Rob Bowman Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 ELF1024,You wrote:Quote LinkOkay, that's your definition. However, it is not a biblical definition.You wrote:I think you are being purposefully dense.You are mistaken.You wrote:Christ holds all the power, and he has the keys to every office. He could perform anything that a Priest of Aaron could perform.Can Jesus offer a sacrifice for his own sins? That is something a priest of Aaron could do and was required to do. Could Jesus ever do this?You wrote:There is only ONE Priesthood, and TWO Divisions. Holding the greater, includes holding the lesser.I am familiar with this idea, but it is a Mormon doctrine, not a biblical one. The priesthood of Jesus is not only a greater priesthood, it is one that supplants the lesser and makes it obsolete, along with the other ritual aspects of the old covenant. Read Hebrews 7-8 and you'll see where I'm getting this idea.
ELF1024 Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 You are mistaken.I am familiar with this idea, but it is a Mormon doctrine, not a biblical one. The priesthood of Jesus is not only a greater priesthood, it is one that supplants the lesser and makes it obsolete, along with the other ritual aspects of the old covenant. Read Hebrews 7-8 and you'll see where I'm getting this idea.So you being purposefully accidentally dense instead? I can accept that...Well, it is an LDS discussion board... Truely Rob, your misintrepretation of scripture doesn't interest me.
Commander Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 When I've attended these things, everyone seemed so afraid of asking a difficult or embarassing question, it just made it boring and a real missed opportunity to ask the hard questions.
Duncan Posted May 3, 2011 Author Posted May 3, 2011 When I've attended these things, everyone seemed so afraid of asking a difficult or embarassing question, it just made it boring and a real missed opportunity to ask the hard questions.yep, and you don't want to appear to others to be questioning or look stupid
Vance Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 You guys just aren't getting it.Bowman, by virtue of his superiority, gets to define our terms for us.You didn't know that "A different priest was to arise...not according to the order of Aaron" doesn't just mean that Jesus wouldn't be an "priest" "after the order of Aaron" but also that He wouldn't have access to that portion of the "authority and power" of God that is available to those "priests" "after the order of Aaron".You didn't know having "all power" doesn't really mean "all power" but rather "all power" excluding that available to "priests" "after the order of Aaron".Now, you might think that someone wanting to claim knowledge of things Mormon, would want to understand how and why we can see a distinction. But you would be wrong.He has what he perceives is a "gotcha", so don't be raining on his delusional parade with facts.
Vance Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Rob said: I am familiar with this idea, but it is a Mormon doctrine, not a biblical one. The priesthood of Jesus is not only a greater priesthood, it is one that supplants the lesser and makes it obsolete, along with the other ritual aspects of the old covenant. Read Hebrews 7-8 and you'll see where I'm getting this idea.First timer and I hope I don't step into any landmines.Rob, I have been following your comments on this (and other) threads. Had to comment on this one. The big problem with all discussion on this subject is that you see the world through "Biblical Glasses" and most LDS see the world through "Modern Revelation Glasses." When LDS speak of priesthood they are doing so from the perspective of knowing things others won't accept because there are in extra-biblical volumes. No matter how you press and point at Hebrews, the explanation for your questions will be based on something you don't believe/understand (you choose). Further discussion or confrontation will be fruitless to both parties because neither is willing to let go of their point of view. I know this doesn't satisfy any need for closure but it might be best to just let go. MWMay I suggest a minor correction?"The big problem with all discussion on this subject is that you see the world through "BiblicalEvangelical Glasses" and most LDS see the world through "Modern Revelation Glasses."
Rob Bowman Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 ELF1024:So you being purposefully dense instead? I can accept that...You wrote:Truely Rob, your misintrepretation of scripture doesn't interest me.Then don't respond to posts from me dealing with the interpretation of Scripture. If you can't stand the heat....
Rob Bowman Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Grundelwalken,You wrote:First timer and I hope I don't step into any landmines.Perhaps as a non-Mormon I can't exactly say "welcome" to this LDS forum, but hello, at any rate.You wrote:Rob, I have been following your comments on this (and other) threads. Had to comment on this one. The big problem with all discussion on this subject is that you see the world through "Biblical Glasses" and most LDS see the world through "Modern Revelation Glasses." When LDS speak of priesthood they are doing so from the perspective of knowing things others won't accept because there are in extra-biblical volumes. No matter how you press and point at Hebrews, the explanation for your questions will be based on something you don't believe/understand (you choose). Further discussion or confrontation will be fruitless to both parties because neither is willing to let go of their point of view. I know this doesn't satisfy any need for closure but it might be best to just let go.I agree that I see the world through "biblical glasses." At least, that is my intention and purpose. Your comment suggests that you recognize that Hebrews 7:11 denies that Jesus held the office of priest in the order of Aaron but that you think those who accept modern revelation should accept this idea and view Hebrews 7:11 as mistaken, misleading, miscopied, or something along those lines. Is that right?One question I have for you, then, is what in modern revelation tells you that Hebrews 7:11 should be set aside in favor of the view that Jesus held the Aaronic priesthood. Where are you told this in modern revelation?
mfbukowski Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 You guys just aren't getting it.Bowman, by virtue of his superiority, gets to define our terms for us.You didn't know that "A different priest was to arise...not according to the order of Aaron" doesn't just mean that Jesus wouldn't be an "priest" "after the order of Aaron" but also that He wouldn't have access to that portion of the "authority and power" of God that is available to those "priests" "after the order of Aaron".You didn't know having "all power" doesn't really mean "all power" but rather "all power" excluding that available to "priests" "after the order of Aaron".Now, you might think that someone wanting to claim knowledge of things Mormon, would want to understand how and why we can see a distinction. But you would be wrong.He has what he perceives is a "gotcha", so don't be raining on his delusional parade with facts.I don't want to wade through the muck at his site, but I am sure it has something to do with some argument against the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood originally made by Walter Martin or the Tanners or someone like them.It stands or fails on this one verse, so he is going to fight it out no matter how little sense it actually makes.
mfbukowski Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Oops, I guess I slipped Rob It's a good thing Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven.
Rob Bowman Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,You wrote:I don't want to wade through the muck at his site, but I am sure it has something to do with some argument against the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood originally made by Walter Martin or the Tanners or someone like them.How silly can you get?!I've tried to be reasonable with you. Correction: I've tried to get you to be reasonable with me. I have failed. You have no interest in being reasonable on this subject.You wrote:It stands or fails on this one verse, so he is going to fight it out no matter how little sense it actually makes.Ridiculous. I quoted over half of Hebrews chapter 7 in support of my point. The whole NT reveals that Jesus is the last, final, ultimate sacrifice for sins. The Aaronic priestly order and the whole religious system of the old covenant of which that priesthood was a part has come to an end. The temple curtain has been torn in two. The temple has been destroyed and the church is now the true temple being built up in the Spirit. Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. Mark, Paul, Hebrews--the whole NT agrees with what I'm saying.What do you have? Please cite for me your modern revelation that teaches that Jesus was a priest of the order of Aaron. While you're at it, point this out to nackhadlow, with whom you said you agreed but then turned right around and denied agreeing with him.
ELF1024 Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 ELF1024:You wrote:Then don't respond to posts from me dealing with the interpretation of Scripture. If you can't stand the heat....As usual you come to an LDS board, and then whine that we give you LDS answers. I'm not the one who can't stand the heat. You're just too thick to get it.
mfbukowski Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 While you're at it, point this out to nackhadlow, with whom you said you agreed but then turned right around and denied agreeing with him.It is clear you don't understand his point. The entire question is confused. All you see is black and white and you cannot even understand how a viewpoint other than your own could possibly be reasonable, no matter how much you disagree with it.
mfbukowski Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Yep- here's one of themSecond, the New Testament does not support the idea that the Aaronic priesthood has a functioning place in the Christian church. As we explained in our response to chapter 13 of Gospel Principles, the Levitical system of temple, sacrifices, and priests was all part of the Mosaic covenant, a temporary covenant that God made with the nation of Israel. The Aaronic priesthood functioned in that context, serving in things that were “a copy and shadow of the heavenly things,” and was made obsolete by the heavenly priesthood of Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant (Hebrews 7:11-16; 8:5-13). If the Aaronic priesthood is obsolete—which it is—there is no reason to have it today or expand it to include non-Levites.http://www.irr.org/mit/GP-BSG-14-Jesus-and-the-Priesthood.htmlThat's all the wading I am going to do.You're welcome, Rob for any extra hits you get
Vance Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Ridiculous. Not really, I quoted over half of Hebrews chapter 7 in support of my point.Reading stuff into the text that isn't there may satisfy the sheeple at IRR, but not here. The whole NT reveals that Jesus is the last, final, ultimate sacrifice for sins.True, but irrelevant to the current topic. The Aaronic priestly order and the whole religious system of the old covenant of which that priesthood was a part has come to an end.Nah, the priesthood was CHANGED, not eliminated. The temple curtain has been torn in two.True, but irrelevant to the current topic. The temple has been destroyed . . . True, but irrelevant to the current topic. . . . and the church is now the true temple being built up in the Spirit.Well, technically it is the saints that are the temple. No mention of "the church" being the temple. Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us.True, but irrelevant to the current topic. Mark, Paul, Hebrews--the whole NT agrees with what I'm saying.Well, not exactly. Just the parts that are irrelevant. What do you have? Please cite for me your modern revelation that teaches that Jesus was a priest of the order of Aaron.Hello!!!!Earth to Bowman!!!No one is claiming "that Jesus was a priest of the order of Aaron."Oh, I am sorry to rain on your delusion parade.
ERMD Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 The fact that it can be changed makes it clear that its purpose is not what it seems to be.It is not a linear presentation which gives us "information" we need to use literally- for me, it is intended to be a substrate or template or catalyst from which we can gain our own revelations about what is presented.If it presented information we actually needed in a literalistic way, it could not be changed. I think what we need to know is there in pieces like a puzzle for us to put together on our own with the help of personal revelation.It's like how wherever one goes to the scriptures for answers, you can open any book and random and get your answer right there, because God helps you see the answer in whatever is written- it almost doesn't matter what the text says- you only see the answer.Zactly.I was hoping for a nuts and bolts type answer--timing, material changed/omitted, and how the decision was made. Given the audience and the fact he literally said "any" question, I thought it would have been a bit more intimate.
Rob Bowman Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 ELF1024,You had written:Truely Rob, your misintrepretation of scripture doesn't interest me.So I said:"Then don't respond to posts from me dealing with the interpretation of Scripture. If you can't stand the heat...."You now say:As usual you come to an LDS board, and then whine that we give you LDS answers. I'm not the one who can't stand the heat. You're just too thick to get it.It isn't LDS answers that bother me here. It is LDS non-answers and obfuscations and ad hominem attacks against me that bother me.Consider yourself on "ignore," bud.
Rob Bowman Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,You wrote:It is clear you don't understand his point. The entire question is confused. All you see is black and white and you cannot even understand how a viewpoint other than your own could possibly be reasonable, no matter how much you disagree with it.Whereas you, of course, are the epitome of the open-minded person who can always appreciate how the other person's viewpoint could be reasonable. Sure.
Rob Bowman Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Vance,You wrote:Hello!!!!Earth to Bowman!!!No one is claiming "that Jesus was a priest of the order of Aaron."Oh, I am sorry to rain on your delusion parade.Bowman here....Then why are people pelting me with tomatoes for saying that Jesus was not a priest of the order of Aaron? What's going on here? Perhaps you could explain it to me. Here is my initial post in this thread:I am interested in the man's affirmation that Jesus was a holder of the Aaronic priesthood. The book of Hebrews seems to contradict this view explicitly....If no one here agrees with the affirmation that Jesus was a holder of the Aaronic priesthood, just what is the problem with what I said?
Stargazer Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Stargazer,You wrote:Hmm. Let's see. I said that Jesus was not a priest in the Aaronic order. Hebrews 7:11 says that Jesus was "a priest...not in the order of Aaron" (NIV, TNIV). How you can seriously claim that Hebrews 7:11 does not say what I claimed it says ("nothing of the kind") is really beyond my understanding. I showed that my understanding agreed with a long list of Mr. Bukowski's translations and several others he didn't list, including the JST! But as you put it, that makes no difference to you.We have also had a couple of Mormons argue here that Jesus never held the Aaronic priesthood. Why don't you go argue with them?The rest of your post ignores the text, so I will pass on replying further.At the risk of repeating myself, I will repeat myself: Jesus didn't hold the Aaronic priesthood in this life -- had he showed up at the Temple and claimed the right to officiate in a sacrificial rite he would rightly have been rebuffed. But he held the ultimate authority over the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods at the highest level, i.e. he held the keys. In that sense, yes, he held the Aaronic priesthood. I don't care what my fellow LDS who disagree with me say about it, because they are wrong. But there is little reason to argue with them over it, because it is a point of technicality only, much along the line of how many angels can stand on the head of a pin in importance. Believing that 10 vs 100 angels can do so is of no consequence to salvation, thus it doesn't matter. God has never spoken on that issue. Whereas God has demonstrated the chain of authority in regards to the priesthood which he conferred upon his servants. He is the source of the authority, therefore he holds it. To argue otherwise is to plead a complete departure from logic and reason.But, believing otherwise is in itself of no consequence. On the other hand, trying to make your argument about Heb 7:11 bear upon the truth status of the message brought by the Lord through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is of consequence, because concluding that the church is not true by virtue of your eisegesis could have serious consequences.Feel free to ignore me, it won't hurt my feelings. Ultimately I'm not participating here in order to convince the likes of you, who cannot be persuaded because he has been blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, and lie in wait to deceive, keeping others from finding the truth by obscuring it with false logic and private interpretations.
Flyonthewall Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 An attempt at a simple analogy:Aaronic Priesthood = addition and subtraction.Melchezidek Priesthood = algebra and calculus.Saying Jesus could do algebra and calculus, but not addition and subtraction is like saying Jesus held the Melchezidek pristhood but not the Aaronic priesthood.The Melchezidek priesthood encompasses the Aaronic priesthood. So I suppose that we could agree that Jesus was never limited to only the Aaronic priesthood.
Stargazer Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Well, I hope ya'll enjoy yourselves hashing this out further. As for me, I wll be finding something more productive to do.
Vance Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Bowman here....Then why are people pelting me with tomatoes for saying that Jesus was not a priest of the order of Aaron?Hello Earth to Bowman.They aren't.If you would actually read their posts with care you might figure that out.What they are "pelting" you for is equating holding the Aaronic priesthood with being a "priest" "after the order of Aaron."Here is a clue for you. They are NOT the same thing. Holding the Aaronic Priesthood doesn't require you to be a "priest" "after the order of Aaron." What's going on here? Perhaps you could explain it to me. Here is my initial post in this thread: I am interested in the man's affirmation that Jesus was a holder of the Aaronic priesthood. The book of Hebrews seems to contradict this view explicitly....Saying "Jesus was a holder of the Aaronic priesthood" is not equivalent to/the same as saying that "Jesus was a priest after the order of Aaron".You, unfortunately are equating two things that are not equal.It is as simple as that. If no one here agrees with the affirmation that Jesus was a holder of the Aaronic priesthood, . . . But, they do agree "with the affirmation that Jesus was a holder of the Aaronic priesthood."They just don't agree that that is the same as being a "priest" "after the order of Aaron. . . . just what is the problem with what I said?You are equating two things that are not equal. It is as simple as that.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.