Damien the Leper Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 I don't see evidence of Adam being baptized in any documents of antiquity. As to the High Priest reference earlier in the thread, I don't see justification for the Melchezidek priesthood. I don't know that the ancient men would have viewed priesthood the same way as the LDS do today.
pogi Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) I don't see evidence of Adam being baptized in any documents of antiquity.Why is it that a book has to be really old to have truth value? Can't God reveal ancient truths to modern prophets? Antiquity would suggest that he can. As to the High Priest reference earlier in the thread, I don't see justification for the Melchezidek priesthood.It certainly wouldn't have been called the Melchizedek Priesthood in the time of Adam, he wasn't around yet.I don't know that the ancient men would have viewed priesthood the same way as the LDS do today.I agree, you don't know. Edited January 3, 2013 by pogi
cesc101 Posted January 3, 2013 Author Posted January 3, 2013 I'm sorry I missed your question. Apart from those two links, much of the material is not available online in English, though google books can be your friend. Still, if you ever need a specific reference, just ask for it. I should be able to help.thank you very, i'll sure make it a date with google books, as for the links i just got, am sure it'll take me a while to go through them all - am just excited that i've got some "fresh" items to feed my eyes.
cesc101 Posted January 3, 2013 Author Posted January 3, 2013 I don't see evidence of Adam being baptized in any documents of antiquity.Whilst i've not read through most "documents of antiquity", i'm sure one can find "evidence" for anything one wishes to find, anywhere. These documents are, imo, just commentaries.Thank God we don't really on them as standard works..., but then again, i'm yet to read most of them to either agree or disagree with you I don't know that the ancient men would have viewed priesthood the same way as the LDS do today.Fair enough, but am sure you'll agree that the "ancient" expected one to have some sort of authorization or unique qualification to officiate in matters pertaining to the deities.How would that be different from the LDS view? 1
Damien the Leper Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Why is it that a book has to be really old to have truth value? Can't God reveal ancient truths to modern prophets? Antiquity would suggest that he can.It certainly wouldn't have been called the Melchizedek Priesthood in the time of Adam, he wasn't around yet.I agree, you don't know. It would be logical if there was a real basis for the claim.
Damien the Leper Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Whilst i've not read through most "documents of antiquity", i'm sure one can find "evidence" for anything one wishes to find, anywhere. These documents are, imo, just commentaries.Thank God we don't really on them as standard works..., but then again, i'm yet to read most of them to either agree or disagree with youFair enough, but am sure you'll agree that the "ancient" expected one to have some sort of authorization or unique qualification to officiate in matters pertaining to the deities.How would that be different from the LDS view?Jewish priesthood vs LDS priesthood. There are very unique variances.
cesc101 Posted January 3, 2013 Author Posted January 3, 2013 Jewish priesthood vs LDS priesthood. There are very unique variances.The "variances", is it, say, enough to alienate LDS from the Judeo-Christian movements?Care to explain this (supposed) "variances"?
cesc101 Posted January 3, 2013 Author Posted January 3, 2013 FWIW, I find Monster's response, #15, very interesting. The problem becomes that of drawing a line between what is Literal, and what is Symbolic in Scriptural stories... {sigh}
Damien the Leper Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 The "variances", is it, say, enough to alienate LDS from the Judeo-Christian movements?Care to explain this (supposed) "variances"?I'm not saying anything about alienation.Consider Jewish temple priesthood practices with LDS temple priesthood practices as an example.I mean no offense but I don't consider the Endowment and temple clothing to be a correction or restoration of heretical Masonic rituals.
cesc101 Posted January 3, 2013 Author Posted January 3, 2013 Valentinus, I see your point, and I don't think to go down that road with you.My point in starting this thread, was to see if the idea of Adam as a righteous Patriarch -- baptized, and holding the Priesthood -- was taught in the Bible, or in other "documents of antiquity".So, what says you?
Damien the Leper Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) Valentinus, I see your point, and I don't think to go down that road with you.My point in starting this thread, was to see if the idea of Adam as a righteous Patriarch -- baptized, and holding the Priesthood -- was taught in the Bible, or in other "documents of antiquity".So, what says you?I have not yet seen or read evidences that suggest such. But that is not to say there isn't. Edited January 3, 2013 by Valentinus
cesc101 Posted January 3, 2013 Author Posted January 3, 2013 I have not yet seen oread evidences that suggest such. But that is not to say there isnt.Thanks...I'll just keep digging. {but if you ever do, i'll appreciate you offering!}
Recommended Posts