RevTestament Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 On 5/13/2015 at 3:20 AM, Canadaigua said: The Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood held by LDS/Christian men in the NT church is a unique LDS belief that is not held by other Christian Churches--expect perhaps the FLDS. This topic was superficially discussed in another thread namely "When Did Jesus Receive The Aaronic And Melchizedek Priesthood?" but this is an interesting topic worthy of a new thread. Flyonthewall in the above mentioned thread (post #257) gave a brief position that I think most LDS would agree with and I will quote that below as a starting point for further discussion Flyonthewall "The lesser preisthood was in affect until Jesus Christ came and taught the fullness of the gospel. There may have been individual Prophets that held the higher preisthood during this time but the Mosaic law was run by the lesser preisthood. When Jesus Christ came, then there was a neccissity of a change in preisthood as described in the Bible. 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? I will add to what others have said. Moses was a high priest who received this priesthood at the hand of his father-in-law Jethro. Aaron also became a high priest. Prior to this time you will note the scriptures only speaking of priests and elders - Moses was directed to choose 70 elders. This was the pattern set in Elim. The office of the High Priest actually continued, but was eventually lost and by the time of Rome's takeover under Pompey, the High Priest was an appointed puppet of Rome, and no longer had any true authority from God, but Jews will tell you otherwise. The Levitical priesthood continued until the time of Christ in its responsibilities to officiate in the temple and to maintain the scrolls. Because the people had again strayed from the Lord, the priesthood and covenant was for the most part taken from them. And yes, it was given to the Gentiles. But I believe there were Hebrews in the Parthian Empire who received it. The priesthood was the method by which they ordained new apostles. You will note several places in The Acts where it mentions receiving an office by the laying on of hands. At the time of Nicea the record reveals the Bishops were summoned since they were acting as the heads of their congregations, but they also brought priests with them. Timothy also mentions deacons. So yes, these other offices were actual NT Aaronic Priesthood offices. They weren't elders and they weren't priests. As to whether Peter felt he held the Melchizedek Priesthood, I do believe he felt so: John 21:19 19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.
Canadaigua Posted December 12, 2015 Author Posted December 12, 2015 48 minutes ago, RevTestament said: I will add to what others have said. Moses was a high priest who received this priesthood at the hand of his father-in-law Jethro. Aaron also became a high priest. Prior to this time you will note the scriptures only speaking of priests and elders - Moses was directed to choose 70 elders. This was the pattern set in Elim. The office of the High Priest actually continued, but was eventually lost and by the time of Rome's takeover under Pompey, the High Priest was an appointed puppet of Rome, and no longer had any true authority from God, but Jews will tell you otherwise. The Levitical priesthood continued until the time of Christ in its responsibilities to officiate in the temple and to maintain the scrolls. Because the people had again strayed from the Lord, the priesthood and covenant was for the most part taken from them. And yes, it was given to the Gentiles. But I believe there were Hebrews in the Parthian Empire who received it. The priesthood was the method by which they ordained new apostles. You will note several places in The Acts where it mentions receiving an office by the laying on of hands. At the time of Nicea the record reveals the Bishops were summoned since they were acting as the heads of their congregations, but they also brought priests with them. Timothy also mentions deacons. So yes, these other offices were actual NT Aaronic Priesthood offices. They weren't elders and they weren't priests. As to whether Peter felt he held the Melchizedek Priesthood, I do believe he felt so: John 21:19 19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. 1. "The priesthood was the method by which they ordained new apostles. You will note several places in The Acts where it mentions receiving an office by the laying on of hands." Can you point me to any verse in the NT which states "The priesthood was the method by which they ordained new apostles."? 2. "As to whether Peter felt he held the Melchizedek Priesthood, I do believe he felt so: John 21:19 19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. What verses are you using to substantiate that Peter believed he held the Melchizedek priesthood? LDS often claim that they simply "interpret" the Bible differently. But in reality you are simply assuming your beliefs into the text when it is not there.
RevTestament Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, Canadaigua said: 1. "The priesthood was the method by which they ordained new apostles. You will note several places in The Acts where it mentions receiving an office by the laying on of hands." Can you point me to any verse in the NT which states "The priesthood was the method by which they ordained new apostles."? Of course there is not a specific scripture which says that, but there are enough scriptures to get the point across. I find it ironic that Protestants cling so desperately to the Nicene Creed, yet don't seem to acknowledge that priests showed up to assist the bishops. Hebrews 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Quote 2. "As to whether Peter felt he held the Melchizedek Priesthood, I do believe he felt so: John 21:19 19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. What verses are you using to substantiate that Peter believed he held the Melchizedek priesthood? LDS often claim that they simply "interpret" the Bible differently. But in reality you are simply assuming your beliefs into the text when it is not there. What do you think Jesus was telling Peter? I'm a big boy. I know what Jesus was telling him. Perhaps Protestants don't get that. In fact I'm pretty sure they don't. Edited December 12, 2015 by RevTestament
Ahab Posted December 13, 2015 Posted December 13, 2015 Other religions think they have the same priesthood we have but refer to it by other names or ideas. An understanding of what we are referring to as the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, or the son of God, would help them to see that. What we call it isn't nearly as important as what it is.
Vance Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 On 12/11/2015 at 7:31 PM, Canadaigua said: 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? No, as Heb 7:12 says, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." The priesthood was changed. Such things as animal sacrifices and the other Mosaic requirements were changed by Christ himself.
Vance Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 On 12/11/2015 at 7:35 PM, 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? See my post above. The priesthood was changed.
Vance Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 Yes it has. Good to see you are still here and active.
Vance Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 Yes it has. Good to see you are still here and active. 1
Avatar4321 Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 9 hours ago, Vance said: No, as Heb 7:12 says, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." The priesthood was changed. Such things as animal sacrifices and the other Mosaic requirements were changed by Christ himself. Which tells us there are at least two priesthood orders.
Vance Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 16 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: Which tells us there are at least two priesthood orders. And also notice that the law was CHANGED. Law wasn't eliminated. It was changed from the law of Moses to the law of Christ. Part of which He taught here, 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. • • • 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. • • • 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. • • • 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: • • • 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. • • • 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Recommended Posts