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."

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.

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.

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.

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!