LeSellers Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 So in other words, you believe that anyone who is holy pretty much has the priesthood?No, that was not his point. He could have stated it more elegantly, but the point was that Apostles must have the Priesthood because, without it, they could not be Apostles.My point was that the patrilineal priesthood of aaron and the levites was done away with.That may have been your point, but that's not what you said (your own elegance is lacking if you meant what you here claim to have meant before).Apollos told us, in Hebrews, that there was a change in the Priesthood, so we agree that a patrilineal priesthood no longer exists, but that does not mean, by any stretch of reasonable logic, that there would never be any more earthly holders of the Priesthood of God.Lehi
Jesterss Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 I'm not sure I saw your definition of "priesthood" in there, but I will tell you what I believe the priesthood to be. Simply put, the priesthood is the power and authority to act in the name of God. This includes officiating in the ordinances and leading His church. Yes, Jesus has the priesthood, as all power and authority was given to Him from the Father. Yes, Jesus will hold this priesthood forever, but that does not do anything for us in His absence. Unless Jesus is physically present, then someone else needs to officiate and lead His church. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.Jesus is always intervening for those who believe in him and call upon him. He may not be physically present in his human body anymore, but he is still present. There is nothing hidden from him. As far as a priesthood definition. I believe in the OT one and that it was of a patrilineal order but I believe that one has been done away with. The main purpose for the priesthood in OT was because the tribe of the levites did not receive any land, so they were given cities to perform the sacrificial rituals and receive tithing. The priesthood existed as a way of reconciliation of all the people. And to me, this was done away with by Jesus. I agree that Jesus apointed teachers and apostles and prophets and evangelists, but as far as a priesthood order, I do not believe in one as such we know it had been in the OT. Jesus atoned for us all. Sacrifices are not needed, we have agreed on this point, which accompanied by the levites receiving tithing (due to not receiving any land) has been done away with. That would be someone that was called and ordained, like Aaron was. During His ministry, He chose and ordained the 12 Apostles. Do you believe this pattern has been abandoned? And by the way, the law was not abandoned, but fulfilled and replaced with a higher law.Do you believe that the priests in Israel during the time of Jesus were truly priesthood holders? If you believe in the law of succession then you believe they were.
thesometimesaint Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Jesterss:Yes they held the Priesthood. The lower one, Jesus held the higher one. He held all the authority he neeed to clear the His Fathers House of the money changer who BTW were not the priests.
Jesterss Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) And for a priesthood definition, "The priest was understood as a mediator between God and human beings who offers sacrifices and intercedes for the people."That is from the catholic view of the priesthood. And we know that the priesthood started with the levites. So I know I may have argued different points here and there trying to answer each persons question. But I have stated that I believe Jesus is our Most High Priest and through him we are all able to receive the Holy Spirit and understand and believe in God and Jesus. So in a way, we are all part of this priesthood, ordinances to me, are not required of the priesthood. The only ordinance required, is being a true believer in Jesus. As we are taught that before Jesus, sins existed and were upon us all and not everyone could just enter Heaven. But now we can. That's the higher law or as I like to say, the higher oath, the promise made to us by God. Edited October 13, 2011 by Jesterss
Jesterss Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Jesterss: Yes they held the Priesthood. The lower one, Jesus held the higher one. He held all the authority he neeed to clear the His Fathers House of the money changer who BTW were not the priests.The priests stoned Stephen the martyr.
Zakuska Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 As far as a priesthood definition. I believe in the OT one and that it was of a patrilineal order but I believe that one has been done away with. The main purpose for the priesthood in OT was because the tribe of the levites did not receive any land, so they were given cities to perform the sacrificial rituals and receive tithing. The priesthood existed as a way of reconciliation of all the people. And to me, this was done away with by Jesus.I agree that Jesus apointed teachers and apostles and prophets and evangelists, but as far as a priesthood order, I do not believe in one as such we know it had been in the OT. Jesus atoned for us all. Sacrifices are not needed, we have agreed on this point, which accompanied by the levites receiving tithing (due to not receiving any land) has been done away with.If this were done away with by Jesus why did Paul... many years after Jesus... go cleanse himself in the temple and wait around with the others while the priest made an animal sacrifice for him?Second, we are still required to sacrifice, not by killing animals mind you.1 Peter 2:55 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.Do you believe that the priests in Israel during the time of Jesus were truly priesthood holders? If you believe in the law of succession then you believe they were.Of course we do... John got the Priesthood to Baptise Jesus from his father who servied in the Priesthood in the temple.
LeSellers Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 we know that the priesthood started with the levites.No, we do not.Abraham as long before Levi, and he held the Priesthood of God, although, obviously not the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood. Her offered sacrifices, the same as the Levites and Priests did. He talked with God.Further, Melchizedek, aka, Shem the son of Noah, did the same.Lehi
Jesterss Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 No, we do not.Abraham as long before Levi, and he held the Priesthood of God, although, obviously not the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood. Her offered sacrifices, the same as the Levites and Priests did. He talked with God.Further, Melchizedek, aka, Shem the son of Noah, did the same.Melchizedek did yes, but where does it say Abraham held the priesthood? I agree that he offered up sacrifices but on behalf of what people? As far as I read, it was on his own behalf, not interceding on behalf of the people.
LeSellers Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 The priests stoned Stephen the martyr.Which means .... ?We Saints readily acknowledge that the Jews of Jesus' day were in apostasy. That includes (in fact, the idea is central to the term "apostasy") the loss of legitimate Priesthood keys.Lehi
altersteve Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) The priesthood existed as a way of reconciliation of all the people.CFR. The priesthood is actually the power and authority of God, delegated to man to lead His Church and serve His children.http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=ab839daac5d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD Edited October 13, 2011 by altersteve
altersteve Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Melchizedek did yes, but where does it say Abraham held the priesthood? I agree that he offered up sacrifices but on behalf of what people? As far as I read, it was on his own behalf, not interceding on behalf of the people.Read the Book of Abraham.
Jesterss Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 If this were done away with by Jesus why did Paul... many years after Jesus... go cleanse himself in the temple and wait around with the others while the priest made an animal sacrifice for him?Second, we are still required to sacrifice, not by killing animals mind you.You skip from Acts 21:20-25 and go straight to Acts 21:26. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 1 Peter 2:55 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.I do not disagree. We are told to do away with our fleshly desires and live right by the Lord. Our sacrifice is to do right by God. And not to live according to the flesh. I agree.Of course we do... John got the Priesthood to Baptise Jesus from his father who servied in the Priesthood in the temple.I'm talking about the priests who had Stephen the martyr stoned. Those priests.
Zakuska Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 Which means .... ?We Saints readily acknowledge that the Jews of Jesus' day were in apostasy. That includes (in fact, the idea is central to the term "apostasy") the loss of legitimate Priesthood keys.LehiJohn got the legitimate priesthhood keys from somewhere. Else he could not have Baptized Christ.
shalamabobbi Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 The sacrament took the place of animal sacrifice. We now look back rather than ahead. It requires a priest to bless the sacrament. The ideas of modern Christiandom about no need for a priesthood are just that, modern.
Jesterss Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 CFR. From the popular catholic view on the priesthood. "The priest was understood as a mediator between God and human beings who offers sacrifices and intercedes for the people."The priesthood is actually the power and authority of God, delegated to man to lead His Church and serve His children.http://lds.org/ldsor...0004d82620aRCRDThat's if you mix the priesthood of prior to the idea of apostles and prophets, who are the leaders of the church. Original definition of the priesthood as held by the catholic church and understood in the bible is the quote I gave you just above. Now if you mix the idea of priesthood with apostles and prophets and teachers, then of course you can derive the definition you put to it.
thesometimesaint Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) Jesterss:So? Last tike I looked we weren't Catholics. In LDS belief the Priesthood authority was gone and over hundreds of years BEFORE the Catholic church even existed. Edited October 13, 2011 by thesometimesaint
Zakuska Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 You skip from Acts 21:20-25 and go straight to Acts 21:26. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.So what are you saying... it was all a ruse and Peter and James gave them the wrong council ? You said this all ended with Christ.. but as we can see it continued. Infact the Sacrifices didn't cease until 70AD. Thats at least 30 years after the fact.
Zakuska Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 The sacrament took the place of animal sacrifice. We now look back rather than ahead. It requires a priest to bless the sacrament. The ideas of modern Christiandom about no need for a priesthood are just that, modern.Correct... 1 Corinthians 11:2626 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
Jesterss Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 The sacrament took the place of animal sacrifice. We now look back rather than ahead. It requires a priest to bless the sacrament. The ideas of modern Christiandom about no need for a priesthood are just that, modern.Your religion is modern. That's not a very good argument. I see your point, but the 1800's weren't that long ago.
altersteve Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) From the popular catholic view on the priesthood."The priest was understood as a mediator between God and human beings who offers sacrifices and intercedes for the people."CFR, from the Bible, that the priesthood exists for this purpose.That's if you mix the priesthood of prior to the idea of apostles and prophets, who are the leaders of the church. Original definition of the priesthood as held by the catholic church and understood in the bible is the quote I gave you just above. Now if you mix the idea of priesthood with apostles and prophets and teachers, then of course you can derive the definition you put to it.Which is actually supported by the Bible, as I've already shown you. You just didn't respond intelligently. All you wrote was some random sentence about drinking milk. Edited October 13, 2011 by altersteve
Jesterss Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Jesterss:So? Last tike I looked we weren't Catholics. In LDS belief the Priesthood authority was gone and over hundreds of years BEFORE the Catholic church even existed.Not if you understand that the catholics began at the time of Peter. As they claim. So that may or may not be true. That's your view. Just as they would believe that a full out apostasy never occurred.
LeSellers Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) John got the legitimate priesthhood keys from somewhere. Else he could not have Baptized Christ.Yea, verily.But he, John, got the Priesthood from an angel when he was eight days old. So said Jesus Christ. 28 For he [John] was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.Lehi Edited October 13, 2011 by LeSellers
thesometimesaint Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Jesterss:Again SO? We've believed from 1830 we are the RESTORATION of the Priesthood.
Zakuska Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 Yea, verily.But he, John, go the Priesthood from an angel when he was eight days old. So said Jesus Christ.Lehi So who was the Angel? Elias perhaps?
Jesterss Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 So what are you saying... it was all a ruse and Peter and James gave them the wrong council ? You said this all ended with Christ.. but as we can see it continued. Infact the Sacrifices didn't cease until 70AD. Thats at least 30 years after the fact.No, they willingly went with them to perform their ceremonies that they had learned from moses, so that the others would be able to understand that Paul and James did not disagree with Moses. But what they taught was much greater than what the law of moses had in store. There wasn't anything wrong with it, but it wasn't a needed practice. It was just a gesture out of acceptance.
Recommended Posts