Q&A With A Seventy Tonite

[mfbukowski]

zerinus,

You have made a valiant effort to defend the idea that Jesus held the Aaronic priesthood without being an Aaronic priest, but it won't work if one reads Hebrews 7:11 in its immediate context. Jesus is expressly said not to be an Aaronic priest because he's from the wrong tribe for that--he's of the tribe of Judah, whereas Aaronic priests had to be of the tribe of Levi.

In other words, all the arguments are irrelevant, and you are right because you assert you are.

[ELF1024]

In other words, all the arguments are irrelevant, and you are right because you assert you are.

Of course he is right, he's got to have something to show for his "piled high and deeps".

[zerinus]

And by the way Rob, you didn't answer my question of how Jesus and Melchizedek could have both held that priesthood, if according to your theory Jesus was the only one who held it. I would really like to know how you are going to wriggle your way out of that one.

[mfbukowski]

And by the way Rob, you didn't answer my question of how Jesus and Melchizedek could have both held that priesthood, if according to your theory Jesus was the only one who held it. I would really like to know how you are going to wriggle your way out of that one.

Not to mention the one he still hasn't gotten back to me on: 1 Peter 2:

5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Clearly there are more than 2 who hold this priesthood- like a "generation" and a "people" and a "nation"?

I am sure he sees that as the "priesthood of all believers". But wait- I guess we can't call it that either because it is not a "priesthood". But then why does it say that we ARE a "priesthood"?? And apparently as "lively stones" off the "cornerstone" (remember Peter also was a "little stone" who became the "rock" as a foreshadowing of his role as successor of the "cornerstone")

But I guess we are supposed to ignore all that.

I have pretty much given up on him actually giving answers- and I think if we all just ignore him he will go away eventually. He is not here to discuss, just to pontificate and complain he doesn't have enough time to fully share his wisdom.

[Vance]

I see a contradiction here. If Jesus held the priesthood “in the likeness of Melchizedek” (your words), that makes two people who held that priesthood: one Jesus and the other Melchizedek. The Bible (OT and NT) makes it clear that Melchizedek was a real person who blessed Abraham, and to whom Abraham gave tithes. And if he genuinely held that priesthood, that makes them two people, not one.

Good point.

I would add that according to Heb. 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

What part of "ANOTHER" is so difficult to understand?

[David T]

So, lemme get this right. Your saying that the Son of God, didn't hold his own Priesthood because he wasn't of Levi? Really?

You guys simply aren't understanding Rob's position - you're fighting against a strawman of Rob's argument, and arguing right past him, and declaring victory.

As I understand it, Rob isn't - nor would - argue that any spiritual power or miracles exercised by an Aaronid Priest (which is actually very rare in the Bible) isn't power from God that isn't held by Christ. However, to Rob - and the Bible - the term priesthood has nothing to do with God's Power. It is simply a cultic office that serves to mediate the sacrifices offered by the people, and to look after the temple. Priesthood was not something one held, it is something one was. You did not hold the Priesthood, you were a Priest.

You are mocking Rob for asserting that Jesus couldn't hold his own power that he delegates to others. He's not arguing against that. He is arguing that Jesus was never an Aaronid Priest.

In the Bible - and thus where Rob is coming from - there is no reference to a portion of God's power being called Aaronic Priesthood. Letter to the Hebrews is not referring to the modern mormon concept of Aaronic Priesthood. It is taling about the cultic office of Priest, who only mediates and assists with the sacrifices offered by the Israelites. No power is being considered or spoken of. Just a role. A role that Jesus was never associated with. Jesus was not an Aaronic Priest. He was not a Priest after the Order of Aaron. In Biblical terms, Jesus was never a part of the Aaronic Priesthood.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

And by the way Rob, you didn't answer my question of how Jesus and Melchizedek could have both held that priesthood, if according to your theory Jesus was the only one who held it. I would really like to know how you are going to wriggle your way out of that one.

No wriggling required.

Melchizedek and Jesus did not "hold" the same "priesthood." Melchizedek was a priest during the time of Abraham. He was a priest of God Most High. He is mentioned in the OT narrative only once, in Genesis 14. Genesis tells us nothing about his ancestry or parentage, when he was born or when he died. But he was king in what was later called Jerusalem, and he had a special relationship with God as a "priest." Yet he clearly was not a Levite (since he was a contemporary of Levi's great-grandfather). Psalm 110 states that the son of David, the Messiah, would rule from God's right hand (v. 1) and be a priest "according to the order of Melchizedek" (v. 4). This is figurative language (note that it is used in a psalm) meaning that Melchizedek in his role as king of Jerusalem and (non-Levitical) priest of God was a type foreshadowing the Messiah. Hence Hebrews 7:15 explains Psalm 110:4 to mean that Jesus is a priest "after the likeness of Melchizedek." Jesus and Melchizedek were not two members of some priestly order that has been restored today in the LDS Church. Hebrews 7 makes it clear that the only person who is a priest like Jesus is Jesus himself. He alone is the pure, innocent, perfect, exalted, great high priest who sits at God's right hand and is the mediator of the new and better covenant. This is what his being a priest "according to the order of Melchizedek" means, according to Hebrews 7.

[zerinus]

No wriggling required.

Melchizedek and Jesus did not "hold" the same "priesthood." Melchizedek was a priest during the time of Abraham. He was a priest of God Most High. He is mentioned in the OT narrative only once, in Genesis 14. Genesis tells us nothing about his ancestry or parentage, when he was born or when he died. But he was king in what was later called Jerusalem, and he had a special relationship with God as a "priest." Yet he clearly was not a Levite (since he was a contemporary of Levi's great-grandfather). Psalm 110 states that the son of David, the Messiah, would rule from God's right hand (v. 1) and be a priest "according to the order of Melchizedek" (v. 4). This is figurative language (note that it is used in a psalm) meaning that Melchizedek in his role as king of Jerusalem and (non-Levitical) priest of God was a type foreshadowing the Messiah. Hence Hebrews 7:15 explains Psalm 110:4 to mean that Jesus is a priest "after the likeness of Melchizedek." Jesus and Melchizedek were not two members of some priestly order that has been restored today in the LDS Church. Hebrews 7 makes it clear that the only person who is a priest like Jesus is Jesus himself. He alone is the pure, innocent, perfect, exalted, great high priest who sits at God's right hand and is the mediator of the new and better covenant. This is what his being a priest "according to the order of Melchizedek" means, according to Hebrews 7.

I call that wriggling; and it doesn’t work. Firstly, Melchizedek was a real person, who lived in the days of Abraham, as you have already acknowledged:

Genesis 14

:

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

Secondly, Paul considered him to be a very great individual, even greater than Abraham. For a Jew, it is hard to think of someone greater than Abraham. And thirdly, he held a priesthood of a certain order that was different from the Aaronic order. That is made plain in the following verses, especially by contrasting it with the order of the priesthood of Aaron:

Hebrews 5

:

6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the

order

of Melchisedec.

7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

8

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being

made perfect,

he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that

obey him;

10 Called of God an high priest after the

order

of Melchisedec.

11

Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing

.

Hebrews 6

:

19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus,

made

an high priest for ever after the

order

of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 7

:

1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham . . .

* * *

6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

7 And without all contradiction

the less is blessed of the better

.

* * *

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood . . . what further need was there that another priest should rise after the

order

of Melchisedec, and not be called after the

order

of Aaron?

* * *

17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the

order

of Melchisedec.

The bottom line is that Jesus received a priesthood of a certain order, which was not unique to him, but held by others before Him, and might arguable be held by others after Him. We know from the biblical account of at least one such person, and that was Melchizedek himself; and who is to say that there should not be many more?

[ELF1024]

You guys simply aren't understanding Rob's position - you're fighting against a strawman of Rob's argument, and arguing right past him, and declaring victory.

As I understand it, Rob isn't - nor would - argue that any spiritual power or miracles exercised by an Aaronid Priest (which is actually very rare in the Bible) isn't power from God that isn't held by Christ. However, to Rob - and the Bible - the term priesthood has nothing to do with God's Power. It is simply a cultic office that serves to mediate the sacrifices offered by the people, and to look after the temple. Priesthood was not something one held, it is something one was. You did not hold the Priesthood, you were a Priest.

You are mocking Rob for asserting that Jesus couldn't hold his own power that he delegates to others. He's not arguing against that. He is arguing that Jesus was never an Aaronid Priest.

In the Bible - and thus where Rob is coming from - there is no reference to a portion of God's power being called Aaronic Priesthood. Letter to the Hebrews is not referring to the modern mormon concept of Aaronic Priesthood. It is taling about the cultic office of Priest, who only mediates and assists with the sacrifices offered by the Israelites. No power is being considered or spoken of. Just a role. A role that Jesus was never associated with. Jesus was not an Aaronic Priest. He was not a Priest after the Order of Aaron. In Biblical terms, Jesus was never a part of the Aaronic Priesthood.

Oh! I see... Because Rob is limiting his understanding to sub-standards literature and doctrines, he is unable to grasp the concept. Gotcha. No wonder it feels like I am banging my head against a brick wall.

[David T]

Oh! I see... Because Rob is limiting his understanding to sub-standards literature and doctrines, he is unable to grasp the concept. Gotcha. No wonder it feels like I am banging my head against a brick wall.

WTH?

So the Bible and its immediate context is now "sub-standard literature and doctrine" in your mind?

Are you seriously insulting a non-Mormon for not using and agreeing with later Mormon terminology retrojected through a lens of Presentism replacing what the biblical text actually says?

So you view him as being dim because he's not viewing things and agree from your point of view, but you're a Winner, even though you are not able to view things from a perspective not clouded by modern terminolgy and doctrinal concepts, causing a lot more - members and non members - to feel that they're the ones pounding against the brick wall in conversations with you?

Talk about losing the battle and not even knowing it.

[ELF1024]

WTH?

So the Bible and its immediate context is now "sub-standard literature and doctrine" in your mind?

Are you seriously insulting a non-Mormon for not using and agreeing with later Mormon terminology retrojected through a lens of Present-ism replacing what the biblical text actually says?

So you view him as being dim because he's not viewing things and agree from your point of view, but you're a Winner, even though you are not able to view things from a perspective not clouded by modern terminology and doctrinal concepts, causing a lot more - members and non members - to feel that they're the ones pounding against the brick wall in conversations with you?

Talk about losing the battle and not even knowing it.

Funny, I don't recall saying anything about myself being a "winner" (I'm not Charlie Sheen), Nack. Nor would I ever call myself perfect. Perhaps you are projecting.

I have always been unable to reason with Rob, and it could very well be because of the reasons you stated.

Luckily, I am here on the board less and less. I am finding less and less interesting on the board because of the general level of contention that seems to breed here.

[David T]

If participants in the discussion actually paid attention to opposing members arguments, and actually addressed them and tried to understand them instead of insulting their intelligence, there'd be far less contention, and far more dialogue.

[ELF1024]

If participants in the discussion actually paid attention to opposing members arguments, and actually addressed them and tried to understand them instead of insulting their intelligence, there'd be far less contention, and far more dialogue.

I think that paints a far more rose-colored view than it deserves, but that is a fair statement, a bit naive, but accurate.

If people certain people came here with an actual desire to discuss, instead of simply play gotcha games and pontificate; it would also be far less contentious.

[mfbukowski]

You guys simply aren't understanding Rob's position - you're fighting against a strawman of Rob's argument, and arguing right past him, and declaring victory.

As I understand it, Rob isn't - nor would - argue that any spiritual power or miracles exercised by an Aaronid Priest (which is actually very rare in the Bible) isn't power from God that isn't held by Christ. However, to Rob - and the Bible - the term priesthood has nothing to do with God's Power. It is simply a cultic office that serves to mediate the sacrifices offered by the people, and to look after the temple. Priesthood was not something one held, it is something one was. You did not hold the Priesthood, you were a Priest.

You are mocking Rob for asserting that Jesus couldn't hold his own power that he delegates to others. He's not arguing against that. He is arguing that Jesus was never an Aaronid Priest.

In the Bible - and thus where Rob is coming from - there is no reference to a portion of God's power being called Aaronic Priesthood. Letter to the Hebrews is not referring to the modern mormon concept of Aaronic Priesthood. It is taling about the cultic office of Priest, who only mediates and assists with the sacrifices offered by the Israelites. No power is being considered or spoken of. Just a role. A role that Jesus was never associated with. Jesus was not an Aaronic Priest. He was not a Priest after the Order of Aaron. In Biblical terms, Jesus was never a part of the Aaronic Priesthood.

The problem as I see it, is that he is misinterpreting the intent of Hebrews 7:11, even taking into account what you are saying.

If all he is saying is that Jesus never held the cultic office of an Aaronic priest, his point is trivial. It is obvious that Jesus did not offer sacrifices in the temple.

Clearly, as you point out, there is a thick overlay of presentism clouding the issue, but that simply makes one wonder which is the "correct" doctrine- that of the apostate Jews with their limited understanding of the Priesthood, or our present-day Mormon understanding. All of those are clearly factors in the debate.

[bookofmormontruth]

If participants in the discussion actually paid attention to opposing members arguments, and actually addressed them and tried to understand them instead of insulting their intelligence, there'd be far less contention, and far more dialogue.

Couldn't you say the same about Rob Bowman?

[ELF1024]

Couldn't you say the same about Rob Bowman?

I don't think Nack was trying to point me out specifically, as he didn't do it in a response. There are plenty of discussion that I am not in that are contentious.

[Ariarates]

It is one of the most idiotic falacies to imply causality to correlation.

I don't know if it's "one of the most idiotic" but it certainly is a very common one. Luckily for me, I never implied causality to correlation. The first two sentences of my post are just that: TWO sentences.

Regression analysis cannot determine causality.

Strictly speaking, RA is used to determine the nature of the dependency of one variable to one or more others but to all intents and purposes that means causality. However, if you insist, I'll rephrase: regression analysis shows that the number of temples in a given country is dependent on membership and income.