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

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:26 am

Loran

Satan did, indeed prevail against the Meridian church (as the Book of Revelation elucidates and other New Testament epistles make clear),

CFR...Revelation and "other New Testament epistles" .

Post by **_Coggins7** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:46 am

The woman who fled into the wilderness was the Church. As to the apostasy being predicted in the time of the Apostles, see Acts 20-29-30, Galatians 1:6-8, 2 Corinthians 11:13, 2 Timothy 1:15, Jude 3-4, 17-18,
1 John 2:18, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, and 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 7-12.

Keep in mind that both Jude and John describe their own time as "the last time", a designation strongly implied by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 7-12 as well, and this is implicit in the other verses above, in which the apostasy is seen as already well underway. Indeed, much of Paul's writing is aimed at combating the disintegration of the Church from within. A "falling away" was to come before the Second Coming of Christ and both Peter and Paul warned the Christians of their time not to look for that coming any time soon.

There were two distinct "last times" in New Testament theology, the first being the last time of the present, or meridian Church, and the second being the "last days" or "latter days" of the world at which point Christ would return.

This is just a basic intro. Two other points of direct evidence that should be adduced are, not to put too fine a point on it, that post first century Christianity looks less and less like first century Christianity the farther from the end of the First Century one goes, and from the Third Century onward it becomes remarkably distinct from the teachings of the New Testament authors and even from the mid to late Second Century Fathers. Modern Catholic and Protestant Christianity as religious systems bear little resemblance to what is actually found in the New Testament, theologically and organizationally speaking, except at a very fundamental level.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:55 am

Loran,

Thanks, I'll look those up!

Jersey Girl

Post by **_Coggins7** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:20 am

Authority and priesthood are not the same thing, except in the LDS paradigm.

They are in the New Testament, but not in modern evangelical Christianity, which is why Protestantism is a dead shell, or husk, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. Sectarian ministers of whatever denomination have no ministerial authority, and they have no ministerial authority because in their universal claim to have derived their authority from the Bible, they at one and the same time admit to the reality of the Great Apostasy and the very need for the Priesthood necessary to teach and preach the Gospel in the name of Christ in an authorized manner.

The Bible is an authoritative source, but authority can in no way be derived from this. The Bible is not authority, even though those who wrote its texts had authority at the time they wrote those texts. As the Book of Hebrews clearly states, one must receive his ministerial authority as Aaron received it. One cannot assume it from the scriptures. In other words, authority can only come from preexisting authority.

You engage here in the same striking misreading of Hebrews common to most modern Protestant apologetics, focusing only on Jesus being our great high priest, while utterly ignoring the rest of the New Testament, in which Jesus lays his hands upon others and authorizes them directly. They then lay their hands on others, authorizing them, and this proceeds throughout the ministerial structure of the early church:

And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.(Matthew 10:1).

After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.(Luke 10:1).

For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.(Mark 13:34).

Ephesians clearly informs us that the Church is built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, and that this was to be the pattern until we all become unified in the faith. The creation, since the end of the apostolic era, of a vast plethora of sects, factions, and denominations ( including the truly massive phase of sect creation that occurred in the nineteenth century) of the original Christian religion is thoroughly inconsistent with virtually everything the authors of the New Testament wrote upon the subject of authority.

Notice also this:

and in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.(Acts 6:1–6).

Note that these individuals did not call themselves to the ministry, did not assume any general authority inhering in them simply upon their acceptance of Christ as the Savior, nor is there any mention of the scriptures then extant as being a source of authority from which isolated individuals could receive ministerial authority.

If Jesus, being the great high priest, obviated any necessity of delegation of authority to act in his name on earth among those in this church and kingdom, how do your explain these verses, all of which were written well after his death and resurrection?

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.

This is a muddying of the waters. Apostles are quite clearly designated as special witnesses of Jesus in the New Testament, and Peter, James, and John both hold a preeminent position among the Twelve, as both the New Testament and a wealth of post apostolic documents and tradition attest. Your playing with words here does little to clarify the matter. Further, in a church based upon continuing revelation, the terms used in Palestine 2,000 years ago hardly need be defined in exactly the same terms as they were then.

Beyond this, I fail to see how this helps your basic argument.

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:

This entire argument rests on the traditional misreading of Hebrews 7:24, regarding Christs unchangeable Priesthood. Here is an excellent article from the FAIR Wiki that should help clear up the confusion. I will add some italics for emphasis.

Why the opposition to priesthood?

It is understandable that creedal Christians desperately need the priesthood, as understood by Latter-day Saints, to be non-existent today. The whole idea of authority, direct from God, being necessary for the saving ordinances of mankind, completely undermines and destroys the traditionally accepted doctrine that one is "saved by faith alone." It also completely destroys their own claims to authority, since they are the result of a break-off from the Roman Catholic faith.

If the Catholics did not have the priesthood authority, then the Protestants cannot have taken it with them. Hence, they are anxious to claim a "priesthood of all believers," or claim priesthood isn't needed at all.

If the Catholics did have the authority, then Protestants were wrong to leave in the first place.

Jesus Christ establishes His Church

When Christ was on the earth during His mortal ministry, He set up a specific organization (called the Church).

Does it make sense that if Jesus Christ organized a Church, that the true Church would have the same positions today? What are some of the offices or positions in the church Christ established?

For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.(1 Timothy 3:13)(emphasis added)

Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:(James 5:14)(emphasis added)

11 And he [Jesus Christ]gave some, apostles; (12) and some, prophets;

(12 Apostles collectively, and the one leading the church with his counselors -- Peter, James, and John)

and some, evangelists; (Patriarchs) and some, pastors (Bishop, Stake President) and teachers;

* 12 For the perfecting

("Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48)

* of the saints

(the members of the Church -- interesting that they are called Saints, just as we are called Latter-day Saints today.),

* for the work of the ministry

(The administration and performing the ordinances of the Church),

* for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith

(Even though all Christians claim to believe in Christ, and the Bible, there certainly is no unity of faith or doctrine, therefore these offices are still needed.)

* and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

(unto a perfect man—NOT some incomprehensible being as the creeds declare.)

* 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine

(The creeds came by councils of men, not a singular pronouncement of revelation by a prophet of God, as all other scripturally based doctrines are. The creeds directly contradict scripture. The creeds are not declared to be scripture. The creeds have not been declared to have been given by revelation. The creeds came about by political power struggles. Hence, the creeds are a wind of doctrine.),

* by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;(Ephesians 4:11-14)(emphasis added)

Priesthood authority from God

So how can we tell true teachers? First, they will have authority (priesthood) directly from God. Christ was given the priesthood authority from God the Father.

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son

to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. (John 5:26-27.)(emphasis added)

The works that Christ performed were by this priesthood authority:

And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. (Mark 1:27)(emphasis added)

Christ passed on this very same authority to His apostles.

Luke 9:1-2

1 THEN he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. 2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. (Luke 9:1-2)(emphasis added)

This authority is necessary in order to preach the gospel.

And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach (Mark 3:14)(emphasis added)

Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. (Acts 1:22)(emphasis added)

Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. (1 Timothy 2:7)(emphasis added)

The apostles ordained others with this authority:

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee...{Titus 1:5)(emphasis added)

And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.(Acts 14:23)(emphasis added)

This authority was passed directly from God the Father, to Jesus Christ, to the Apostles, to the Elders, and to others. It was a priesthood which any worthy man could have, if called. It was also necessary for the establishment of the Church. Christ left this priesthood authority on he earth when He left, so that the Church could still function.

Mark 13:34

For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.(Mark 13:34) (emphasis added)

In fact, the church would be known as the true church because of the priesthood, for so the church is described in scripture.

This priesthood authority is sacred and cannot be bought.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he

may receive the Holy Ghost. 20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.(Acts 8:18-20) (emphasis added)

We cannot choose this priesthood authority for ourselves.

Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.(John 15:16) (emphasis added)

[edit]
How to obtain the priesthood

As shown above, you can't buy it, you can't take it upon yourself, and you can't choose for yourself to have it. So how can we obtain the priesthood?

And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. (Hebrews 5:4)

How was Aaron called? He was called by Moses—as God instructed Moses—in other words, Aaron did not decide to accept this for himself, but was called by Moses, who was instructed by the Lord, who has authority over him.

13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's office. 14 And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats: 15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. 16 Thus did Moses: according to all that the LORD commanded him, so did he. (Exodus 40:13-16)

[edit]
An "unchangeable" Priesthood?

Most critics of the LDS Church rest most of their argument against the LDS doctrine of priesthood on Hebrews 7:24:

But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.(emphasis added)

The critics of the LDS Church interpret the word "unchangeable" as meaning non-transferable. Therefore, they say, the Priesthood that Christ held (the Melchizedek Priesthood) could not be transferred to anyone. In fact, a look at Strong's would indicate this is true:

unchangable -- aparabatos {ap-ar-ab'-at-os}
1) unviolated, not to be violated, inviolable, unchangeable and therefore not liable to pass to a successor[citation needed]

But is this the correct interpretation? If so, there is a glaring contradiction within this very chapter, for verse twelve says the priesthood has changed:

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.(Hebrews 7:12) (emphasis added)

Either the priesthood is transferable (changeable), from Christ to others, or it is not. Which verse are we to believe? Let's take a closer look at this "unchangeable" priesthood in Hebrews 7:11-24:

* 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical (Aaronic) priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,)

(under the Aaronic priesthood, the people received the law of Moses -- an eye for an eye)

* what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

(Those that hold the authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, also hold the authority of the lessor, or the Aaronic Priesthood)

* 12 For the priesthood being changed,

(ed.Here is a glaring contradiction to what the critics claim, for it clearly says the priesthood "chang" Let's continue to examine just what changed, and what the term means in context.)

* there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

(The Law of Moses changed, not the priesthood. In other words, when Christ came, he gave a higher law. For example, the law was no longer an "eye for an eye," it was "turn the other cheek." Along with this higher law, came a higher priesthood, which is what is meant by "changed.")

* 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe
Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

(Moses did not speak about the Melchizedek Priesthood and the higher law, which the Lord had, but he did speak of the Aaronic Priesthood, or the lower law.)

* 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

(This priest is Jesus Christ)

* 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment,

(The Law of Moses—An Eye for an Eye)

* but after the power of an endless life.

(The higher law, which Christ brought, which will lead us to eternal life.)

* 17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

(Christ, and the priesthood authority He holds -- the Melchizedek Priesthood -- is eternal -- without end.)

* 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

(The Law of Moses was abolished with the institution of the higher Law brought by Christ.)

* 19 For the law [Mosaic Law] made nothing perfect

(We could not become perfect as our Father in Heaven commanded us to be by obedience to the Mosaic Law, for it does not contain the authority for the saving ordinances of salvation—the "keys" to bind in heaven and on earth, or in today's terminology, temple ordinances)

* but the bringing in of a better hope did;

(A better hope, or a higher law, which brought the authority for the saving ordinances)

* by the which we draw nigh unto God.

(It is through this higher law, by partaking of the temple ordinances, that we can "draw nigh" unto God, or become like Him, which is to "be perfect" {as God is perfect} as He commanded us—Matthew 5:48.)

* 20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

(This is in reference to the oath and covenant of the priesthood.)

* 21 (For those priests

(The priests of the Aaronic, or Levitical, priesthood)

* were made without an oath;

(The Aaronic, or lessor, priesthood, does not require an oath or covenant.)

* but this [This = Higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood] with an oath

"When a priesthood holder takes upon himself the Melchizedek Priesthood, he does so by oath
and covenant. This is not so with the Aaronic Priesthood. The covenant of the Melchizedek Priesthood is that a priesthood holder will magnify his calling in the priesthood, will give diligent heed to the commandments of God, and will live by every word which proceeds "from the mouth of God" (see D&C 84:33-44). The oath of the Melchizedek Priesthood is an irrevocable promise by God to faithful priesthood holders. "All that my Father hath shall be given unto them" (seeDC 84:38). This oath by Deity, coupled with the covenant by faithful priesthood holders, is referred to as the oath and covenant of the priesthood."[1]

* by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

(The Melchizedek Priesthood is eternal)

* 22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man (Jesus Christ), because he continueth ever, [Eternal] hath an unchangeable [Eternal] priesthood.

(In context, this verse (24) that critics use to try to argue against the priesthood, is saying that since Jesus Christ is eternal, so is the authority He has. It is this same authority that Christ passed on to his Apostles, and they, passed on to others in the Church.)

This explanation should make it plain that the law, or schoolmaster (see Galatians 3:24), to lead the people unto Christ was administered by the Aaronic, or Levitical, Priesthood. However, perfection cannot be obtained through this priesthood alone, as Paul explained. Therefore, it was necessary for the Lord to send another priest after the order of Melchizedek. The priesthood thus being changed, there was "of necessity a change also of the law."[2]

The fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, therefore, was introduced by him to take the place of the law of Moses.

In a review of Walter Martin's book, The Maze of Mormonism, in which Martin bases his argument against the Melchizedek Priesthood on the interpretation of "unchangeable" being "non-transferable, Richard Lloyd Anderson informs us that:

Instead of treating descriptions in the Acts or Pastoral Letters concerning the bestowal of apostolic authority on others, Martin prefers to base his case on a dubious translation of Hebrews 7:24, maintaining that Christ's priesthood is "untransferable." But his vintage 1889 citation from Thayer's lexicon for this use is squarely contradicted by the best authorities in the field. The lexicon of Arndt-Gingrich (in agreement with Moulton-Milligan) gives more than a dozen secular uses of the period to show that the term in question (aparabatos) "rather has

the sense permanent, unchangeable." The point of the passage is not that Christ's priesthood cannot be transferred, but that it permanently remains superior, as does he, to all other authority.[3]

So we see that it is incorrect to interpret "unchangeable" as "nontransferable" as further evidence also suggests.
[edit]
Additional evidence

The rather late Christian understanding that Jesus would be the last High Priest of the Melchizedek order (see Hebrew 7:24, marginal reading no. 5 in most King James Version translations) is based on an erroneous interpretation of the Greek word aparabaton which does not mean "intransmissible" but means "unchangeable" when referring to Jesus' priesthood.[4]

And:

God's promises to Abraham are extended to all who come unto Christ: Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, who was the priest who blessed Abraham, in whose loins was Levi. The superiority of Christ's Melchizedek Priesthood over the Levitical priesthood and the Law of Moses is developed in chapter 7. Melchizedek was a type of Christ. His priesthood was more enduring than the Levitical priesthood, which was limited to blood lines and was not given with an oath and whose priests did not continue because of death and needed daily renewal (Heb. 7:3, 21, 23, 27). The Melchizedek order of priesthood, however, was directed by Jesus Christ, who, unlike the high priest under the Law of Moses on the annual Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:4), did not need to "offer sacrifice for his own sins, for he knew no sins" (JST Heb. 7:26). His priesthood was aparabatos, meaning "permanent, unchangeable, and incomparable" (Heb. 7:24). No other priesthood will succeed it. It will be the permanent power of salvation and eternal lives within Christ's church forever more (see TPJS, 166, 322)[5]

In other words, the restored Church of Jesus Christ has authority. Modern Christians have a book, the Bible, that is a product of authority. All we are claiming is that authority cannot be derived from that which was a product of it. We can gain truth from such authoritative sources, but not authority.

There is really little difficulty understanding the crux of these arguments except though the eyes of some 1,800 years of theological speculation syncrytism, and doctrinal mutation. If the higher Priesthood was nontransferable, why then did Christ indeed transfer it to his disciples, who then transferred it to the Seventy, and who later called new apostles to fill vacancies as they opened? Acts and the synoptics were written some fifty years after Jesus had been crucified. Why did the Lord explicitly authorizes his disciples to transfer it to others? Why do modern Protestants feel that because they believe in and accept Christ (and their version of what he taught) they can then organize a ministry or church, and preach the gospel, without receiving the same kind of authortiy as is clearly explicated in the New Testament and to which those Christians were subject?

Post by **_CaliforniaKid** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:47 am

Coggins7 wrote:They are in the New Testament

CFR. Please demonstrate from the New Testament that authority and priesthood are considered the same thing therein.

You engage here in the same striking misreading of Hebrews common to most modern Protestant apologetics, focusing only on Jesus being our great high priest, while utterly ignoring the rest of the New Testament, in which Jesus lays his hands upon others and authorizes them directly.

And you adopt here the same strikingly anachronistic assumption that is adopted by most Catholics and Latter-day Saints: that the laying on of hands meant the same thing to a first-century Christian as it does to Catholics and Mormons today. When I read the New Testament, I see the laying on of hands associated with a number of different things, including healing, blessing, anointing, and the impartation of the Holy Spirit. I see no reason to assume they believed the laying on of hands transferred priesthood power from one person to another. In fact, the ominous absence of a Christian priesthood from the New Testament (and from all Christian literature pre-dating the third century) suggests exactly the opposite.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:52 am

Loran,

In your lenghty post above you mention deacons as others have mentioned deacons when discussing the Great Apostasy and restoration of the primitive church.

Further up the thread, I stated that I had used a wiki article regarding LDS deacons and in that article it says that 12 year old boys are called to be deacons.

Let me add to this "elders", Loran. How old are "elders" in the church and...

How is this Biblical?

(And thank you for fielding the questions/challenges on this thread.)

Post by **_harmony** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:26 am

There is really little difficulty understanding the crux of these arguments except though the eyes of some 1,800 years of theological speculation syncrytism, and doctrinal mutation. If the higher Priesthood was nontransferable, why then did Christ indeed transfer it to his disciples, who then transferred it to the Seventy, and who later called new apostles to fill vacancies as they opened? Acts and the synoptics were written some fifty years after Jesus had been crucified. Why did the Lord explicitly authorizes his disciples to transfer it to others? Why do modern Protestants feel that because they believe in and accept Christ (and their version of what he taught) they can then organize a ministry or church, and preach the gospel, without receiving the same kind of authortiy as is clearly explicated in the New Testament and to which those Christians were subject?

And wouldn't a person think that if something was that gosh-darned important, the restoration of it would have been duly recorded and noted?

Post by **_Coggins7** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:58 pm

Coggins7"]They are in the New Testament[/quote]

CFR. Please demonstrate from the New Testament that authority and priesthood are considered the same thing therein.

You engage here in the same striking misreading of Hebrews common to most modern Protestant apologetics, focusing only on Jesus being our great high priest, while utterly ignoring the rest of the New Testament, in which Jesus lays his hands upon others and authorizes them directly.

And you adopt here the same strikingly anachronistic assumption that is adopted by most Catholics and Latter-day Saints: that the laying on of hands meant the same thing to a first-century Christian as it does to Catholics and Mormons today. When I read the New Testament, I see the laying on of hands associated with a number of different things, including healing, blessing, anointing, and the impartation of the Holy Spirit. I see no reason to assume they believed the laying on of hands transferred priesthood power from one person to another. In fact, the ominous absence of a Christian priesthood from the New Testament (and from all Christian literature pre-dating the third century) suggests exactly the opposite.

[/quote]

As soon as you cease your special pleading and assess the arguments I and the FAIR article have made above, we can continue the discussion. 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. 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.

Here, for further consideration, is another elucidation of the Hebrews 7:24 textual problem, which may be a little more concise than the extended argument from the FAIR Wiki above (italics are mine)"

There are many informative concepts about the priesthood in this chapter, such as the ideas that perfection comes through the Melchizedek Priesthood (Heb. 7:11–12), that the Melchizedek Priesthood is not restricted to one lineage (Heb. 7:13–15), that the priesthood is eternal (Heb. 7:16–17), that it is received with an oath and a covenant (Heb. 7:20–21), and that Christ’s priesthood function continues eternally (Heb. 7:27–28).

This chapter could best be understood as a typology, with Melchizedek, the great high priest, being a “type” of Christ—and the order of the priesthood held by Melchizedek and his people being typical of the order of the priesthood held by Jesus Christ and his disciples.

Verse 24 is perhaps the one most often misunderstood and has caused considerable debate. The confusion is over the Greek word translated as unchangeable: “But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.” [Heb. 7:24]

The confusion is illustrated by the alternate translation for unchangeable which the King James translators have given in the footnote or margin: “Or, which passeth not from one to another.” (The marginal translation has been omitted in the new LDS edition.) This translation supports Luther’s contention that the administration of the priesthood has occurred only in Christ, that his priesthood did not pass to others, that there is no formal priesthood in the church. A number of commentaries and some lexicons have attempted to defend this marginal translation as being correct, in spite of the fact that there is no attestation (verified evidence of usage) for that translation and no contextual basis for that interpretation.

Unchangeable is translated from the Greek word aparabaton. The usage of that word in ancient Greek has been examined for years—and no scholar that I know of has found any reliable example of the word being used to mean “cannot pass from one to another.” However, the translation “unchangeable” or “immutable” has numerous attestations. Thus, according to known Greek usage, the best translation would be “unchangeable.”

For example, this is the conclusion in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: “We should keep to the rendering ‘unchangeable’ the more so as the active sense (‘non-transferable’) is not attested elsewhere.” 2 Moulton’s and Milligan’s The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, a compilation of attested Greek usage, says: “It is clear that the technical use, compared with late literary, constitutes a very strong case against the rendering ‘not transferable.’ ” 3

The context itself of the chapter in Hebrews welcomes the translation “unchangeable,” but cannot tolerate the idea of “non-transferable.” The author begins chapter seven by stressing the eternal nature of the priesthood. Melchizedek “abideth a priest continually” (Heb. 7:3); he still “liveth” (Heb. 7:8); another priest is made “after the power of an endless life” (Heb. 7:16); “Thou art a priest for ever” (Heb. 7:17, 21); “But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood” (Heb. 7:24; italics added).

There is nothing in the context to suggest that the priesthood is “non-transferable.” It is eternal—it will never depart from a priesthood holder except through transgression. In one sense, one never passes his priesthood to another; it is his, “unchangeable” or eternal. But this doesn’t mean that he can’t bestow the priesthood on another man when authorized to do so.

The priesthood is organized into an “order.” Christ was a priest “after the order of Melchisedec.” (Heb. 7:21.) The fact that Melchizedek had an “order of the priesthood” indicates that more than Jesus held the priesthood. If Christ had been the only one to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, there would have been no “order.” The scriptures themselves attest that such an order did exist in New Testament times. Not only were the Apostles ordained to their position by the Savior (see John 15:16), but others were also given the priesthood. (See Acts 13:3; Titus 1:5.)

Supportive of these conclusions is evidence from the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who died A.D. 135, stated that “the priesthood is the very highest point of all good things among men, against which whosoever is mad enough to strive, dishonors not man, but God, and Christ Jesus, the First-born, and the only High Priest, by nature, of the father.” 4

Here Ignatius suggests that Christ is indeed the only high priest of the Father. He says nothing, however, about those who have received the Melchizedek Priesthood—“the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God” (D&C 107:3)—and are ordained as high priests of the Son. He also distinguishes between Christ’s right to the priesthood by nature, and man’s receipt of the priesthood by ordination. It is Christ’s priesthood by nature, but for others it is the “highest point of all good things” that they can attain.

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.

Notes

1. See William Hordern, A Layman’s Guide to Protestant Theology, New York: Macmillan Co., 1955, pp. 29–30.

2. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Walmart. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967, p. 743.

3. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Walmart. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982, p. 53.

4. See Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Walmart. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979, 1:90; italics added.

5. See The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 2:107.

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.

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?

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.

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.”

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.

Its interesting that the Priesthood of Moses and Aaron is mentioned here, even though the text contains strong prohibitions against Judieization and the reception of the Priesthood occurred on the Mount of Olives where the secret forty day teachings occurred. Was this the Aaronic Priesthood? Interestingly, the Church teachings that both Moses and Aaron held the Melchesidek Priesthood, although this was in general not passed on to the Israelites generally speaking. Yet the author of this text is no Judeizer, nor does he mention any Priesthood ordinances in connection with anything remotely resembling the old Mosaic law. Interestingly, in light of the LDS teaching that the higher Priesthood is necessary to the organization and governing of the Church, the text later remarks:

The apostles further appointed: Let no man dare to do anything by the authority of the priesthood which is not in accordance with justice and equity, but in accordance with justice, and free from the blame of partiality, let all things be done.

And:

And the more affliction arose against them, the richer and larger did their congregations become; and with gladness in their hearts did they receive death of every kind. And by ordination to the priesthood, which the apostles themselves had received from our Lord, did their Gospel wing its way rapidly into the four quarters of the world. And by mutual visitation they ministered to one another.

The text then records the various places each Apostle traveled and established the Church, and speaks of the entire Church in that area as being ordained to the Priesthood, concluding with:

Luke, moreover, the evangelist had such diligence that he wrote the exploits of the Acts of the Apostles, and the ordinances and laws of the ministry of their priesthood, and whither each one of them went.

Interesting stuff, but only cursory. There is striking evidence for both the Apostasy and the truth of the claims of the Church regarding what was actually taught and believed by early Christians within the wealth of early Christian documents that have come into our possession since Joseph Smith's day, including within the writings of the early Fathers (sectarian Christians need to stay well away from much of this early material as it exhibits not only the vast heterodox nature of "orthodox" Christianity in the first century or so after the Apostles, but also the uncanny prevalence of unique Mormonesque concepts).

Its ironic that the "overseers" Kid mentions as having superseded the Apostolic central authority were, in the New Testament, was a local Church leader, or, essentially a Bishop. The term used by Irenaus to designate such a leader, presbyterii ordine clearly implies what we would understand as an ordained minister.

This raises a question, given the overwhelming evidence of a hierarchal authority passing from Christ to his Apostles and from them Old Testament others, and of a clear hierarchal structure (Ephesians) within the Church as an organization, of ordination by whom and within what organizational context (or, we can just go with the unbiblical "born again" Christian conception of a free wheeling organizationless "body of believers" with no particular form or structure)?

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:46 pm

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 figured someone would respond like this. But you miss my a couple points. First, the restoration does not claim that all things in all Christianity were wrong. Next, the point I was making is that it seems pretty solid that the idea of these offices was part of Christianity all along, not some innovation changing from the original text.

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?

Gee I don't think I made the point that he didn't.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:49 pm

Jersey Girl wrote: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?

LDS believe the Rock was revelation to Peter. Interestingly Catholics believe the Rock was peter and protestants believe what is not to be prevailed against is the Church. ANother LDS view it that the gates of Hell refer to hades and death which certainly did not prevail against Jesus.