT the Priests came from the Levitical line and the Kings came down through the line of Judah. Christ was both a King and a Priest as noted above. (see Heb 7:14 that Christ came down the royal line of Judah)

Hi, Billy!

You have hit the issue squarely on the head!

You are correct that, in the OT, priests came from the Levitical line (more specifically the descendants of Aaron within the Levitical line).

As to Kings, they came not only through the line of Judah, but also through the line of Ephraim.

But the main point is that Melchizedek was both a priest and a king long before the birth of either Levi or Judah; and much longer before the birth of Aaron and Moses.

That is the point.

Melchizedek was a priest; on that much I think we can agree.

Melchizedek was not a priest through the line of Levi, or Aaron, because he lived long before Levi was born.

Therefore, Melchizedek could not have been a priest holding the Aaronic priesthood.

Melchizedek had some other priesthood, and it was obviously a priesthood which Abraham himself recognized and to which he submitted himself in the paying of tithes.

The question then becomes what priesthood Melchizedek held, if not the Aaronic priesthood.

The Mormon response that Melchizedek held the Melchizedek priesthood does not seem that out of the question.

And the fact that Mormon scripture designates the true name of the Melchizedek priesthood as the Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God seems to tie in nicely with the prefigurement you mentioned.

Are you able to agree with some or all of the above propositions?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[bert10]

Hi.

The bible contains little on Melchizedek. It must be remembered that God only authorized Moses to give a synopsis rather than a full account of the many things that occured before his time.

Melchizedek is the NEW NAME God gave to SHEM the Son of Noah. Noah founded the city Salem after the flood and Salem was situated near the the spot were Zion used to be. (Today were Jerusalem is). Salem became wicked. Shem who then was the prince of Salem [prince of the peace] became its king after Noah retired. [King of the city of Peace] Shem went to the people and by exhortations, love, patience brought them all back to GOD in PERFECTION OF LOVE. And so GOD honored SHEM by Giving Him a New NAME by which also would Reflect HIS HOLY ORDER. The Holy Order of God comprises of all the offices and priesthoods. Each man in his place in this order of perfection.

Melchizedek means "MY KING IS RIGHTEOUSNESS." It means to put the kingdom of God first in all things in our lives. Few are able to do this. A righteous person is a person who does the RIGHT According to what is Right in the eyes of God instead of what men think is right.

Everyman who learns to make the "RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD" KING in his life shall be called Melchzedek for that is the NEW NATURE of this man. And in Heaven a man is called CALLED BY HIS NATURE. Example...Lucifer means bearer of truth [light] and the same being was later called by his New NAme....Satan bearer of lies [darkness]. Abram received his new name...Abraham after he obeyed God.

Peace be unto you

bert10

Latter-day Saints proclaim a restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, that many men in the Church hold this priesthood, and often point to the Epistle to the Hebrews in support of their view.

Hebrews mentions the "order of Melchizedek," but often the response from non-LDS is that the priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" referred to in Hebrews is comprised of only one person; that being Jesus Christ.

A fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls tends to support the LDS view that the Melchizedek Priesthood order is comprised of more than one person.

11QMelchizedek, 6-8.

Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, pp. 139-40.

Although "priesthood" is not specifically mentioned in this passage, it would seem that the "lot of Melchizedek" would easily match the "order of Melchizedek" referred to in Hebrews.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zemah]

Melchizedek is the NEW NAME God gave to SHEM the Son of Noah. Noah founded the city Salem after the flood and Salem was situated near the the spot were Zion used to be. (Today were Jerusalem is). Salem became wicked. Shem who then was the prince of Salem [prince of the peace] became its king after Noah retired. [King of the city of Peace] Shem went to the people...

Where does this come from?

Zemah

[Zemah]

And yet these heretical christians have been around for two thousand plus years... Must not be so divided

Faith in Christ is not a heresy, but teachings of churches can be.

Following the heresy of doctrines like infant baptism in lieu of a water baptism unto repentance at an age of accountability can affect your eternal status in the eyes of God.

Believing the heresy that scriptures are closed and living revelation is ended will affect your personal relationship with the Holy Ghost in the eyes of Christ.

Faith in the heresies of many protestant churches that fail to recognize the ordinance of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by the priesthood authority of Christ, can affect your eternal status in the eyes of His Church.

Godâ??s eyes, Christâ??s eyes, and the Churchâ??s eyes can have only one common vision.

Multi-denominational Christianity is not part of that Triune vision.

And longevity of doctrine is not a sign or guarantor of accuracy.

Zemah

[Billy]

Melchizedek was a priest

Agree

Melchizedek was not a priest through the line of Levi, or Aaron, because he lived long before Levi was born.

Agree

Therefore, Melchizedek could not have been a priest holding the Aaronic priesthood.

Agree

Melchizedek had some other priesthood,

He was a "priest of the most high God"

I agree with you that it was not Aaronic or Levitical.

and it was obviously a priesthood which Abraham himself recognized and to which he submitted himself in the paying of tithes.

Heb 7:4 "Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils."

It says about Melchezedek "how great this man was" but does not specifically say the reason was BECAUSE of his priesthood.

The tithing is issue is a little more fuzzy. Abraham gave 10% of the spoils of the recovered goods, and then gave the remaining 90% of the recovered goods to the King of Sodom. He does not tithed anything of his own personal property, and it never says that he ever gave a true tithe to anyone else.

The question then becomes what priesthood Melchizedek held, if not the Aaronic priesthood.

Not Aaronic priesthood.

But it doesn't say that he had the Melchezedek priesthood either.

Gen 14:18 "18And Melchizedek. . . and he was the priest of the most high God."

Heb 7:1 " 1For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God. . ."

The Mormon response that Melchizedek held the Melchizedek priesthood does not seem that out of the question.

I agree that YOU would call it the Melchezedek priesthood.

Why name it after Melchezedek and not Adam, Abel, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or one of his 12 sons?

What Priesthood did Abraham have?

You have already established that it could not be the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood for the same reasons the Melchezedek could not have the Aaronic priesthood, if Abraham had the Melchezedek priesthood then why give Melchezedek tithes if he has the same priesthood?

Who has the Melchezedek priesthood except for Christ?

And the fact that Mormon scripture designates the true name of the Melchizedek priesthood as the Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God seems to tie in nicely with the prefigurement you mentioned.

Does it mention that the Melchezedek Priesthood was ever called the "Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God"?

I am reading Genesis and Exodus again currently and I find it interesting that there does not appear to be ANY organized priesthood before setting up the Levitical priesthood. There are sacrifices to God which some would call individual priest or family priests, but a structured priesthood is not mentioned. In fact if you do a word search for priest in the book of Genesis, other that Melchezedek all the other priests that come up are false priests (priest of ON). If there were an organized priesthood I would expect that Moses--who was familiar with the priesthood--would at least mention a famous character going back to Adam as having some sort of priesthood, but he doesn't.

[Zemah]

Does it mention that the Melchezedek Priesthood was ever called the "Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God"?

I am reading Genesis and Exodus again currently and I find it interesting that there does not appear to be ANY organized priesthood before setting up the Levitical priesthood. There are sacrifices to God which some would call individual priest or family priests, but a structured priesthood is not mentioned. In fact if you do a word search for priest in the book of Genesis, other that Melchezedek all the other priests that come up are false priests (priest of ON). If there were an organized priesthood I would expect that Moses--who was familiar with the priesthood--would at least mention a famous character going back to Adam as having some sort of priesthood, but he doesn't.

Latter-day scripture reveals that Adam was a priest and Noah was a priest. Like Abraham they preformed sacrifices to their God as fathers of their families. This priesthood of sacrificial offering in order to obtain Godâ??s favor would be equivalent to the purpose of the Levitical priesthood established through Moses for Israel.

The Melchizedek priesthood is unique in that it requires no genealogical link to the original family of Adam and Eve. This best corresponds to a priesthood of calling, or the apostolic priesthood like that which was given to the first Apostles. In there case they were called directly by Jesus who represented Godâ??s will.

In the case of Melchizedek in Genesis, he was called of God to be the righteous king of Salem (pre-Jerusalem). There is no record of this calling. There is only the record that Abraham, holder of the lesser priesthood of family sacrificial offering, humbled himself to what he recognized as the greater calling of Melchizedek, a lord and king over families. So it is only Abrahamâ??s acceptance of the blessing from Melchizedek that establishes this priesthood as the higher priesthood.

Moses was called of God to do what he did as a prophet of God. So he by definition was a holder of this Holy Melchizedek and apostolic Order. Recognizing this we see that the Israel of the Exodus had the lesser priesthood restored to and through the sons of Aaron (Mosesâ?? brother) and not though the lineage of Moses or his descendants; even back than the separation of these priesthoods was maintained.

In other words, the priesthood of sacrifice and the priesthood of prophetic calling (one based on family ties and the other based on the binding power of miracle in the Holy Ghost) are separate and unique authorities.

Today all are called of God by His Church to partake of the blessings of this greater priesthood. All are called of God to receive Christ in the oaths and covenants of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Joseph Smith was called of God to be the prophet of the restoration of Israel. To obtain a witness of this truth is to be called of God through the Holy Spirit, to be baptized in His Church, and to accept both the lesser and the greater priesthoods of God and Christ; than we while be prophets, priests, and kings of the New Jerusalem and be glorified as Fathers-in-Christ.

Zemah

[bert10]

They who ask, seek and knock it is done unto them according to their faith. I exercise faith in those areas. Some have said to me that Melchizedek was Jesus. That is merely wishful thinking on their part so they can continue to give false teachings that we do not need the priesthood of God.

Receiving a new name by God to reflect our new nature or mission or office...... is not new. That is one of the clues on how we can know when a person has received the promises from Christ.

Shem the Son of Noah became the High Priest of God on the earth after Noah. And because he had overcome the world...everything that is mentioned here below in Revelation.... he received.

Revelation 2:17 - He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Another example is Jacob...after His interview with God was given a new name by God and he was called "Israel". Obviously Moses was not allowed to write everything that occurred between Jacob and the Lord. Notice that Moses often write in the first person as though he is there in person? Guess how Moses did it. If you cannot some other LDS can tell you.

Peace be unto you

bert10

Where does this come from?

Zemah

[Zemah]

They who ask, seek and knock it is done unto them according to their faith. I exercise faith in those areas. Some have said to me that Melchizedek was Jesus. That is merely wishful thinking on their part so they can continue to give false teachings that we do not need the priesthood of God.

Receiving a new name by God to reflect our new nature or mission or office...... is not new. That is one of the clues on how we can know when a person has received the promises from Christ.

Shem the Son of Noah became the High Priest of God on the earth after Noah. And because he had overcome the world...everything that is mentioned here below in Revelation.... he received.

Revelation 2:17 - He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Another example is Jacob...after His interview with God was given a new name by God and he was called "Israel". Obviously Moses was not allowed to write everything that occurred between Jacob and the Lord. Notice that Moses often write in the first person as though he is there in person? Guess how Moses did it. If you cannot some other LDS can tell you.

Peace be unto you

bert10

Let me be more specific:

You said, "Melchizedek is the NEW NAME God gave to SHEM the Son of Noah."

Are you saying that Melchizedek and Shem were the same person?

If so, are you speaking from the Spirit or do you have scriptural references?

You said, "Noah founded the city Salem after the flood and Salem was situated near the the spot were Zion used to be. (Today were Jerusalem is). Salem became wicked. Shem who then was the prince of Salem [prince of the peace] became its king after Noah retired.â?

Again, are you speaking from the Spirit or do you have scriptural references?

Zemah

[johnny]

BCSpace

The Protestant notion of a Royal Priesthood or, a "Priesthood of all believers" is contrary to the original Christian thinking on the subject. For example....

You are wrong .... when you say that "Priesthood of all believers" is contrary to the original Christian thinking", see the link below for more information, it says

Priesthood

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm

As a matter of fact the profound and beautiful idea of the universal priesthood may be traced from Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 116), Iren

[johnny]

Zemah

The Melchizedek priesthood was lost with the death of the last apostle.

Melchizedek, "priest of the most high God" is a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchisedec" (Heb 5:10; 6:20; Gen 14:18).

And yes, Christ restored both the Church and the priesthoods of Aaron and Melchizedek through the prophet Joseph Smith.

Christians are under the New Covenant, the priesthood of Christ. In the Old Testament there was the Aaronic priesthood and the priest whose name was Melchizedek.

[Zemah]

You are wrong .... when you say that "Priesthood of all believers" is contrary to the original Christian thinking", see the link below for more information, it says

Priesthood

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm

As a matter of fact the profound and beautiful idea of the universal priesthood may be traced from Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 116), Iren

[johnny]

Zemah

Then why aren't you a priest Johnny? Or if you are a priest of the Catholic church, then why aren't all the rank-and-file fathers with real families in the Catholic church priests?

I am a member of "a royal priesthood" (1Pet 2:9).

It is disingenuous to profess that â??all believers are a royal priesthoodâ? and than have a church (Catholic, Protestant, or whatever) that limits the believer from the priesthood.

It is consistent with scripture to profess that â??all believers are a royal priesthoodâ?.

[Zemah]

I am a member of "a royal priesthood" (1Pet 2:9).

It is consistent with scripture to profess that â??all believers are a royal priesthoodâ?.

Very well, but please explain how this fits into Catholic doctrine according to the comments and questions you skipped over (repeated below)?

The Catholic church does not even extend the title of 'saint' to its members. Sainthood is only given after death by some church perimeters that never existed in the first Church. Even all the Popes of the Catholic church have not all been declared saints; now everyone is a priest??

What comes first, Johnny, sainthood or priesthood? Which is greater?

I donâ??t want to deny you the priesthood but it appears your church has denied you your sainthood.

So how can you be a priest before becoming a saint?

Zemah

[johnny]

Zemah

Very well, but please explain how this fits into Catholic doctrine according to the comments and questions you skipped over (repeated below)?

In Catholic doctrine there is the common priesthood of all believers and the ordained ministry.

So how can you be a priest before becoming a saint?

Becoming a member of the common priesthood of all believers occurs at baptism. Becoming a Catholic saint comes after baptism.