Post Reply
Page 2 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Baptism for the Dead
3 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 5:35PM #11
Ironhold
Posts: 11,548

Apr 17, 2012 -- 5:06PM, Joe68 wrote:


Then you simply do not know Mormon doctrine.



Translation: "I don't want to lose face by losing this debate, and so I'll make a highly absurd and rather patronizing claim just like so many who came before me."

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 5:52PM #12
Joe68
Posts: 289

I'm re-posting all of your comments concerning Mormon heaven here as to not de-rail this thread.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 1:38PM #13
withwonderingawe
Posts: 5,288

Joe; The Bible states in no uncertain terms that the priesthood of Melchizedek is "an unchangeable priesthood" (Hebrews 7:24).



I went back and reread through Barclays rendition of Hebrews 7. Understanding who Melchizedek was helps exclaim what is going on here. Hebrew rabbinic literature identifies Melchizedek as Shem the eldest son of Noah. But this knowledge was never put into the Bible and whoever wrote Hebrews may not have known this.


In Barclays New Testament he writes it this way


“There is no mention of his father, there is no mention of his mother; no ancestor of his is ever mentioned. His days are never said to have any beginning, and his life is never said to have had any end. He is like the Son of God; he remains a priest for ever….In the case of Melchizedek the evidence of scripture is that he is alive”


Note he does not say he is “the Son of God”/Yahweh/Jesus which some believe.


In the Torah Melchizedek is the first person to be titled a priest or Kohen but the Jewish medrash says he was one in a “a fix succession” starting with Adam. In Mormon theology God the Father ordained Yahweh/Jesus and Jesus ordained Adam and so on.


So what we have here is a group of fathers and sons all having the priesthood given to them in succession. It’s what the birthright blessing was all about.


If the writer of Hebrews thought the scriptures indicated that Melchizedek/Shem was yet alive it could be he was translated like Enoch, Moses and Elijah.


I tried to compare this to what the Old Testament said about Shem and I found something interesting. I look up how many years Shem lived before he died and found that from Adam to Noah it says they each lived so many years and then died but from Shem to Nahor who was Tarah’s father it does not actually say any of them died.


Noah seems to have died a year after Abraham was born, just thought that was interesting. It does say Tarah died and he’s the one who had turned to idol worship.


Now to the “unchangeable priesthood". In the Greek it means “not passing away” or permanent. The idea that it means ‘not transferable’ is not correct.


In Bauer's Greek-English lexicon it says Aparabatos has the sense of permanent or unchangeable. He lives forever and so he is a priest forever, but that does not mean that someone else can’t also be a priest.


Here are a couple of more translation of Heb 7:24
New Internal Version
“…but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.”


From the New American Standard
“…but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently”


You can go here to see some a lot of other translations


www.biblestudytools.com/hebrews/7-24-com...



Barclay writes the passage this way, “But because he remains for ever, he is a priest who needs no successor”.

The argument is built on the knowledge of the temple.


A mortal high priest would place on his foreheads the letters YHWH and symbolically play the role of Yahweh/Christ in the Holy of Holies. He would sprinkle the blood of a lamb or bull on the people representing the future blood of Christ. They were but a “shadow of heavenly things” to come. When a High Priest died he would need a successor to act out the play again; over and over, year after year for the law and animal sacrifice were actually dead and only a figure of what was to come.


Christ as God made an infinite sacrifice which would not need to be repeated and so he needed no successor to repeat his sacrifice. He stands forever as the Great High Priest in the heavens and head of the brotherhood of priest.


Joe; Yes Christians (men AND women) are “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” however they are not ordained as priests (i.e. to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority or to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law. Nowhere does Rev 1 or 1 Peter 2 say anything about any Christian being ordained as a priest.



Then why does it say in Rev 5:10 “ And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.” or “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.” Rev 20: 6



Christ said there would be many who would vainly claim authority of some kind, he warned “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:21-24).


The ‘priesthood of all believers’ fit’s the bill.


Paul wrote to Timothy
" This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves,…..Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."
2 Tim 3:5


Isn’t that you, you’re denying the power of God.



At the last supper, Jesus tells his apostles "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you" (John 15:16).


You can not claim authority on your own you must be called. In his intercessory pray Jesus says


"I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me" John 17


Certain men were called by God to be Jesus’ Apostles they didn’t just set themselves up one day. John wrote in Rev 1 “hath made us…..priests unto God” present tense not at some future time.


These men went throughout the Church ordaining other men to different offices within the priesthood.


Paul told Timothy
“Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.”


They were ordained


“…and he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers” and some elders and some Bishops and deacons and some seventies etc. All of them are priest within the order of Melchizedek carrying out the varying responsibilities which they have been called.


Joe we stand more firmly in the Bible than any other church on this planet, to deny there is a priesthood is to deny the Bible.


John the Baptist the last man on earth to righteously hold the Aaronic priesthood appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and ordain them to that priesthood. Later Peter, James and John, the priesthood leader of the early church, also appeared and ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Melchizedek priesthood.


Peter prophesied to the Jews and early Christians, “And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” Acts 3


We’re saying that time has come, Christ has come and the priesthood has been restored.

Wise men still seek him.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 28, 2012 - 11:43PM #14
Joe68
Posts: 289

Re the Melchizedek priesthood:


Such a high priest [Jesus Christ] meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Hebrews 7:26


 These qualifications for Melchizedek high priest [i.e. one needs to be holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens] could be met only by Jesus.  


Is there any Mormon who qualifies? Any Mormon who is “holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens?”  Nowhere in the Bible are these attributes associated with anyone other than Jesus.


Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Hebrews 7:23-24


 That Christ has “permanent” (“unchangeable, KJV) priesthood is significant and we must examine its meaning in the Greek for a proper understanding of the word and not just how it is translated


 Permanent (aparabatos) here in Hebrews 7:24 means that Christ’s priesthood is non-transferable and is therefore unavailable to us. Consider these statements on Hebrews 7:24 by authorities on biblical Greek:


 priesthood unchangeable and therefore not liable to pass to a successor” (Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1963, p. 54).


 In the New Testament Hebrews 7:24 says that Christ has an eternal and imperishable priesthood, not just in the sense that it cannot be\ transferred to anyone, but in the sense of ‘unchangeable’” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, eds. Gerhard Kittle and Gerhard Friedrich, 1985, p. 772).


God placed Christ in this priesthood and no one else can step into it” (A.T. Robinson, Word Pictures in the New Testament).


Unchangeable, and therefore not liable to pass to a successor see here


not passing away; untransferable (perpetual) see here 


Also Bauer, Arndt, and Grigrich's authoritative Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature gives the meaning "without a successor" for aparabaton in Hebrews 7:24 (page 80)  


So yes, the author of the book of Hebrews does say that the Melchizedek priesthood that Jesus holds is not transferable to anyone else.


Here is what is said in context which most people miss:


One of the primary practical reasons there were multiple holders of the Levitical priesthood was because “death prevented them from continuing in office” (Hebrews 7:23). When the high priest died a new one had to be appointed. But because “Jesus lives forever” (v. 24) there is no need for additional holders of the Melchizedek priesthood since Jesus lives forever. This is exactly why the writer of Hebrews chose the word aparabatos to describe Jesus’ priesthood; it is non-transferable.


Therefore, no one can hold the Melchizedek priesthood except Jesus.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 1:00AM #15
withwonderingawe
Posts: 5,288

Joe; Is there any Mormon who qualifies? Any Mormon who is “holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens?”



Nice try Joe but no one is trying to replace Jesus, he’s making us in his image.

Wise men still seek him.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 2:46PM #16
Joe68
Posts: 289

Apr 29, 2012 -- 1:00AM, withwonderingawe wrote:


Joe; Is there any Mormon who qualifies? Any Mormon who is “holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens?”



Nice try Joe but no one is trying to replace Jesus, he’s making us in his image.



Well you didn't address the question concerning qualifications for the MP.  


Please read Hebrews 7:26:


Such a high priest [Jesus Christ] meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.


It is describing the Melchizdek priest, one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens


Mormons say that they hold this priesthood. And apparently the only qualification is to hold the Aaronic priesthood, which requires moral worthiness and church participation, and be at least 18 years old. And that’s it.  But those are not the biblical requirement. If the Mormons truly held the MP then they must meet the qualifications.


So who are these Mormons who meet those qualifications? Do Mormons think that every MP is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens?


Are the LDS trying to replace Jesus? I wouldn’t say that, but they are ill-informed concerning the Melchizdek priesthood. They are taking something that is exclusively in the possession of Jesus and say that they have it as well when the writer of Hebrews was explicit in saying that the MP cannot be transferred to anyone. See my post above (#14)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 10:24PM #17
Ironhold
Posts: 11,548

Apr 30, 2012 -- 2:46PM, Joe68 wrote:


So who are these Mormons who meet those qualifications? Do Mormons think that every MP is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens?




The goal is to become as you described.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 7:50AM #18
withwonderingawe
Posts: 5,288

Joe


Been thinken about your argument


“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” Rom 8


1Peter 1:16
“Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy…”


1Peter 5:6
Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time


1John 3:3
“…And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure….


1 Cor 1: 7-9 this passage is directed at the “brethren” and I’ve added in some Greek.


“So that ye come behind (or come up short) in no gift; waiting for the coming (revelation) of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm (strengthen) you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.”


At some point Joe we each will reach the place through the blood of Christ where we are "holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens" .


As I read that passage today “ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord” it struck me as being familiar;


D&C 76
“They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory; And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, ….. which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son”


We use Melchizedek’s name simply to honor a great man but the actual name is ‘the order of Only Begotten Son’.


I looked up the word ‘fellowship’ in my Strong’s concordance and it says “partnership”, we are in a partnership. Paul was talking to the brethren about their priesthood quorums, he says


“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”


The more I study so I can answer your questions the more convinced I become that Joseph Smith was a prophet. The Bible supports him all the way around.


And I think Joe that you are having a hard time actually believing Jesus, you believe in him but you don’t believe him. It is He who makes us holy, without sin, pure and blameless.

Wise men still seek him.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 7:53AM #19
withwonderingawe
Posts: 5,288

Joe’s expert; "…"priesthood unchangeable and therefore not liable to pass to a successor" (Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1963, p. 54)…"


My expert; "In Bauer's Greek-English lexicon, we read:
Aparabatos, on (see parabaino; belonging to later Greek [Phryn. 313 Lob];not LXX) Hebrews 7:24 usually interpreted 'without a successor'. But this meaning is found nowhere else. Aparabatos rather has the sense of permanent, unchangeable" [followed by citations].[1]


Thus, it is the priesthood which is unchangeable, rather than being non-transferable. The critics' stance is not supported by the Biblical text. Rather, the priesthood is a permanent and necessary part of the Church—any Church claiming it is unnecessary does not meet the Biblical model.


The ten-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament agrees, in which the word aparabatos is discussed:
This is a rare word found only in later Greek.... Its usual sense is 'unchangeable,' 'immutable.'"


[after giving examples from secular literature: Plutarch, Josephus, Epictetus, etc]


Hebrews 7.24 says of Christ that because He remains to eternity He has an unchangeable and imperishable priesthood. Instead of the passive 'unchangeable' [743] many expositors suggest the active sense 'which cannot be transferred to another;" 'Christ has a priesthood which cannot be transferred to anyone else' [citing Bengel]. This is a natural interpretation and yields a good sense, but it does not really fit the context. We should keep to the rendering 'unchangeable,' the more so as the active sense is not attested elsewhere." (742-3).[2]


The statement 'yields a good sense' suggests that those who choose that translation are probably doing so for theological reasons, not grammatical or linguistic reasons; and the TDNT author is voting against such a choice" (Fairlds)


Hebrews 7:24 NIV
"…but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood."


ASV
"…but he, because he abideth for ever, hath his priesthood unchangeable"


CEB
"In contrast, he holds the office of priest permanently because he continues to serve forever."


ESV
but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.


GW
But Jesus lives forever, so he serves as a priest forever.


HNV
But he, because he lives forever, has his priesthood unchangeable


It seems Joe you have your experts and I have mine.


But you are trying to base your whole point on one passage of which the translation is questionable.


I’ve got the whole Bible behind me!

Wise men still seek him.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 7:57AM #20
Joe68
Posts: 289

Apr 30, 2012 -- 10:24PM, Ironhold wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 2:46PM, Joe68 wrote:


So who are these Mormons who meet those qualifications? Do Mormons think that every MP is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens?




The goal is to become as you described.



So what was to be an entry requirement has been changed to a nonnecessity for entrance. 


I thought the LDS church said that they were a "restoration" of the ancient church, putting things back to what they were?


But making what was the requirement for entrance into a nonnecessity for entrance is NOT a restoration. 


Thank you for explaining. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook