When Did Jesus Receive The Aaronic And Melchizedek Priesthood?

[Ahab]

Priesthood is a word we use to refer to the authority/authorization God gives someone else to do what he wants done. Like if God wanted someone to be the Savior of the world, for example, God would give someone his authority/authorization to be the Savior of the world, otherwise there would be nobody with God's authority/authorization to be the Savior of the world. Or for another example, if God wanted people to baptize someone else, or administer in some other ordinance such as the breaking and blessing of bread and wine or water to symbolize the Savior's atoning sacrifice, or seal 2 people together in marriage, or whatever else, then God would need to authorize or give someone his authority to do it as he wanted it done, otherwise nobody would have his authority to do it.

So the answer to the question is whenever God first gave Jesus his authority to do whatever God wanted him to do, whatever it was that was the first thing that Jesus did with God's authorization/authority.

[Flyonthewall]

Go back and read about Melchizedek.  He was a type or shadow of Christ.

We believe he was a type and a shadow of Christ - thus the priesthood was identified thru him.

What is your point?

[Flyonthewall]

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: 

 

 

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" 

It's called biblical contradiction. Biblical omission.

What is without father or mother? Melchizedek, who is identified in the bible as receiving the priesthood from his father? or could it be the order of priesthood he received that made him like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually?

Now you have a decision to make - does the Bible contradict itself? or Is it simply not clear because something was omitted?

[Calm]

]it's called "cognitive dissonance"]

No it isn't. If you want to sound informed about psychological terminology, it works better if you use the terms correctly.

Edited January 8, 2015 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

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? 

 

 

Definitely the sandwich.  I like lots of greens on my sandwiches.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Uh, that's ok- I'm good.

[mfbukowski]

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

So I guess he just sprouted?  I have heard of folks putting down roots, but this is a new one on me.

 

Does that qualify as a virgin birth?

[intra]

It's called biblical contradiction. Biblical omission.

What is without father or mother? Melchizedek, who is identified in the bible as receiving the priesthood from his father? 

what Bible are you reading?

First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

(Hebrews 7:2-3) 

 

it's not the Bible that says Melchizedek was conferred priesthood through a bloodline. the Bible says he has no genealogy. 

it's called "contradiction between the BOM and the Bible" 

and holding two ideas simultaneously at variance with one another is exactly "cognitive dissonance" 

allow me to present a couple of relevant examples in pairs of contradictory statements: 

 

1. the book of Hebrews is true
2. the book of Abraham is true

1. Melchizedek is "without father or mother" 
2. Melchizedek has a lineage of fathers

Edited January 8, 2015 by intra

[intra]

 

Definitely the sandwich. 

i see now how that it is better to take counsel from God than from men!

[intra]

Priesthood is a word we use to refer to the authority/authorization God gives someone else to do what he wants done. 

this has something to do with your confusion, am sure, because this is not what "priesthood" in the Bible means. 

examples:

to all of Israel that returned from captivity in Babylon, 

Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways. 

Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house;

and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD.

(Haggai 1:7- 

the Lord authorized the people to rebuild the temple. were they all made priests? 

And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant;

and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him.

(Jeremiah 27:6) 

 

the Lord authorized Nebuchadnezzar to build a kingdom and rule over it. was Nebuchadnezzar the Lord's priest? 

 

And Samuel said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

(1 Samuel 15:1-3) 

the Lord authorized Saul to destroy the Amalekites. was Saul a priest of God? 

 

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.

The authorities that exist have been established by God.

(Romans 13:1) 

there is no government given authority whose authority is not established by God. 

is Obama a priest of the Almighty God? his authority to rule in America is from God. 

is Kim Jong-un a priest of the Lord of Hosts? his authority to rule in North Korea is established by God. 

maybe it would be wise instead to look at what a "priest" is from the standpoint of the Bible, don't you think? 

[teddyaware]

 

what Bible are you reading?

First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

(Hebrews 7:2-3) 

 

it's not the Bible that says Melchizedek was conferred priesthood through a bloodline. the Bible says he has no genealogy. 

it's called "contradiction between the BOM and the Bible" 

and holding two ideas simultaneously at variance with one another is exactly "cognitive dissonance" 

allow me to present a couple of relevant examples in pairs of contradictory statements: 

 

1. the book of Hebrews is true
2. the book of Abraham is true

1. Melchizedek is "without father or mother" 
2. Melchizedek has a lineage of fathers

 

 

The Latter-day Saints believe it is by virtue of the POWER of the Holy Piesthood that Melchizedek WAS MADE as one who is without father and mother, because it is the Priesthood itself that had no beginning. Even Jesus Christ himself had a father and a mother; so, most assuredly, Melchizedek had a father and a mother as well. In Hebrews, we are told that it is by virtue of the Priesthood that Melchizedek "WAS MADE like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest everlastingly. As it exists today in the Bible, that passage in Hebrews is murky but by revelation the Prophet Joseph Smith cleared it up for us. Your understandable misunderstanding of this verse of scripture is a perfect case study to demonstrate why it's necessary to have living apostles and prophets to keep the saints from being "carried to and fro by every wind of doctrine."

 

P.S. if you believe that unlike the Saviour, Melchizedek had no earthly mother or father, precisely what kind or classification of being to you believe he was? He certainly seemed like a human being who served as an earthly king, served Abraham food and drink and received tithes of Abraham as well.

Edited January 8, 2015 by teddyaware

[intra]

you want to talk about "being carried away by every wind of doctrine" but you can't decide if polygamy is an abomination or a commandment? if all things are created by Christ or if Christ is created? if the Almighty is a man or the everlasting God? if the BOM is the most perfect document ever written or if it needed 3,913 changes to the text? if you are a son of God by adoption or by birthright? if Christ is the son of God or of Joseph? 

w/e



 

[teddyaware]

you want to talk about "being carried away by every wind of doctrine" but you can't decide if polygamy is an abomination or a commandment? if all things are created by Christ or if Christ is created? if the Almighty is a man or the everlasting God? if the BOM is the most perfect document ever written or if it needed 3,913 changes to the text? if you are a son of God by adoption or by birthright? if Christ is the son of God or of Joseph? 

w/e

 

 

I can could answer all your questions, just as I answered you in my previous post. But since you're one of those hot and bothered 'throw anything up against the wall and see what sticks" anti-Mormons, answering your questions is not advisable because there's little doubt, you would trample things that are sacred to me underfoot. 

Edited January 8, 2015 by teddyaware

[Calm]

"and holding two ideas simultaneously at variance with one another is exactly "cognitive dissonance" "

No it isn't. Lots of people hold contradictory ideas. Cognitive dissonance is feeling discomfort from holding two or more inconsistent ideas at once. A person who doesn't see the ideas as inconsistent will not experience cog dis and those who are capable of nuanced understanding, have a flexible view of the world are not as likely to be troubled by two apparent paradoxes in part be ause they are confident it will be resolved.

Bottom line: no discomfort, no dissonance.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

Again not looking smart or informed. If you can not get the all important nuance right on this even when you've been told you're in error, why should we trust anything else you throw at us with seemingly little care or effort if the typing is an indicator.

Edited January 8, 2015 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

i see now how that it is better to take counsel from God than from men!

Well at least you believe in personal revelation.

[mfbukowski]

P.S. if you believe that unlike the Saviour, Melchizedek had no earthly mother or father, precisely what kind or classification of being to you believe he was? He certainly seemed like a human being who served as an earthly king, served Abraham food and drink and received tithes of Abraham as well.

I think that if you read the context it is not very mysterious- all it is saying is that his priesthood did not come from his descent- he was not a Levite, and yet he was a priest.

 

He was without the genealogical blessings of the Levites and yet was a priest.  That's all its saying.  And of course that is LDS doctrine.

[mfbukowski]

"and holding two ideas simultaneously at variance with one another is exactly "cognitive dissonance" "

No it isn't. Lots of people hold contradictory ideas. Cognitive dissonance is feeling discomfort from holding two or more inconsistent ideas at once. A person who doesn't see the ideas as inconsistent will not experience cog dis and those who are capable of nuanced understanding, have a flexible view of the world are not as likely to be troubled by two apparent paradoxes in part be ause they are confident it will be resolved.

Bottom line: no discomfort, no dissonance.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

Again not looking smart or informed. If you can not get the all important nuance right on this even when you've been told you're in error, why should we trust anything else you throw at us with seemingly little care or effort if the typing is an indicator.

He'll have to figure it out on the other side.

 

Of course if you check your email, you will see what I originally said which was far less nice.  See?  I am trying to be good! 

 

edit: oops sorry about the timing there...

Edited January 8, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

you want to talk about "being carried away by every wind of doctrine" but you can't decide if polygamy is an abomination or a commandment?

You are misinformed, intra.

Despite strong, even abusive denunciations of polygyny in the Book of Mormon (Jacob 1:15, 2:24,27, Mosiah 11:2, Ether 10:5), and the clear instruction to Father Lehi (Jacob 3:5 Athe commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our fatherBthat they should have save it be one wife@), it is also clear from Jacob 2:30 that the Lord can command polygyny where and when He pleases:

 

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

 

"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: I anointed the king over Israel, and I delivered thee from the hand of Saul, And gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives into thy bosom." (2 Sam. 12:7)

 

if all things are created by Christ or if Christ is created? if the Almighty is a man or the everlasting God? if the BOM is the most perfect document ever written or if it needed 3,913 changes to the text? if you are a son of God by adoption or by birthright? if Christ is the son of God or of Joseph? 

w/e

One can generate tens of thousands of apparent intertextual contradictions within the Bible, and  your few examples here hint at that.  However, is it right to ignore substance in laying such difficulties out?  For, example, Jerald and Sandra Tanner made famous the fact that 3,913 changes had been made in the Book of Mormon since its 1830 publication.  Actually many more changes than that have been made in the BofM, and the most changes by far have been made in the 1611 King James Version of the Bible -- not even considering all the other English translations.  However, in the case of the BofM and the KJV, nearly all of those changes have been of a grammatical nature and are not substantive.

 

So rather than strain out gnats and swallow camels, it might be helpful to decide whether the difficulties you mention are substantive, or do have reasonable answers for those who approach them seriously.  Here are some examples from Matthew:

 

Matt 5:14 vs Jn 8:12 (who is the light of the world?)

Matt 5:17-48, Lk 16:17 vs Lk 16:16, Heb 7:11-12,16-24 (Law “changed” or no?) ; cf. Mal 3:6, Ps 102:25-27, Gal 3, 5, Heb 13:8, James 1:17, 2:10, and see Dt 24:1.

Matt 5:39 vs Mk 12:15 (resist evil, or no?)

Matt 6:13 vs Lk 11:4 (how does the Doxology go?)

Mat 7:1 vs 7:6 (exercise judgment, or no?) 

Matt 7:7-11, Jn 14:13-14, 16:23b vs Mt 21:22, Mk 11:24-25, Jn 15:7, James 15:16 (ask and receive without any conditions attached?) ; cf. Ps 66:18, Mt 6:14-15, I Jn 3:22, 5:14.

Matt 7:11, Lk 11:13-20 vs 24:24-26, II Thess 2:9-10, Rev 12:9, 13:13-14, II Cor 4:4, 11:13-15 (what is the nature of evil?); cf. I Sm 16:15-16, Isa 14:12-14, Ezk 18:20, 28:15, Lk 10:18, Eph 2:2.

Matt 7:22-27, 25:35-46, 26:10 vs 10:32-33, Jn 3:15-18 (men to be judged by works of mercy, or by declaration of faith/belief, or by a combination of such prerequisites?) ; cf. I Sm 15:22, 58:3-11, Job 22:6-7, Ps 50:23, Ecclus 7:35-36; Jn 3:19, 7:17, 14:23, 15:1ff, Gal 3:11-12, Rom 10:9-10, 12:2, Philip 4:9, I Jn 3:22; T. Lorenzen, "Faith Without Works Does Not Count Before God! James 2.14-26,"Expository Times, 89:231-235.

Matt 7:22-23 vs 12:26, Mk 3:23, Lk 11:18 (can Satan cast out Satan, or no?)

Matt 8:28 vs Mk 5:2-5, Lk 8:26-27 (one, or two demoniacs come from tombs? at Gadara, or Gerasa?  Demonic possession and exorcism?) ; cf. Mk 9:27,39 

Matt 9:6, Lk 5:24 vs Mat 27:46, Mk 6:5 (Jesus all-powerful, or no?) ; cf. Mt 28:18, Lk 4:6.

Matt 11:2-5, Lk 7:18-23 vs Jn 1:6-8,15,29-34 (did John the Baptizer recognize Jesus as the

Messiah, or no? was the Baptizer a prophet?); cf. Mt 3:11ff; Gn 49:10.

Matt 11:14, 16:14, 17:3,11-13, Mk 9:12-13, Lk 1:17 [Mal 4:5-6] vs Jn 1:21 (could John the Baptizer be Elias-Elijah? reincarnated?); cf. Mal 3:23 [4:5], Ezk 37:1-14, Eccl 1:9-11.

Matt 12:28, Lk 11:20, 17:21 vs Mk 9:1, Lk 22:18 (realized, amillenial eschatology valid, or no?)

Matt 12:30, Lk 11:23 vs Mat 23:2-3 vs Rev 3:16 vs Mk 9:39-40, Lk 9:49-50, I Jn 4:1-3 (who is of the Lord? who is for or against him?); cf. Isa 8:20, Dt 13:1-4, 18:18-22.

Matt 13:31-32 (mustard seed really the smallest of all seeds? smaller than orchid seed? Jesus in error?) ; cf. Mk 4:30ff, Lk 13:18-19, Mt 21:21.

Matt 13:33, Lk 13:20-21 vs Mat 16:5,11, Mk 8:15, Lk 12:1, I Cor 5:6-8 (is yeast/leaven good, or evil?) ; cf. Ex 12:15-20.

Matt 14:15-21, 15:32-39, Mk 6:30-44, 8:1-10 vs Lk 9:10-17, Jn 6:1-13 (how many multiplication of loaves were there?  one or two?  how many baskets?) ; cf. Ex 16, Num 11, II Ki 4:1-7,42-44.

Matt 18:24 (10,000 talents of silver = 750,000 lbs of silver = many millions of dollars! is this reasonable?  what would 12 million oz of silver bring on the market today?)

Matt 24:29 (will the sun be darkened, moon not give its light, the stars fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven be shaken?  what sort of astronomy is that?)

Matt 24:34 (“this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled”? is this true?)

 

Is your literalist and inerrantist style of exegesis up to the task?

[Robert F. Smith]

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. 

 

Not only was the Atonement (Hebrew kippūr “reconciliation” for breach of covenant = Greek katallagē) prepared from the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6-7, Alma 13:5), but the high priesthood by which it is administered was also prepared from the foundation of the world, i.e., extant “from eternity to eternity,” “without beginning of days or end of years” (Alma 13:3-7) – which suggests a meristic combination of static and dynamic eternity, describing the cosmic and timeless nature of priesthood power qua power to act on behalf of God.  This timelessness is likewise suggested by Father Joseph Fitzmyer S.J., saying of the Melchizedek text from Qumran cave 11:

 

If we had not recovered this text about Melchizedek . . , would we ever have understood correctly what was meant by Heb 7:3 and its affirmation about him?  If Melchizedek were indeed thought of by pre-Christian Jews as a heavenly redemption figure who performed a priestly function (expiation) for the men of his lot, then one can see how the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews could depict Christ, . . as a “priest according to the order of Melchizedek.” -- Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (Eerdmans, 2000), 39.

 

It is very helpful to know the context.

[rodheadlee]

nonsense. 

And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 

one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 

(Hebrews 7:15-16) 

which of these was made priest on the basis of the power of an indestructible life? which lives forever? 

Noah? died. Genesis 9:29

Abraham? died. Genesis 25:8

Abel? died. Genesis 4:8

Adam? died. Genesis 5:5

Enoch? ha! maybe so. 

why did Abraham pay a tithe to Melchizedek if Abraham was himself a priest? was he "buying" priesthood? 

how can Melchizedek have received priesthood 'from the lineage of his fathers' when the scripture says the priesthood of Melchizedek is not by ancestry?

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

(Hebrews 7:3) 

how can one "without father or mother, without genealogy" receive anything through lineage? 

Hey you left out verse 17:  17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of ^aMelchisedec.

 

You guys really box yourself in limiting your doctrine to the NT.

[Flyonthewall]

what Bible are you reading?

First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

(Hebrews 7:2-3) 

 

it's not the Bible that says Melchizedek was conferred priesthood through a bloodline. the Bible says he has no genealogy. 

it's called "contradiction between the BOM and the Bible" 

and holding two ideas simultaneously at variance with one another is exactly "cognitive dissonance" 

allow me to present a couple of relevant examples in pairs of contradictory statements: 

• the book of Hebrews is true
• the book of Abraham is true

• Melchizedek is "without father or mother" 
• Melchizedek has a lineage of fathers

Do tell where he came from without father or mother. Even Jesus has a mother and father. So did they kick over a cabbage leaf and find him?

It is not in the BoM but the D&C. My mistake to say it came from the Bible.

Contradictory ideas - Like saying Melchizedek has no father and mother, and no lineage, yet he is a real person in the Bible.

Or a numerical 3 = numerical 1.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Flyonthewall

[teddyaware]

I think that if you read the context it is not very mysterious- all it is saying is that his priesthood did not come from his descent- he was not a Levite, and yet he was a priest.

 

He was without the genealogical blessings of the Levites and yet was a priest.  That's all its saying.  And of course that is LDS doctrine.

 

This is brilliant, Mark! It's one of those things that's now is so patently obvious that I'm caused to wonder how in the world I missed the plain meaning of those words for all these years. It's now clear to me that when the verse says "without father, without mother" it actually means that the Melchizedek Priesthood is bestowed upon a man without his having to have a lineal descent through the tribe of Levi by having a father and a mother of that tribe. So because the EV's misunderstand the simple meaning of this phrase, they've invented a sort of cosmic superhuman named Melchizedek who -- unlike Christ the Lord who had a mother and father -- somehow magically appears out of the proverbial cabbage patch as a full-grown human being on planet earth.

 

So, in summary, what the full phrase means is that the recipient of the Melchizedek Priesthood does not have to have a father and mother of the tribe of Levi in order to receive it; and that, unlike the Levitical Priesthood that had its beginning with the law of Moses, the Melchizedek Priesthood had no beginning and will have no end. Do I have it right?

Edited January 8, 2015 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

This is brilliant, Mark! It's one of those things that's now is so patently obvious that I'm caused to wonder how in the world I missed the plain meaning of those words for these years. It's now perfectly obvious to me that when the verse says "without father, without mother" it actually means that the Melchizedek Priesthood is bestowed upon a man without his having to have a lineal descent through the tribe of Levi by having a father and a mother of that tribe. So because the EV's misunderstand the simple meaning of this phrase, they've invented a sort of cosmic superhuman named Melchizedek who -- unlike Christ the Lord who had a mother and father -- somehow magically appears out of the proverbial cabbage as a full-grown human being on planet earth.

So, in summary, what the full phrase means is that the recipient of the Melchizedek Priesthood does not have to have a father and mother of the tribe of Levi in order to receive it; and that, unlike the Levitical Priesthood that had its beginning with the law of Moses, the Melchizedek Priesthood had no beginning and will have no end. Do I have it right?

And here I thought it meant Jesus was God incarnate, therefore no father and mother, since EV's I thought, believe in the trinity.

[teddyaware]

And here I thought it meant Jesus was God incarnate, therefore no father and mother, since EV's I thought, believe in the trinity.

 

The EV's believe the verse iin question is talking about Melchizedek, not Christ. Read what they have been saying on this thread. And besides, Christ had a father and mother, namely God the Father and Mary.

Edited January 8, 2015 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

This is brilliant, Mark! It's one of those things that's now is so patently obvious that I'm caused to wonder how in the world I missed the plain meaning of those words for these years. It's now perfectly obvious to me that when the verse says "without father, without mother" it actually means that the Melchizedek Priesthood is bestowed upon a man without his having to have a lineal descent through the tribe of Levi by having a father and a mother of that tribe. So because the EV's misunderstand the simple meaning of this phrase, they've invented a sort of cosmic superhuman named Melchizedek who -- unlike Christ the Lord who had a mother and father -- somehow magically appears out of the proverbial cabbage as a full-grown human being on planet earth.

 

So, in summary, what the full phrase means is that the recipient of the Melchizedek Priesthood does not have to have a father and mother of the tribe of Levi in order to receive it; and that, unlike the Levitical Priesthood that had its beginning with the law of Moses, the Melchizedek Priesthood had no beginning and will have no end. Do I have it right?

That's The way I have always seen it.

It's saying "Who was this guy Melchizedek who did not have the priesthood of Levi, and yet Abraham gave him tithes?" It is teaching that there is another priesthood without end. Levitical priesthood must end with the last Levite.