Questions for Loran and other TBM's who'd like to join in

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason,

No, I haven't give this thread any attention yet.

Ok

It is your thread

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason

I am challenging you on a couple of points. Did you see them? And I am pretty certain you have brough this up more then once. But if my perspective on your motive is incorrect pardon my please.

Let me tell you something. As I stated in a previous post, one of my main objectives is to learn. I've brought up this topic perhaps twice, I don't honestly recall. I find it odd/insulting that you would complain about a poster who NEVER approaches the TBM's on this board with ridicule or mockery regarding their beliefs, bringing up a topic more than once!

This topic has been raised respectfully. If you find it tiresome, then don't bother with it!

Take a chill pill would you. All I said is if I misread you then pardon. That was an attempt at being civil.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hebrews makes Jesus the one great high priest who makes human priesthood obsolete. By the third century, the early Christian church had abandoned this foundation and set up their own human priesthood. It's a shame, isn't it?

No this is a 15th century prostestant invention to justify rejecting Catholic Priesthood. Hebrews discusses priesthood and not just he one High Priest. The early church had apostles, bishops, deacons all that had some authority. Read Paul's epistles where he often asserts his authority on priesthood

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hebrews makes Jesus the one great high priest who makes human priesthood obsolete. By the third century, the early Christian church had abandoned this foundation and set up their own human priesthood. It's a shame, isn't it?

No this is a 15th century prostestant invention to justify rejecting Catholic Priesthood. Hebrews discusses priesthood and not just he one High Priest. The early church had apostles, bishops, deacons all that had some authority. Read Paul's epistles where he often asserts his authority on priesthood

Authority and priesthood are not the same thing, except in the LDS paradigm. And for the record, "apostle", "bishop", and "deacon" were not originally technical terms. "Apostle" means one who is sent, "bishop" is a generic term meaning "overseer", and "deacon" means servant. In the Bible, the terms "bishop", "pastor" (meaning shepherd), and "elder" are used interchangeably. The earliest churches had a council of overseers rather than a single one as they did in the second and third centuries.

I would be very interested to learn where you think Hebrews refers to a human Christian priesthood. Would it surprise you to learn that the "15th century protestant" interpretation is shared by a number of modern-day Catholic scholars? Here is how I understand Hebrews, from an article I wrote on the subject some time ago:

All of this [from the church fathers], however, pales in comparison to the evidence we find in the New Testament. The author of the book of Hebrews clearly believed that the Aaronic priesthood was a thing of the past and that human priests are no longer necessary under the New Covenant. Hebrews 7:28 says, "For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." Men were made High priests under the Law, which was until the oath. Under the oath, the Son is made high priest. The implication is that men are no longer made high priests. And again in Hebrews 7:23-24: "And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood." Here the Scripture uses the past tense, saying that there "were" many priests, suggesting a contrast with the present in which there is only "this man," meaning Jesus Christ. And these are only the most explicit statements. Hebrews 7:12 speaks of Jesus’ coming as a "change in the priesthood", a switch from the Aaronic to the Melchizedek order. And when 7:18 says that the previous commandment has been annulled, it assumes that the Aaronic priesthood goes with it. Everywhere Jesus is lauded as the high priest of a better covenant that supercedes the former, along with its priesthood and its human ministers.

Incidentally, Hebrews 9:1 also implies that the temple is obsolete under the new covenant. The obsolescence of both priesthood and temple can also be demosntrated at length from the Early Church Fathers, but I think my above comments on Hebrews will suffice for now.

Praise to the man for restoring the obsolete Old Testament religion!

-CK

[_Jason Bourne]

Authority and priesthood are not the same thing, except in the LDS paradigm. And for the record, "apostle", "bishop", and "deacon" were not originally technical terms. "Apostle" means one who is sent, "bishop" is a generic term meaning "overseer", and "deacon" means servant.

Then I guess billions of Christians for thousands of years got it wrong about offices in the Church. I don't buy it though. Can you document this?

In the Bible, the terms "bishop", "pastor" (meaning shepherd), and "elder" are used interchangeably. The earliest churches had a council of overseers rather than a single one as they did in the second and third centuries.

There were single bishops over churches in the first century. Ever here of Clement?

I would be very interested to learn where you think Hebrews refers to a human Christian priesthood. Would it surprise you to learn that the "15th century protestant" interpretation is shared by a number of modern-day Catholic scholars?

I just don't get the idea that Jesus was the last High Priest and that there was not priesthood after this. I have read it over and over and just cannot get there not withstanding your analysis below.

Smith claimed to restore all things not just New Testament items.
Praise to the man for restoring the obsolete Old Testament religion!

[_harmony]

Then I guess billions of Christians for thousands of years got it wrong about offices in the Church. I don't buy it though. Can you document this?

Good grief, Jason. Of course billions of Christians can be wrong for thousands of years. That's what the restoration was all about, wasn't it? That billions of Christians were wrong, and Joseph fixed it, right? If you can believe that Joseph fixed it, why is it such a stretch to believe that it didn't need fixed at all?

I just don't get the idea that Jesus was the last High Priest and that there was not priesthood after this. I have read it over and over and just cannot get there not withstanding your analysis below.

If Jesus came to fulfill the law, then why is it so hard to believe that he actually accomplished his mission?

[_Jersey Girl]

What do deacons do in the LDS church?

[_Jersey Girl]

And yes, I know this has come up several times on all of the LDS boards but I'd like someone to tell me what the following means to LDS in the context of the Great Apostasy:

Matthew 16:18 (KJV)

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Do LDS believe that this is a failed prophecy?

[_Jersey Girl]

So, I quickly found a wiki article on LDS deacons. It says that 12 year old boys are chosen for the office of deacon. Now I have more questions...

1. How is that Biblical?
2. If that isn't Biblical...then how is that consistent with the concept of restoration of the primitive Christian church?

[_Coggins7]

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The "rock" here mentioned is the principle of revelation; direct communication with God and the witness of the spirit that attends such communication. This is why this verse is proceeded by a question and answer vignette in which Christ asks Peter who he thinks he really is. Peter answers that he is The Christ, "the Son of the living God".

The Lord then tells Peter what Peter already knows, that his Father in Heaven has revealed this to him, not man. Then Jesus says that upon "this rock", ie., the rock upon which Peter knows the truth regarding who Jesus really is, that the Church will be built.

Satan did, indeed prevail against the Meridian church (as the Book of Revelation elucidates and other New Testament epistles make clear), precisely because revelation was lost, through the loss of Priesthood authority and the substantial altering of various teachings and ordinances, but cannot prevail against revelation, either with regard to the individual or to the Gospel Kingdom in any ultimate sense.