When Did Jesus Receive The Aaronic And Melchizedek Priesthood?

[intra]

Did someone claim Christ was a Levitical priest?  A Rabbi, sure, but not a Levitical priest.

see: thread title

[Calm]

That was a question being asked by a nonmormon.

If you want to debate with him, canadaigua, whether or not Christ held the Aaronic priesthood, feel free, but don't attribute to LDS everything that is said on the site.

Edited January 7, 2015 by calmoriah

[intra]

That was a question being asked by a nonmormon.

If you want to debate with him, canadaigua, whether or not Christ held the Aaronic priesthood, feel free, but don't attribute to LDS everything that is said on the site.

ok and where should i post a reply to the OP -- not here in this thread? 

 

 

[intra]

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine: and he was [is] the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, "Blessed be Abram to the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth, And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand". And he gave him tithe from all.

 

 

Pretty simple.  Melchezidek was a priest of the most high God.  He "blessed" (ordained) Abraham to the same office.

The Melchezidek priesthood was named in his honor (see Hebrews) but it was always of the most high God.

I don't see how this can be a debate.

if "blessing" = conferring priesthood, why did Abraham at that time pay a tithe to Melchizedek? 

priests do not pay tithes to each other. 

[ERayR]

if "blessing" = conferring priesthood, why did Abraham at that time pay a tithe to Melchizedek? 

priests do not pay tithes to each other. 

 

Another head slap.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Another head slap.

Indeed. People in this thread an others are not even trying to have a real dialogue. Just throwing out what ever they can to see if it sticks.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

if "blessing" = conferring priesthood, why did Abraham at that time pay a tithe to Melchizedek? 

priests do not pay tithes to each other. 

Huh? This is incoherent.

[Calm]

ok and where should i post a reply to the OP -- not here in this thread?

It is past 100 posts into the conversation nd you have been posting already. It is inconsistent to respond to the OP now as if you've said nothing else and thus makes it hard for others to understand what you are saying. Out Of consideration for others following the various conversations, you should quote what you are responding to if it is not relatively close above your post. Edited January 7, 2015 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

if "blessing" = conferring priesthood, why did Abraham at that time pay a tithe to Melchizedek? 

priests do not pay tithes to each other. 

 

They do in Mormonism, the true gospel.  I am an Elder (a priest of sorts) and I pay my tithing to my Bishop (the High Priest over the congregation).

 

Just another Biblical example of Mormonism in action.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Priesthood

". . THE SOURCE OF PRIESTHOOD POWER. Jesus Christ is the great High Priest of God; Christ is therefore the source of all true priesthood authority and power on this earth (Heb. 5-10). Man does not take such priesthood power unto himself; it must be conferred by God through his servants (Heb. 5:4; D&C 1:38).

Before the world was created, Jesus Christ, the great Jehovah and firstborn of God the Father in the spirit world, covenanted to use the power he had obtained from the Father to implement God's program for the eternal happiness of all God's children (cf. TPJS, p. 190). The actual name of the priesthood is "the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God"; but to avoid the too-frequent repetition of the name of deity, it is called by other names, particularly the Melchizedek Priesthood; i.e., it is the same authority held by that righteous king and high priest (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 5:6; Alma 13:6, 17-19; D&C 107:1-4;124:123).. . ."

 

 

Do you believe that the power that Jesus obtained from the Father was the priesthood?

I don't believe Jesus obtained any priesthood authority. Can you please cite an official church source for this "new" doctrine?

 

BTW your question in the OP is loaded. It assumes that Jesus needed to receive it. It's like asking "When did Jesus stop beating his wife".

[ERayR]

Indeed. People in this thread an others are not even trying to have a real dialogue. Just throwing out what ever they can to see if it sticks.

 

Kind of like trolls but with less planning.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hebrews chapter 7 makes it clear only Jesus holds the Melchezedek Priesthood and no other. That's why the Bible mentions no one in that position.

It does? Can you show me were it says "And Jesus holds the Melchizedek priesthood and no other after can or would hold it? 

[intra]

Another head slap.

the "head slap" here is that the things you are saying to justify your human doctrines are contrary to the Bible, and instead of using God's word to interpret men, you are using men's words to interpret God. there is a perfectly good Hebrew word for "ordain" - מְנָא - and this doesn't happen to be the same as the word as וַֽיְבָרְכֵ֖הוּ

what do you think, here is Jesus conferring the order of Melchizedek onto some fish and barley loaves? 

Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them,

and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude.

(Luke 9:16) 

if i go to the deli to have a meal today, should i pay my tithe to the baker or to the sandwich? 

 

[ERayR]

It does? Can you show me were it says "And Jesus holds the Melchizedek priesthood and no other after can or would hold it? 

 

Can't ypu read it is right there in HC 2:4.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Since you say that many people held the Melchizedek priesthood in the Bible could you name some of them for me? 

Most of the people that have books named after them in the bible held that priesthood.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ERayR]

the "head slap" here is that the things you are saying to justify your human doctrines are contrary to the Bible, and instead of using God's word to interpret men, you are using men's words to interpret God. there is a perfectly good Hebrew word for "ordain" - מְנָא - and this doesn't happen to be the same as the word as וַֽיְבָרְכֵ֖הוּ

what do you think, here is Jesus conferring the order of Melchizedek onto some fish and barley loaves? 

Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them,

and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude.

(Luke 9:16) 

if i go to the deli to have a meal today, should i pay my tithe to the baker or to the sandwich? 

 

Nope a head slap is reserved for extreme cases of inconsistency and confusion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

the "head slap" here is that the things you are saying to justify your human doctrines are contrary to the Bible, and instead of using God's word to interpret men, you are using men's words to interpret God. there is a perfectly good Hebrew word for "ordain" - מְנָא - and this doesn't happen to be the same as the word as וַֽיְבָרְכֵ֖הוּ

what do you think, here is Jesus conferring the order of Melchizedek onto some fish and barley loaves? 

Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them,

and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude.

(Luke 9:16) 

if i go to the deli to have a meal today, should i pay my tithe to the baker or to the sandwich? 

 

Huh? You should just stop. 

[JLHPROF]

I don't believe Jesus obtained any priesthood authority. Can you please cite an official church source for this "new" doctrine?

 

BTW your question in the OP is loaded. It assumes that Jesus needed to receive it. It's like asking "When did Jesus stop beating his wife".

 

I don't know why it is so hard for even for members to believe Christ was ordained to the priesthood.  It's nice to believe that the authority and power are just innate within him, but I see no reason to believe that.  Christ didn't need to be baptized but he did because receiving the ordinance was a requirement.  He didn't need to take the sacrament, but he taught the apostles how to administer it by example.  He didn't need to receive his second anointing to make his calling and election sure but he did anyway.

He didn't need to wear the garment to remind him of covenants, but the scriptures hint that he did anyway.

 

Why wouldn't he have been ordained to the priesthood keys as well?  That's what I think Moses and Elijah restored on the Mount of Transfiguration - between them they held all the keys to the Aaronic & Melchezidek priesthood, including the sealing keys of the apostleship.  Just as in D&C 110.  If Christ already held all the keys why would they bother coming?  This was a restoration, just as in our day.

 

It's nice to want to make Christ the exception to the rule, but Christ never said he was and fulfilled all the ordinances everyone else does.

Edited January 7, 2015 by JLHPROF

[ERayR]

Huh? You should just stop. 

 

I agree completely.  That is becoming painfully obvious.

[Canadaigua]

Did someone claim Christ was a Levitical priest?  A Rabbi, sure, but not a Levitical priest.

This is a little bit off topic for this thread but since it has come up a couple of times I will give you my position.

 

Jesus lived under the law and under the law priests came from the tribe of Levi.  Jesus was from the tribe of Judah so he could not have been a Levitical priest.  In fact Jesus was not a priest during his earthly ministry but rather at the time of His death.

[Vance]

This is a little bit off topic for this thread but since it has come up a couple of times I will give you my position.

 

Jesus lived under the law and under the law priests came from the tribe of Levi.  Jesus was from the tribe of Judah so he could not have been a Levitical priest.  In fact Jesus was not a priest during his earthly ministry but rather at the time of His death.

Really?

 

What about this?

 

Ps 110:4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

[intra]

Nope a head slap is reserved for extreme cases of inconsistency and confusion.

oh, so you mean like saying Melchizedek, who is without father or mother or genealogy, received his priesthood by lineage of his forefathers? 

[intra]

here's your inconsistent, confused "head slap" 

 

you say you believe the book of Hebrews: 

King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent,

having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;

but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
(Hebrews 7:2-3) 
 

but you say you also believe this: 

 

  14 Which ^aAbraham received the priesthood from ^bMelchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till ^cNoah;

  15 And from Noah till ^aEnoch, through the lineage of their fathers;

 

and because it suits your vain imagination, you say "blessed" means "ordained as priest" in one place, but not in another. 


it's called "cognitive dissonance" 

[ERayR]

oh, so you mean like saying Melchizedek, who is without father or mother or genealogy, received his priesthood by lineage of his forefathers? 

 

No I am saying that to me your interpretations border on the comedic.

Edited January 7, 2015 by ERayR

[intra]

No I am saying that to me your interpretations border on the comedic.

which part of "having no father or mother or descent"  is open to be interpreted as meaning he in fact has a father, a mother, and descendants? 

which part of "received (the priesthood) through the lineage of his fathers" is interpreted to mean he did not receive priesthood through carnal lineage of his fathers? 

it's not even laughable, it's just willful blindness; plainly 'exchanging the truth for a lie.' it's cause to weep and mourn, because the people have cherished a lie and loved vanity and scorn rather than wisdom and meekness.