Worship Music

[_Mittens]

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.

If we're wrong why not produce scripture to prove it rather than a pontification of ramblings. Why not produce a person in the New Testament Church holding the Melchizedek Priesthood besides Jesus ?

[_Albion]

Bhodi, I suggest you reread Hebrews as it is written and as it is supported by the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars throughout history. It is the false Mormon view that flies in the face of a correct reading of the verses...a tiny and heretical Mormon viewpoint that has the audacity to argue that it is right and everyone else is wrong....a Mormon view that interprets scripture to fit its already determined position rather than allowing the scripture to speak for itself. You can find absolutely zero support in scripture for anyone other than Melchizedec and Jesus having anything to do with a priest named after the the man to whom Abraham gave tithes. I submit that that very absence on what to Mormons is a supreme issue supports the reading of Hebrews that only Jesus is a priest of Melchidezdec. Hebrews clearly states that Jesus is the ultimate high priest because his priesthood Trump's that of any earthly priest and his sacrifice is the real thing and not symbolic he holds the office of high priest forever. That means FOREVER...and since it is forever no one else can hold it or take it from him... and no one else is needed. Why on earth would a Christian need an earthly high priest when they have one in heaven making intercession on their behalf before the Father. There is absolutely no logic to the Mormon position

[_Albion]

Tobin, I suggest you do a little more reading and study to see where the evidence and logic rests....it certainly doesn't reside with a tiny sect in Utah that isn't even a blip on the theological radar. The overwhelming weight of Christian scholarship over 2,000 years is against you.

[_Tobin]

Tobin, I suggest you do a little more reading and study to see where the evidence and logic rests....it certainly doesn't reside with a tiny sect in Utah that isn't even a blip on the theological radar. The overwhelming weight of Christian scholarship over 2,000 years is against you.

Uh huh. Whenever you want to put together a cogent argument about how your bizarre view has anything to do with the scriptures or God's authority and priesthood, you let me know. As I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, what you believe is complete and utter non-sense. You don't even have to be Mormon to realize that.

[_Albion]

My view is hardly bizarre and coming from a faith system perceived as having the corner on bizarre it is amusing in the extreme. I have at least put forward an argument, whether you accept it or not, whereas your posts have been filled only with Mormon opinion and totally lacking any response from scripture to support your point. I spoke with a Hasidic Rabbi today on this subject and specificially the Mormon claim. The essence of his response was, and I quote: "The term "Melchizedek Priesthood" is never used in Jewish tradition, particularly not as it is used in Mormon tradition."

I will not respond any longer on this topic. If it please you to think that you have vindicated your position, so be it...I am not responsible for your assumptions or perceptions, only to the charge of the Great Commission.

[_Tobin]

My view is hardly bizarre and coming from a faith system perceived as having the corner on bizarre it is amusing in the extreme. I have at least put forward an argument, whether you accept it or not, whereas your posts have been filled only with Mormon opinion and totally lacking any response from scripture to support your point. I spoke with a Hasidic Rabbi today on this subject and specificially the Mormon claim. The essence of his response was, and I quote: "The term "Melchizedek Priesthood" is never used in Jewish tradition, particularly not as it is used in Mormon tradition."

I will not respond any longer on this topic. If it please you to think that you have vindicated your position, so be it...I am not responsible for your assumptions or perceptions, only to the charge of the Great Commission.

Finally, at least you'll stop posting that non-sense, so that is a small victory. I bet if you ask the Hasidic Rabbi if any of the prophets had the power and authority to act in the name of God, call down fire, and perform miracles instead of twisting things around as you do, you would find he'd say of course there is such a tradition. As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, we are talking about God's authority. You have yet to tell me what the Melchizedk Priesthood is other than that. And as I've repeated told you, [personal attack removed]

[_Mittens]

Maybe this Song will help

http://youtu.be/7zR9xCGRMr8

[_Albion]

Ah, Tobin encapsulates his lack of argument with insults. Pathetic in the extreme. I hope the mods take notice.

[_Tobin]

Ah, Tobin encapsulates his lack of argument with insults. Pathetic in the extreme. I hope the mods take notice.

Uh huh. I was just noting your bizarre behavior and lack of responses. If you repeatedly tell someone that 2 + 2 = 4 and they continue to insist 2 + 2 = 5 without any reasoning behind it, I don't think it is an insult to point out that there may be something wrong with them.

[_Bhodi]

Bhodi, I suggest you reread Hebrews as it is written and as it is supported by the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars throughout history. It is the false Mormon view that flies in the face of a correct reading of the verses...a tiny and heretical Mormon viewpoint that has the audacity to argue that it is right and everyone else is wrong....a Mormon view that interprets scripture to fit its already determined position rather than allowing the scripture to speak for itself. You can find absolutely zero support in scripture for anyone other than Melchizedec and Jesus having anything to do with a priest named after the the man to whom Abraham gave tithes. I submit that that very absence on what to Mormons is a supreme issue supports the reading of Hebrews that only Jesus is a priest of Melchidezdec. Hebrews clearly states that Jesus is the ultimate high priest because his priesthood Trump's that of any earthly priest and his sacrifice is the real thing and not symbolic he holds the office of high priest forever. That means FOREVER...and since it is forever no one else can hold it or take it from him... and no one else is needed. Why on earth would a Christian need an earthly high priest when they have one in heaven making intercession on their behalf before the Father. There is absolutely no logic to the Mormon position

Albion, you have said Mormon 5 times now. This has nothing to do with Mormonism. This is Biblical history, culture, linguistics, and Christian development. Simply put, the language used CANNOT refer to 1 or 2 people. This is actually recognized by Catholic Biblical scholars, for what it is worth, I believe it is mentioned in "An Introduction to the New Testament" by Dr. Raymond Brown, who was considered America's most respected Biblical Scholar (now deceased, so the title has passed).

You are interpreting the Bible through a 20th century Protestant lens, which is incorrect. I have said time and time again, that this has nothing to do with Mormonism, since Mormons could have it completely wrong, the text only makes it possible for Mormons. It also makes it possible for Catholics, Orthodox, even Lutherans and possible Episcopals to be correct. Not so much other Protestants.

This is not apologetics, I am not defending Mormons, only discussing Biblical scholarship. The problem is that to discuss this, there is a need to have a base knowledge of the underlying issues, which most people do not have, and supports my thesis when talking with my brother, most people should NOT read the Bible, they are unprepared.