Cogs, my friend,
That the laying on of hands is a part of healing and other ordinances in no way obviates or contradicts its clear New Testament use as an ordinance involved in passing on ministerial authority.
And what, in Greek, was the name of this ordinance?
The Book of Hebrews stands in very stark contrast Kid, to your stubborn misreading of it through the lens of modern evangelical Protestantism, which is, in many theological ways, about as far as you can go from what the New Testament actually teaches on a number of subjects (and if I were you, I'd not go to too far with your use of the early Church Fathers, with whom you clearly have little acquaintance. Unless, that is, you want to delve into their teachings on degrees of glory, deification, plurality of worlds, the higher mysteries and their secrecy (Temple ordinances) etc.
I'm aware of what the early church fathers taught. I don't just take as gospel everything they taught. Nor do I take as gospel everything that's taught in evangelical Protestantism (which for the most part is a collection of nutjobs and hornswagglers). I don't even take as gospel everything that's taught in the Bible. But all that's beside the point, isn't it? The key question in this discussion is whether the fundamental LDS claim-- that the priesthood was lost by early Christianity and then restored by Joseph Smith-- is true. We can gain insight into that question by looking at the New Testament and the writings of the very earliest fathers of the Church.
Here, for further consideration, is another elucidation of the Hebrews 7:24 textual problem
If you re-read my post, you will find that I did not appeal to the unchangeability of Jesus' priesthood to make my case. Rather, I appealed to the past tense in v. 23. Here it is again for your perusal.
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.
Since the word "unchangeable" was not part of my argument, your FAIR rebuttal appears to be irrelevant.
Theophilus, a later Bishop of Antioch, circa A.D. 168, said in reference to the man Melchizedek: “At that time there was a righteous king called Melchisedek, in the city of Salem, which now is Jerusalem. This was the first priest of all priests of the Most High God. … And from his time priests were found in all the earth.” 5 Certainly in the mind of Theophilus there was an “order” of Melchizedek.
Theophilus is simply reciting the history of the world, and notes that after the time of Melchizedek there were priests on the earth. He does not say that these priests were of the "order of Melchizedek". Barry Bickmore's insistence upon reading it that way is misleading at best, disingenuous at worst.
Let's take a look a some of the texts we have of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and see if a hierarchal order of the Priesthood was absent, as you claim, from the immediate post apostolic period.
Here we have something from the
The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius
But as to those whom we have named being young men, do not, thou blessed one, have any apprehension. For I would have you know that they are wise about the flesh, and are insensible to its passions, they themselves glowing with all the glory of a hoary head through their own intrinsic merits, and though but recently called as young men to the priesthood.
What Priesthood Kid? This is the early Second Century.
That would be wonderful, if the Epistle of Maria the Proselyte weren't a forgery (probably by the same hand as the "longer" rescensions of his letters, which are generally dated to the fourth century).
Let's also just divert just a moment back to the Bible itself. How do you explain this:
But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light
(1 Peter 2:9)
What Priesthood?
"You yourselves, as living stones, are being built into a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." - 1 Peter 2:5
Is this verse speaking literally? Are we literally living stones? Is God going to stack us one upon another to build his temple? Or are believers the temple in a metaphorical sense? If the latter, then why should we take 1 Peter 2:9-- a mere four verses later-- any more literally?
It seems quite evident to me that the "royal priesthood" reference does not refer to "priesthood" in the Catholic or Latter-day Saint sense, but rather to the rights and privileges of the Jewish priesthood. Latter-day Saints and Catholics seem to think of priesthood as a "thing" in and of itself-- a sort of disembodied essence that passes from person to person. I suspect the early Christians thought of it rather as a special office or rank that came with certain responsibilities and privileges. The responsibilities have passed away, but the rights and privileges have been granted to all the righteous (on that, see also Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 4.8.3: "all the righteous possess the sacerdotal rank"). So on the one hand one can say that now all Christians are priests in the sense that they all now have the direct access to God that was once exclusive to priests. But on the other hand one can also say that "priesthood" is no more: there is no longer a special class of men with special religious access, and there are no longer sacrifices to be made or purifications to be performed.
A similar thing happens with the temple: it has passed away (Heb. 9:1, also the Epistle of Barnabas says it was "abolished) but it also persists in the same that all believers are the temple. Christians could affirm both these propositions: "believers are the temple" and "the temple has been abolished." Likewise, the early Christians believed in a "priesthood of all believers" while also believing that the priesthood had passed away.
We might summarize this way: Under the old covenant, only a priest could "approach" God. Under the new, Paul says we all can approach God freely. Under the old, only a high priest could go into the Holy of Holies. Under the new, the veil is torn. Under the old, many people were impure and could not go into the temple at all. Under the new, Jesus rejects purity laws (think of the menstruating woman he healed or the Samaritan woman at the well) and the believers are the temple. In short, under the old covenant the privilege of access to God was restricted to a small priestly caste (and to prophets and holy men). Under the new, the privileges of that priestly caste are extended to everyone (this is the priesthood of all believers), while its duties are effectively obsoleted (or, if you prefer, fulfilled). So the priesthood is in one sense extended to all believers but in another sense abolished/fulfilled.
The evidence for this, in my view, is the near-complete absence of priesthood language from any of the other Christian works of the first two centuries. If Peter were referring to literal priesthood, we would expect mention of it in the works of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Alexandria (both of whom were fairly authoritarian and exhorted people to obey local church leadership). But we find it in neither place. What's more, when Origen writes in the third century about Christian leaders being called "priests" (remember this practice started in the early third century), he actually sounds rather defensive. He basically explains that they're called that because they fill some of the same functions. And he does not allow for human priests to be called high priests after the order of Melchizedek; he agrees with me that Jesus is the only Melchizedek priest.
Here's Inreneus from Against All Herisies, chapt. xxxvi:
From all such persons, therefore, it behooves us to keep aloof, but to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, do hold the doctrine of the apostles, and who, together with the order of priesthood (presbyterii ordine), display sound speech and blameless conduct for the confirmation and correction of others.
Who translated this? The Greek word for priest is
hiereus.
Presyterii ordine refers to the order of elders. "Order of priesthood" is a really sucky translation!
Tertullian states:
Three women may claim the Saviour’s promise when lawfully met together for social devotions, nor can it be denied that they have a share in the priesthood of the “peculiar people.”
Women in the priesthood, Cogs? Sounds like a priesthood of all believers to me. ;-)
It should be noted that Tertullian lived during the period when Christian leaders began to be called "priests": the early third century.
Another early document of unknown date, the Syriac Teaching of The Apostles, says:
At that time Christ was taken up to His Father; and how the apostles received the gift of the Spirit; and the Ordinances and Laws of the Church; and whither each one of the apostles went; and from whence the countries in the territory of the Romans received the ordination to the priesthood.
In the year three hundred and30553055 A. omits “three hundred and.” They are supplied from B. The reading of C. is 342. thirty-nine of the kingdom of the Greeks, in the month Heziran,30563056 This month answers to Sivan, which began with the new moon of June.—Tr. on the fourth30573057 C. reads “fourteenth.” day of the same, which is the first day of the week, and the end of Pentecost30583058 The day of Pentecost seems to be put for that of the Ascension.—on the selfsame day came the disciples from Nazareth of Galilee, where the conception of our Lord was announced, to the mount which is called that of the Place of Olives,30593059 Syr. “Baith Zaithe.” Comp. Luke xxiv. 50 sqq. our Lord being with them, but not being visible to them. And at the time of early dawn our Lord lifted up His hands, and laid them upon the heads of the eleven disciples, and gave to them the gift of the priesthood. And suddenly a bright cloud received Him. And they saw Him as He was going up to heaven. And He sat down on the right hand of His Father. And they praised God because they saw His ascension according as He had told them; and they rejoiced because they had received the Right Hand conferring on them the priesthood of the house of Moses and Aaron.
A work of "unknown date" that seems to come from the fourth century doesn't do us very much good either.
-CK