Vance Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 Do LDS feel that the NT teaches that the NT Christian members held the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood OR do these beliefs come from modern day revelation?It matters how you read the NT. To me,Acts 6:7 clearly indicated that the Levitical priesthood was continued in the church for the church recognized the "great company" of converts as "priests" from the Levitical order. If the priesthood did not continue there would be no need to even then these "priests" would not be "priests" any longer. And.Hebrews makes it clear that there is an order (organization, group) of Melchizedek priesthood. Heb 8:3 (For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. ) clearly indicates the continuation of the order, and it would presumably be within the church. Coupled with the fact that the Melchizedek or Royal priesthood was being referred to by Peter in 1 Pet 2:9
PeterPear Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 Act 8:14-17 would indicate differences in priesthood power or keys held by leaders in the Early Church.Whether other Christian Denominations recognize this as a lesser or greater priesthood - is doubtful.
Canadaigua Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 On 5/14/2015 at 11:07 PM, thesometimesaint said: The Levites were divided among the rest of the tribes. With the Babylonian conquest there weren't enough sons of Levi to officiate in Temple ceremonies. So adaptations were made. Could you address my question So would you agree that the unique LDS beliefs with respect to the Aaronic/Melchizedek priesthood are not found in the Bible but rather are from "modern day revelation"?
Canadaigua Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 On May 18, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Vance said: To me, Acts 6:7 clearly indicated that the Levitical priesthood was continued in the church for the church recognized the "great company" of converts as "priests" from the Levitical order. If the priesthood did not continue there would be no need to even then these "priests" would not be "priests" any longer. You said ". . . clearly indicated that the Levitical priesthood was continued in the church. . ." I am not sure where you saw that in the verse that you quoted, but for argument sake lets say that you are right and that the Levitical priesthood was continued in the church. Wouldn't that mean that you are still obligated to the structure of that priesthood which would include things such as animal sacrifices and the requirement that priests could only come from a subset of the Levite tribe?
Canadaigua Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 On May 18, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Vance said: ". . .Hebrews makes it clear that there is an order (organization, group) of Melchizedek priesthood. Heb 8:3 (For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. ) clearly indicates the continuation of the order, and it would presumably be within the church. Coupled with the fact that the Melchizedek or Royal priesthood was being referred to by Peter in 1 Pet 2:9 The OT high priest (one on the earth at a time) was an Aaronic high priest not a Melchizedek high priest. If there was a "continuation of the order" then wouldn't high priests today be Aaronic high priests rather that Melchizedek high priests?
JLHPROF Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 33 minutes ago, Canadaigua said: Could you address my question So would you agree that the unique LDS beliefs with respect to the Aaronic/Melchizedek priesthood are not found in the Bible but rather are from "modern day revelation"? No. They are clearly in the NT (and a little less clearly in the OT). They are there, but they are not in the traditional Christian interpretation of the Bible. So showing them to traditional Christians is as effective as showing the requirement for faith AND works, or showing that Christ and the Father and the Holy Ghost are NOT one entity with three parts.
Canadaigua Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 On May 14, 2015 at 9:57 AM, JLHPROF said: No, I don't have a different belief. Which is why deacons and bishops (both Aaronic offices, even when a Bishop is also a High Priest) aren't recorded in the Bible until AFTER Christ's atonement. This is just one more evidence of the extension of Aaronic priesthood beyond the Levites. In the OT there was a single high priest on the earth at a time and he was an Aaronic high priest. After the death of Christ he superceded the earthly Aaronic high priest to become our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. It appears from your comment that you believe that there are many high priests within the NT church. Can you tell me what scriptures you base that on? Or is this from LDS modern revelation?
JLHPROF Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 6 minutes ago, Canadaigua said: The OT high priest (one on the earth at a time) was an Aaronic high priest not a Melchizedek high priest. If there was a "continuation of the order" then wouldn't high priests today be Aaronic high priests rather that Melchizedek high priests? The OT High Priest was Levitical - limited to the tribe of Levi. The High Priest (like Melchizedek himself) held a higher order of priesthood and was not of the Aaronic order (which didn't even exist at the time of Abraham) - that is what High Priests today hold. Straight out of the Bible.
Canadaigua Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: No. They are clearly in the NT (and a little less clearly in the OT). They are there, but they are not in the traditional Christian interpretation of the Bible. So showing them to traditional Christians is as effective as showing the requirement for faith AND works, or showing that Christ and the Father and the Holy Ghost are NOT one entity with three parts. Perhaps we do "interpret" the same exact scripture differently. What verses in the NT are you speaking about specifically? Perhaps we can take a look at them to see how our interpretation differs.
Canadaigua Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The OT High Priest was Levitical - limited to the tribe of Levi. The High Priest (like Melchizedek himself) held a higher order of priesthood and was not of the Aaronic order (which didn't even exist at the time of Abraham) - that is what High Priests today hold. Straight out of the Bible. So you believe that the OT high priests were not Aaronic priests but rather Melchizedek priests? You said "Straight out of the Bible"—could you give me a reference so we can look at this?
JLHPROF Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 5 minutes ago, Canadaigua said: In the OT there was a single high priest on the earth at a time and he was an Aaronic high priest. After the death of Christ he superceded the earthly Aaronic high priest to become our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. It appears from your comment that you believe that there are many high priests within the NT church. Can you tell me what scriptures you base that on? Or is this from LDS modern revelation? So your argument is that there was only one High Priest of Aaron at a time, so there can only be one High Priest of Melchizedek at a time. Did not the High Priest of Aaron have many many other priests holding the priesthood of Aaron? Why should Christ not have many other priests holding the priesthood of Melchizedek? If we're arguing similitudes here. And if the priesthood of Melchizedek is a higher priesthood than Aaron, would they not be priests of the higher priesthood. Priest of Aaron vs Priest of the Higher Priesthood. Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. D&C 81:2 Unto whom I have given the keys of the kingdom, which belong always unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood: D&C 107:91 And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses—
JLHPROF Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 9 minutes ago, Canadaigua said: So you believe that the OT high priests were not Aaronic priests but rather Melchizedek priests? You said "Straight out of the Bible"—could you give me a reference so we can look at this? No, I said Melchizedek was not a priest of Aaron. Aaron hadn't even been born yet. Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High. Clearly there was a priest of the Most High that preceded the establishment of the Aaronic order. 1
Canadaigua Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) 26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: So your argument is that there was only one High Priest of Aaron at a time, so there can only be one High Priest of Melchizedek at a time. Did not the High Priest of Aaron have many many other priests holding the priesthood of Aaron? Why should Christ not have many other priests holding the priesthood of Melchizedek? . . . Did not the High Priest of Aaron have many many other priests holding the priesthood of Aaron? There were many priests but only a single high priest. Why should Christ not have many other priests holding the priesthood of Melchizedek? I am not sure I follow your argument here--if you follow the OT model then Christ is the one and only High Priest and the "priests" in your question above would NOT be High Priests but rather "priests" and by LDS definition these would be Aaronic high priests NOT Melchizedek high priests. Edited December 11, 2015 by Canadaigua
Canadaigua Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. Again as noted above these verses say "priests" NOT "high priests" and by LDS definition this would be Aaronic not Melchizedek priests. Can you tell me who the "US" and "WE" are in the verses above?
JLHPROF Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 1 minute ago, Canadaigua said: Did not the High Priest of Aaron have many many other priests holding the priesthood of Aaron? There were many priests but only a single high priest. Why should Christ not have many other priests holding the priesthood of Melchizedek? I am not sure I follow your argument here--are you suggesting that the Christ is the only High Priest and the "priests" in your question and NOT High Priests but rather "priests" which would mean that these would be Aaronic high priests according to LDS doctrine? You clearly don't follow. High Priest of Aaron, the lesser priesthood - > Many priests of Aaron (the lesser priesthood) High Priest of Melchizedek, the High Priesthood -> Many Priests of Melchizedek (the higher priesthood) We call priests of Aaron, the lesser priesthood, "priests", just as Aaron was. We call priests of Melchizedek, the higher priesthood, "high priests", just as Melchizedek was.
Canadaigua Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: No, I said Melchizedek was not a priest of Aaron. Aaron hadn't even been born yet. Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High. Clearly there was a priest of the Most High that preceded the establishment of the Aaronic order. Melchizedek as I am sure you are aware preceded Aaron therefore was not a "priest of Aaron" via the Levite line. So back to my question, do you believe that the Levitical high priests were Aaronic priests or Melchizedek priests? Christ wasn't via the Levitical line--the priestly line--so do you believe that he was a priest while he was alive living under the Law?
JLHPROF Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Canadaigua said: Melchizedek as I am sure you are aware preceded Aaron therefore was not a "priest of Aaron" via the Levite line. So back to my question, do you believe that the Levitical high priests were Aaronic priests or Melchizedek priests? Christ wasn't via the Levitical line--the priestly line--so do you believe that he was a priest while he was alive living under the Law? I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. Levitical High Priests were of the Aaronic Order. Aaron and Annas to name just two. There are High Priests of the Melchizedek Order - Melchizedek and Christ to name just two from the Bible. Did Christ hold the Aaronic Priesthood first? Maybe. He was called Rabbi after all. Edited December 11, 2015 by JLHPROF
Canadaigua Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Levitical High Priests were of the Aaronic Order. Aaron and Annas to name just two. There are High Priests of the Melchizedek Order - Melchizedek and Christ to name just two from the Bible. Levitical High Priests were of the Aaronic Order. Aaron and Annas to name just two. It seems like we agree on this one that the Levitical High priests were Aaronic priests. There are High Priests of the Melchizedek Order - Melchizedek and Christ to name just two from the Bible. A side note--Melchizedek is never referred to as a "high priest". You mentioned Melchizedek and Christ but I was asking about the Levitical priests. Can you show me why you believe that these high priests were Melchizedek high priests rather than Aaronic high priests
Canadaigua Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Did Christ hold the Aaronic Priesthood first? Maybe. He was called Rabbi after all. Christ came down the line of Judah. Priests were via the line of Aaron (a subset of the Levitical line). While Christ was alive on the earth he lived under the Law and therefore could not have been a priest. Agree? Disagree?
JLHPROF Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 1 minute ago, Canadaigua said: A side note--Melchizedek is never referred to as a "high priest". You mentioned Melchizedek and Christ but I was asking about the Levitical priests. Can you show me why you believe that these high priests were Melchizedek high priests rather than Aaronic high priests Priest of the Most High = High Priest, and again, not Aaronic/Levitical Because: 1. Melchizedek lived before Aaron. 2. As you said, Christ wasn't of the Levitical line. So both Melchiezedek and Christ were called High Priests/Priests of the Most High and cannot be referring to High Priests of Aaron.
Canadaigua Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Priest of the Most High = High Priest, and again, not Aaronic/Levitical Because: 1. Melchizedek lived before Aaron. 2. As you said, Christ wasn't of the Levitical line. So both Melchiezedek and Christ were called High Priests/Priests of the Most High and cannot be referring to High Priests of Aaron. But you haven't addressed why you believe that the Levitical high priests were Melchizedek high priests rather than Aaronic high priests. (Follow up on my side note above--can you show me any verse which specifically refers toMelchizedek as a " high priest"?)
JLHPROF Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Canadaigua said: But you haven't addressed why you believe that the Levitical high priests were Melchizedek high priests rather than Aaronic high priests. (Follow up on my side note above--can you show me any verse which specifically refers toMelchizedek as a " high priest"?) I never said that. They weren't. You just typed - "It seems like we agree on this one that the Levitical High priests were Aaronic priests." Are you even reading these posts? EDIT - Never mind. I'm done. The Bible clearly show two orders of priesthood, one of Aaron, one of Melchizedek, both held by multiple people. And that's really all there I need to say on the subject. Edited December 11, 2015 by JLHPROF
Robert F. Smith Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 On 5/13/2015 at 2:00 PM, bjw said: This is not exactly a unique LDS belief. Some of the higher degrees of Scottish Rite masonry mention the purification and oath to be ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. Other initiatory orders also make reference to it, but some of these may share a common source with masonry. It is not unique to the LDS faith, nor to masonry. Both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are exercised within Roman Catholicism. We have discussed this in great detail on this board in the recent past.
Canadaigua Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 4 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I never said that. They weren't. You just typed - "It seems like we agree on this one that the Levitical High priests were Aaronic priests." Are you even reading these posts? EDIT - Never mind. I'm done. The Bible clearly show two orders of priesthood, one of Aaron, one of Melchizedek, both held by multiple people. And that's really all there I need to say on the subject. I am reading your posts but it seems like you are reading your beliefs into the Biblical text rather than the text actually saying what you think it says. I challenge you to find any scripture which mentions anything about a Melchizedek High Priest within the Levitical priesthood or within the NT church. If you go back and read my posts that is what I was asking you to do, but none of your posts thus far have do so.
Canadaigua Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: It is not unique to the LDS faith, nor to masonry. Both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are exercised within Roman Catholicism. We have discussed this in great detail on this board in the recent past. I have never heard about this would be very interested in reading more about the "Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods" within the Catholic church. Can you elaborate or at least give me a link?
Recommended Posts