Worship Music

[_Tobin]

The confusion is solely yours. The Mormon position as I understand it is that the MP and authority are synonymous. Therein lies your problem. Have you found any scriptures yet to support that position. I thought not.

I have no need to look for scriptures to refute non-sense. That's why God gave me a brain so I could judge it was ridiculous and so he didn't have to waste the time. Albion, I realize you can't put your head around the concept that God's authority, his priesthood, and the MP are the SAME thing. It comes from God and Jesus Christ was not the last or ONLY person to have God's authority, priesthood, or MP if you'd rather.

[_Albion]

Well, Tobin, we come full circle. Prove your point with scripture. You'll forgive me if I don't just take your brain as evidence. You say authority and MP are the same thing.... so again, any scriptural reference for the giving of the MP to anyone will settle the debate. Mormonism makes the claim...where is the evidence?

[_Tobin]

Well, Tobin, we come full circle. Prove your point with scripture. You'll forgive me if I don't just take your brain as evidence. You say authority and MP are the same thing.... so again, any scriptural reference for the giving of the MP to anyone will settle the debate. Mormonism makes the claim...where is the evidence?

I'm sure you find this non-sense fascinating, but I really don't. I've already pointed out to you that the MP is God's priesthood. As far as I can see that is something you don't dispute. You have admitted others have had God's authority or priesthood. I have pointed out to you how silly the position is that you have that nobody can ever again have God's priesthood (I guess all the Christian preachers and priests are out of luck). So, I fail to see anything else I need to point out to you. You are welcome to believe whatever non-sense you wish. It isn't my job to force people to stop believing idiotic and false concepts. That is just something you have to do yourself.

[_Bhodi]

Well, Tobin, we come full circle. Prove your point with scripture. You'll forgive me if I don't just take your brain as evidence. You say authority and MP are the same thing.... so again, any scriptural reference for the giving of the MP to anyone will settle the debate. Mormonism makes the claim...where is the evidence?

The evidence is in the scripture. I have long argued that people should not read the Bible, they are unprepared for it. My brother and I got into a disagreement over it, but my position is that most simply assume that a text is in English, so they will automatically understand it, which is completely wrong. To read the Bible one must be well versed in culture, linguistics, history, religion (moreso), etc...

This is the problem with the understanding above, it is void of cultural context.

Hebrews was written to, surprise…surprise, Hebrews. It was written to a Jewish audience that understood things in a Jewish context. As such the language is interesting. When the text refers to the "order of Aaron", a known, established, a largely populated organization, it refers to something very well known, and something that was recently a subject of significant conflict. The recent Maccabean revolt involved, among other things, questions about priestly issues. So a reference to the "order of Aaron" had significant context.

Now when an "order of Melchizedek" is mentioned, it must be understood in light of this context. The same language is used, same etymology. The “order” in both cases is the same word. It is a word that denotes membership. It is completely unthinkable that a reference would be made to an organization that has numerous and established membership without assuming the same from the superior order of Melchizedek. In short, the wording and cultural context matters.

The argument you, and Mittens before you, are making is simply wrong because it is unsupported by any cultural or religious, or linguistic, understanding. It is a simplistic argument made by superimposing Protestant theology back on the Bible, rather than reading the text in light of a full understanding of the culture to begin with.

An Order of Melchizedek must have more members than 1 or 2. It is an order.

This is not really debatable.

This does not necessarily prove Mormonism, it simply interprets the text correctly. Mormons could be completely incorrect about the Order of Melchizedek, but they at least recognize that the order needs membership.

[_Albion]

How imperious is that? "..people should not read the Bible , they are unprepared for it..." Presumably you see yourself as an exception to that. Well surprise, surprise to you, despite your condescending tone I am fully aware of why Hebrews was written and to whom it was written and its intent. The writer is fully aware of the understanding of his audience which is why he makes the argument that Jesus fulfilled for all time the role of the high priest, the single most important position in the religious establishment of the time. Knowing this he clearly makes the case for Jesus' priesthood, after the order of Melchizedec, trumping the Levitcal priesthood of the earthly high priest and the one they were more familiar with, to make atonement for sin, which he made by an offering of himself "once and for all" (a final offering). Christ sitting down at the right hand of God, interceding on behalf of sinful man, clearly signifies the end of the need for a high priest.

This in contrast with Verses 10-11, Chapter 10 which describes the succession of priests: "Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties: again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest (Christ Jesus) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God." The very act of sitting down signifies an end...that is the whole point and the writer's audience would have understood that fully.

I need no other high priest...my faith and my trust is in the one High Priest who has finished the job...once and for all. Jesus is the surety of the New Covenant

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

And because he holds the position forever this priesthood cannot be passed on to anyone else the way the old high priest office was.

Give me one legitimate reason why an order (and that's the English word not the original nor the Greek) can only have two people? Your reasoning alone is insufficient. I note, too that you capitalize order...most versions render it with a lower case o. ....NIV, KJV, NKJ, to name a few. I believe that to be significant.

[_Bhodi]

How imperious is that? "..people should not read the Bible , they are unprepared for it..."

Well...yes. Isn't this the problem here. Consider...

Give me one legitimate reason why an order (and that's the English word not the original nor the Greek) can only have two people? Your reasoning alone is insufficient. I note, too that you capitalize order...most versions render it with a lower case o. ....NIV, KJV, NKJ, to name a few. I believe that to be significant.

Because that is what the Greek meaning of the word means. It can only apply to a group of people, not a single individual. Just like a "dozen" cannot refer to one thing. Or a "few". Or any number of other issues.

As I said, this does not prove Mormonism, it simply states what the text is actually saying.

[_Albion]

I think you are missing the whole point. Melchizedec was a one off...before him there was no priesthood...there wasn't even an Israel...he had no beginning and no end. He stood alone. In the same way is Christ who is a priest forever...no successors, no predecessors, no order in the way you define it, no line. Jesus is superior to Melchizedec. This is made clear in Hebrews and is there to put Jesus in an even better light than Mechizedec could ever have been. It is a line with no beginning. The MP begins with Jesus and ends with Jesus...a priest forever.

That certainly would have been understood culturally by the writer of Hebrews audience. They understood the concept of only one high priest at a time operating under the Levitical priesthood received through tribal lineage. The prime function of the high priest was to offer sacrifices on the day of atonement...first for himself and then for an on behalf of the people. The high priest did this year in year out. Christ fulfilled forever the role of the high priest through his superior priesthood and power forever by offering himself as the sacrifice once and for all. Final, over...no need to be done again and because he lives forever with the Father making intercession on behalf of those who are his he retains the office of high priest forever also. No other is needed....and I might add my own words...no other is wanted.

[_Mittens]

Very good Albion

[_Bhodi]

I think you are missing the whole point. Melchizedec was a one off...before him there was no priesthood...there wasn't even an Israel...he had no beginning and no end. He stood alone. In the same way is Christ who is a priest forever...no successors, no predecessors, no order in the way you define it, no line. Jesus is superior to Melchizedec. This is made clear in Hebrews and is there to put Jesus in an even better light than Mechizedec could ever have been. It is a line with no beginning. The MP begins with Jesus and ends with Jesus...a priest forever.

That certainly would have been understood culturally by the writer of Hebrews audience. They understood the concept of only one high priest at a time operating under the Levitical priesthood received through tribal lineage. The prime function of the high priest was to offer sacrifices on the day of atonement...first for himself and then for an on behalf of the people. The high priest did this year in year out. Christ fulfilled forever the role of the high priest through his superior priesthood and power forever by offering himself as the sacrifice once and for all. Final, over...no need to be done again and because he lives forever with the Father making intercession on behalf of those who are his he retains the office of high priest forever also. No other is needed....and I might add my own words...no other is wanted.

I am writing from a foreign location, so the internet is choppy, but...

I am sorry, but you are wrong. You are trying to fit a Protestant theological perception into a text where the text simply will not allow it. This is not something that can be debated, your position is simply wrong because the definitions of the words prohibits it.

I fully understand what your position is, with respect to your assertion that Jesus is the only Melchizedek priest. I understand the theological principle that you are trying to make, but at a very basic level, the text disagrees with you. This is why I say people should NOT read the Bible, because unless some effort is put into context and cultural comprehension, the effort inevitably fails.

If your point were valid, different language would have needed to have been used, but it was not. I am not a believer in Biblical inerrancy, but I suspect you may be, so you have a dilemma. You can face the text and change your position, or claim the text is wrong, I see no other solution.

Simply put, the phraseology used, particular the word order being used, CANNOT apply to one or two people, it has to be….an order (a number of people). You can argue your theology all you like, but your theology is based on a misreading of the text.

Again, this is not a proof of Mormonism, Mormons could easily have gotten the whole concept completely wrong, but it does tend to disprove your theology.

[_Tobin]

You are wasting your time Bhodi. Albion is wedded to this false concept. No amount of logic or discussion of what the words really mean is going to do any good. As I've already pointed out to him, this is the priesthood or authority of God and that is not something that just Jesus possessed. You poking further holes in this distorted protestant view that only Jesus held this priesthood isn't going to persuade him because he's decided he is correct - no matter what the evidence and logic suggests.