When Did Jesus Receive The Aaronic And Melchizedek Priesthood?

[Michael Sanders]

Can you tell me where it says that the "keys of the kingdom" = Melchizedek priesthood?

 

You said "By definition, that is the priesthood".  Where did you come up with that definition?

 

Canadaigua,

 

Keys are used as a symbol for authority in the scriptures.  "For the first born hold the right of presiding over this priesthood and the keys or authority of the same" - Section 68:2c  "The second priesthood is called the priesthood of Aaron...the bishopric is the presidency of this priesthood and holds the keys or authority of the same." - Section 104:8  

 

So does the Melchizedek Priesthood possess the "keys (authority) of the kingdom"?  Yes.

 

Michael Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[Canadaigua]

Canadaigua,

 

In the New Testament James the Just (also called James the Righteous and James the brother of the Lord) held an important position as bishop (overseer) over the Church in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 2:9-12).  Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 CE) tells us in his “Ecclesiastical History” that James was selected by the apostles as “Bishop of Jerusalem”:

 

“But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: ‘For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.’  But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: ‘The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.” – Church History II.1.3-5

 

Eusebius also quotes Hegesippus (100-180 CE) which is no longer extant and whose quotations only survive in Eusebius concerning James and the Twelve that:

 

“But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows: ‘James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day....He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel...” – Church History II.23.5-6

 

Clement of Rome (30-97 CE) or someone purporting to be him, addresses his letter in the non-canonical Psuedo-Clementine Homilies of Clement to “James…Bishop of Bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of the Hebrews and the Assemblies everywhere…”

 

Now for the restoration lens (sorry we just have more information that informs our belief as opposed to your belief that we are just reading our beliefs back into earlier texts):

 

James seems to fit the description of the presiding high priest as found in LDS Section 107:

 

“then cometh the high priesthood, ... it must needs be that one be appointed, of the high priesthood, to preside over the priesthood; ... From the same cometh the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of the hands. Wherefore the office of a bishop is not equal unto it, for the office of a bishop is in administering all temporal things: nevertheless, a bishop must be chosen from the high priesthood ... [and] set apart unto the ministering of temporal things, having a knowledge of them by the Spirit of truth, and also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors, upon testimony, as it shall be laid before him, according to the laws ... Thus shall he be a judge, even a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion until ... it becomes necessary to have other bishops, or judges. And inasmuch as there are other bishops appointed they shall act in the same office…Again, verily I say unto you: The most important business of the church, and the most difficult cases of the church, inasmuch as there is not satisfaction upon the decision of the judges, it shall be handed over and carried up unto the court of the church, before the president of the high priesthood...[who] shall have power to call other high priests, even twelve, to assist as counselors; and thus the president of the high priesthood, and his counselors shall have power to decide upon testimony according to the laws of the church. And after this decision, it shall be had in remembrance no more before the Lord; for this is the highest council of the church of God, and a final decision upon controversies…" – Section 107:64-80

 

There is “one” appointed from the “high priesthood” to preside over and administer ordinances and blessings upon the church by the laying on of hands.  A “bishop” (overseer) is also a “high priest” who is appointed to be a judge in Israel over an established area or stake.  If his decision is not accepted then the “most difficult cases of the church” are given to the president of the high priesthood who duty is to convene a council of 12 high priests (high council) and render a final decision on controversies.

 

The Book of Mormon has this “pattern” except that the priesthood designation is not Bishop (which simply means overseer) but refers to them as “high priests” coupled with the phrase “over the land of” or a specified area.  For example, the apostate Korihor’s preaching caused division in the church as he preached to the Anti-Nephi Lehis  in Jershon.  He was brought before the “high priest” over that land to be judged.

 

“But behold, they were more wise than many of the Nephites; for they took him, and bound him, and carried him before Ammon, who was a high priest over that people.”  Alma 16:21

 

He was condemned by Ammon and cast out of the land – only to go over to the land of Gideon – same result.

 

“And he came over into the land of Gideon, and began to preach unto them also; and here he did not have much success, for he was taken and bound, and carried before the high priest, and also the chief judge over the land... Now the high priest's name was Giddonah." – Alma 16:23-27

 

Korihor refused to repent and was subsequently brought before Alma – who was the president of the high priesthood to judge the matter (this position is referred to in Alma 2:25 as “being high priest over the church”).

 

"But they caused that he should be bound; and they delivered him up into the hands of the officers, and sent him to the land of Zarahemla, that he might be brought before Alma..." – Alma 16:37 

 

Alma’s judgment?

 

"Now Alma said unto him, This will I give unto thee for a sign, that thou shalt be struck dumb, according to my words; and I say, that in the name of God, ye shall be struck dumb, that ye shall no more have utterance. 62 Now when Alma had said these words, Korihor was struck dumb, that he could not have utterance according to the words of Alma..." – Alma 16:61

 

The “pattern” found here is that the work of “Bishop” is equated to “High Priest” thus if James the Just has the Bishopric conferred upon him (Bishop of Bishops per Clement or High Priest of the High Priests per Mike) and he acts as the presiding high priest in rendering judgment over hard matter to end all controversies and his decisions are final then – well as another poster said, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its probably a duck!

 

Now specifically let’s look at the place of James, the Lord’s brother.  A conference of the church was convened in Acts 15 to deal with the jewish/gentile conversion issue, i.e. did gentile converts need to be circumcised, observe the dietary code, etc…

 

James presides over the conference and after they hear all sides and confer on the topic – James renders his decision for the whole church:

 

"Wherefore, my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood..." – Acts 15:19-20

 

Also remember that according to Eusebius that the Lord imparted knowledge to “James the Just and to John and Peter” and they in turn imparted it to others.  Does this possibly equate with the Latter-Day reference concerning the presiding high priest that “from the same cometh the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of the hands.”?

 

I submit that James, the Lord’s brother (in addition to the apostles previously mentioned) is a very good candidate to be the presiding high priest selected by our Lord to govern the church with the apostles and to sit in judgment of “hard matters” or “controversies” which is a “pattern” reflected in both the NT, BOM, and the Latter-Day Church.

 

Revision or Restoration?

 

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Mike I appreciate the extensive response and it appears that you took a lot of time in doing so.  But the thing that stands out the most is that despite the length and the extra Biblical quotes you were still unable to show me that the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood existed in the NT church as it does today in the LDS--since LDS do claim a restoration of the original, not a revision of it.  If you look at the Levitical priesthood there is extensive documentation about this priesthood and the organization.  In fact you can look at Leviticus which is an entire book that goes over the priests and various ordinances.  Yet you don't have a single sentence in the entire NT that says that the NT members held the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood.  This is clearly something that Mormonism has added that was never present in the original NT church.

[Canadaigua]

Canadaigua,

 

Keys are used as a symbol for authority in the scriptures.  "For the first born hold the right of presiding over this priesthood and the keys or authority of the same" - Section 68:2c  "The second priesthood is called the priesthood of Aaron...the bishopric is the presidency of this priesthood and holds the keys or authority of the same." - Section 104:8  

 

So does the Melchizedek Priesthood possess the "keys (authority) of the kingdom"?  Yes.

 

Michael Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Again nowhere does the NT equate "keys" with the Melchizedek priesthood.  This is something that is assumed on the part of LDS.

[Ahab]

Again nowhere does the NT equate "keys" with the Melchizedek priesthood. This is something that is assumed on the part of LDS.

You should stop assuming that the Lord didn't tell us what we've told you he said to us both personally and through his messengers.

That is a very big problem you have and you really need to just stop it. There is a way for you to find out that he really told us what we say he told us. He can tell you.

[Avatar4321]

You should stop assuming that the Lord didn't tell us what we've told you he said to us both personally and through his messengers.

That is a very big problem you have and you really need to just stop it. There is a way for you to find out that he really told us what we say he told us. He can tell you.

It's quite possible that he doesn't believe God can tell him. Not sure why that would be. But people have odd beliefs sometimes.

[Michael Sanders]

Mike I appreciate the extensive response and it appears that you took a lot of time in doing so.  But the thing that stands out the most is that despite the length and the extra Biblical quotes you were still unable to show me that the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood existed in the NT church as it does today in the LDS--since LDS do claim a restoration of the original, not a revision of it.  If you look at the Levitical priesthood there is extensive documentation about this priesthood and the organization.  In fact you can look at Leviticus which is an entire book that goes over the priests and various ordinances.  Yet you don't have a single sentence in the entire NT that says that the NT members held the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood.  This is clearly something that Mormonism has added that was never present in the original NT church.

 

Are we following a script?

 

http://www.equip.org/article/witnessing-tips-mormon-priesthood/#christian-books-2

 

Michael Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[Avatar4321]

Looks like it. It would certainly explain why he is unable to answer any questions and why he refuses to acknowledge anything shown to him.

what priesthood did Peter have? The only two mentioned is the aaronic order and the melchizedek order. So which one did Peter belong to?

[Michael Sanders]

Mike I appreciate the extensive response and it appears that you took a lot of time in doing so.  But the thing that stands out the most is that despite the length and the extra Biblical quotes you were still unable to show me that the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood existed in the NT church as it does today in the LDS--since LDS do claim a restoration of the original, not a revision of it.  If you look at the Levitical priesthood there is extensive documentation about this priesthood and the organization.  In fact you can look at Leviticus which is an entire book that goes over the priests and various ordinances.  Yet you don't have a single sentence in the entire NT that says that the NT members held the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood.  This is clearly something that Mormonism has added that was never present in the original NT church.

 

The phrase "Aaronic Priesthood" and "lesser priesthood" denote a priest after the order of Aaron.  The phrase "Melchizedek Priesthood" or "higher priesthood" denote a priest after the order of Melchizedek.  In other words:

 

High Priesthood = Melchizedek Priesthood

 

"There are, in the church, two priesthood's; namely: the Melchisedec, and the Aaronic, including the Levitical priesthood. Why the first is called the Melchisedec priesthood, is because Melchisedec was such a great high priest: before his day it was called the holy priesthood, after the order of the Son of God; but out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchisedec, or the Melchisedec priesthood. All other authorities, or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood; but there are two divisions, or grand heads--one is the Melchisedec priesthood,and the other is the Aaronic, or Levitical priesthood." - Section 104:1-2 (LDS 107:1-5)

 

Aaronic Priesthood = Sons of Aaron = Lesser Priesthood = Holy Order of God = Order of Aaron

 

Melchizedek Priesthood = Sons of Moses = Higher Priesthood = Holy Order of God - Order of Melchizedek

 

These are all designations used in scripture to delineate between these two grand heads.  Again, the Hebrew letter (ch 5-7) describes the superiority of the Melchizedek Priesthood over the Aaronite High Priest.  It refers to the coronation psalm to show that Jesus was the messianic fulfillment of the anticipated Davidic King.  It is this higher priesthood that has the power to bring his people into the "rest of god" as shown in this nice chiasm from the Book of Mormon where it discussed the Melchizedek Priesthood. (see Alma 9:63-73)

 

a) order of his son

   b) ordained

      c) called

         d) foreknowledge of God

            e) prepared

               f) foundation of the world

                  g) Only begotten son

                     h) HIGH PRIESTHOOD

                       i) ENTER INTO HIS REST

                     h) HIGH PRIESTHOOD

                   g) his son

               f) foundation of the world

            e) prepared

         d) foreknowledge of all things

      c) called

   b) ordained

a) order of the son

 

Michael Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Edited January 16, 2015 by Michael Sanders

[Michael Sanders]

Looks like it. It would certainly explain why he is unable to answer any questions and why he refuses to acknowledge anything shown to him.

what priesthood did Peter have? The only two mentioned is the aaronic order and the melchizedek order. So which one did Peter belong to?

 

Peter didn't hold any "priesthood" can you show me one verse from the NT that says specifically that Peter had priesthood?  

 

Michael Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[Avatar4321]

Well if he didn't hold the priesthood he was confused when he declared himself part of a royal priesthood. Someone should have told him.

[ERayR]

Are we following a script?

 

http://www.equip.org/article/witnessing-tips-mormon-priesthood/#christian-books-2

 

Michael Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

 

The Ministers print them for the members who want to witness to Mormons.  Kind of like the old missionary role play lessons.

[Canadaigua]

". . .Again, the Hebrew letter (ch 5-7) describes the superiority of the Melchizedek Priesthood over the Aaronite High Priest. . ."

 

Michael Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

That is absolutely true.  Under the law there was a single Aaronic High Priest who represents the people before God and when that single High Priest died another would fill his place.  This priest was a shadow or type of Christ who will come.  Christ is the true High Priest and therefore his authority is higher and since Christ became our High Priest after his death and resurrection he will never die and thus never be replaced as were the OT Aaronic High Priests.

 

You still have not shown me a single NT member who held the Melchizedek priesthood--because it simply is not there.

[Canadaigua]

Are we following a script?

 

http://www.equip.org/article/witnessing-tips-mormon-priesthood/#christian-books-2

 

Michael Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Not at all. All you have to do is simply read the NT and see for your self that the claim that the Melchizedek priesthood existed among the NT members is clearly not there but rather was contrived by Joseph.  It is just further evidence that Mormonism is not a RESTORATION but rather a REVISION of the NT church.  You have made several posts but the thing that stands out is that you can't substantiate your position from the Bible.

 

Not only can you not show me a single NT member who held the Melchizedek priesthood, you can't show me that the Aaronic priesthood was changed allowing non Levites to hold this priesthood.  When do you propose that God changed this requirement and where can we find this in the NT?

[Canadaigua]

Are we following a script?

 

http://www.equip.org/article/witnessing-tips-mormon-priesthood/#christian-books-2

 

Michael Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

 

David Whitmer--An Address to All Believers in Christ (page 63)

". . .We will now go to the New Testament in the Bible. In no place therein does it mention one single High Priest as being in the Church of Christ. High Priests are spoken of in Hebrews iv to ix, but only to explain that Jesus Christ is our great High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. It speaks of High Priests that Christ, except only in Christ himself; He being “the Apostle and High Priest of our profession; . . . our great High Priest that has passed into the heavens; . . . a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.” “Seeing then that we have a great High Priest (and the only one) . . . let us come boldly unto the throne of grace, High Priests which was a type of Christ’s order. Before Christ, the people came for their sins; but now the people have the great High Priest even Jesus Christ an High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith,” etc. . ."

 

 

David Whitmer--one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon--seems to be following the same script (as you put it).  Perhaps the reason is that it is what the Bible actually teaches on this subject rather than the one that you adhere to.

[Canadaigua]

Looks like it. It would certainly explain why he is unable to answer any questions and why he refuses to acknowledge anything shown to him.

what priesthood did Peter have? The only two mentioned is the aaronic order and the melchizedek order. So which one did Peter belong to?

There is not a single verse in the NT that says that Peter held either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek priesthood.  You are the one who claims that he holds these priesthoods therefore the burden of proof rests with you not me.  

[Canadaigua]

Canadaigua,

 

If we look at the priesthood evidence from the bible and consider that the “pattern” established in Israel is a “type” for the church (see John Tvedtnes, The Church of the Old Testament [salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967]) then the following church structure becomes clear:

 

Old Testament:

 

Moses – Melchizedek High Priest – God’s “mouthpiece” and ultimate authority to judge the “hard matters” of the people. . ."

 

Michael Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

 

There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that says that Moses was a Melchizedek High Priest--because he wasn't a Melchizedek High Priest.  

 

Mike try and prove me wrong and show me a single verse that identifies Moses as a Melchizedek High Priest.

[Avatar4321]

There is not a single verse in the NT that says that Peter held either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek priesthood.  You are the one who claims that he holds these priesthoods therefore the burden of proof rests with you not me.

so when he said that he belonged to a royal priesthood what priesthood was he referring to?

why are you refusing to answer this?

and since only the aaronic and melchizedek priesthoods are mentioned in the scriptures, how do you conclude he had another?

[Avatar4321]

There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that says that Moses was a Melchizedek High Priest--because he wasn't a Melchizedek High Priest.  

 

Mike try and prove me wrong and show me a single verse that identifies Moses as a Melchizedek High Priest.

what priesthood do you think Moses had?

[Canadaigua]

what priesthood do you think Moses had?

There is nothing in the Bible that says anything about Moses being a Melchizedek High Priest.

 

However LDS do make the claim that Moses was a Melchizedek High Priest.  When a person (or organization) makes a truth claim the burden of proof rests with the person making that claim.

 

Wiki--Burden of Proof

"The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. . ."

 

 

 

This is an interesting claim that LDS make and I would be very interested to see what you have to substantiate it.  Can you provide that basis for this truth claim?

[Avatar4321]

And your still dodging the question.

[JLHPROF]

There is nothing in the Bible that says anything about Moses being a Melchizedek High Priest.

 

However LDS do make the claim that Moses was a Melchizedek High Priest.  When a person (or organization) makes a truth claim the burden of proof rests with the person making that claim.

 

Wiki--Burden of Proof

"The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. . ."

 

 

 

This is an interesting claim that LDS make and I would be very interested to see what you have to substantiate it.  Can you provide that basis for this truth claim?

 

The problem is we can PROVE easily that all these people exercised the authority that today we call the Melchezidek Priesthood.

But in perfect pedantic fashion, the lack of the term "Melchezidek" is what causes you to say they didn't hold it.

A ridiculous claim on your part.

 

It's the equivalent of a man in the Bible being called of God and recording prophecies but because the term "prophet" is never used you refuse to label him a prophet.  If these men exercised authority from God, performed blessings, ordinances, miracles, and other Godly men paid tribute to them, they ARE priesthood bearers, unless you have some fun new name you'd rather use in its place.

And I'd really like to hear your definition of the word priesthood that you think doesn't apply to these men.

 

These men exercised priesthood.  Whether it was termed priesthood in scripture is completely irrelevant to the truth.

[ERayR]

There is nothing in the Bible that says anything about Moses being a Melchizedek High Priest.

 

However LDS do make the claim that Moses was a Melchizedek High Priest.  When a person (or organization) makes a truth claim the burden of proof rests with the person making that claim.

 

Wiki--Burden of Proof

"The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. . ."

 

 

 

This is an interesting claim that LDS make and I would be very interested to see what you have to substantiate it.  Can you provide that basis for this truth claim?

 

I can't speak for the others but I am not trying to prove anything to you.  If I did you would have no need to exercise faith.  You are the one who is ultimately responsible for your decisions.

[Vance]

There is nothing in the Bible that says anything about Moses being a Melchizedek High Priest.

So?  There are a lot of things not said in the Bible.

 

D&C 84:6 And the sons of Moses, according to the Holy Priesthood which he (Moses) received under the hand of his father-in-law, Jethro;

 

Now go pound some sand.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Vance

[Avatar4321]

So?  There are a lot of things not said in the Bible.

 

D&C 84:6 And the sons of Moses, according to the Holy Priesthood which he (Moses) received under the hand of his father-in-law, Jethro;

 

Now go pound some sand.

he did just ask for a scripture. Nothing says it has to be from the bible

[Michael Sanders]

Not at all. All you have to do is simply read the NT and see for your self that the claim that the Melchizedek priesthood existed among the NT members is clearly not there but rather was contrived by Joseph. It is just further evidence that Mormonism is not a RESTORATION but rather a REVISION of the NT church. You have made several posts but the thing that stands out is that you can't substantiate your position from the Bible.

Not only can you not show me a single NT member who held the Melchizedek priesthood, you can't show me that the Aaronic priesthood was changed allowing non Levites to hold this priesthood. When do you propose that God changed this requirement and where can we find this in the NT?

What do you make of these ECF quotes compiled by John Tvedtnes? Were these also contrived by Joseph Smith? What do they mean?

http://bookofmormonresearch.org/dc-articles/priesthood-offices

Michael Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Edited January 18, 2015 by Michael Sanders