17
Feb
09

PRIESTHOOD AND SACRIFICE

 

     As I stated in my last post, in the Bible the main function of a priest was to offer sacrifices on behalf of the people.  The Old Testament temple worship revolved around two altars:  the bronze altar in the temple courtyard where animals were offered and the altar of incense within the Temple where incense was offered up. 

     The Bible keeps that emphasis on offering sacrifice when it talks about Jesus and the Melchizedek priesthood.  The book of Hebrews, the only place in the New Testament that describes Jesus as a priest, centers on the idea of sacrifice and that he, by offering himself, offered the final and ultimate sacrifice for sin.  (See my last post for one small example of that.)  But not once, in the entire book, does it even mention, much less elaborate, on priesthood authority. 

     This connection between priesthood and sacrifice cannot just be flippantly ignored. This holds true especially because Mormonism says that, through Joseph Smith, the priesthood was restored.  Restoring implies that the same thing is involved.  I don’t build an airplane and call it a restored car. 

      This is my question.  Just for the sake of discussion, assume that I accept the premise (which most of you know I don’t) that many things about the priesthood have been lost – wouldn’t it still be true if the priesthood was restored that a major function of it would be sacrifice?  If not, then wouldn’t it be true that not only would I have to believe that many things about the priesthood had been lost, but everything the Bible says about the priesthood is wrong?  What function of the priesthood that the Bible connects to priests does Mormonism still retain?  (It doesn’t connect baptism with the priesthood.  James 5:14 doesn’t mention priests either.)

Advertisements

33 Responses to “PRIESTHOOD AND SACRIFICE”


  1. 1 ladonnamorrell
    February 17, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    hi mark,

    yes, the priesthood mentioned in the Old Testament revolved around sacrifice. that is because the people were being taught day in and day out to understand the future atonement of Jesus Christ. there are many types and shadows in the scriptures. Abel and Cain offered sacrifice and only Abel’s was accepted because HIS sacrifice represented blood, as it was supposed to.
    Isaac was nearly sacrificed by HIS father, in similitude of another Father sacrificing HIS son. the israelites were slow to understand, so they were taught over and over again to sacrifice by blood. when Jesus Christ came, he fulfilled the Law. He ended sacrifice by blood because all along it represented HIM and He fulfilled the final, infinite sacrifice by the shedding of his own blood. Now, he requires a different sacrifice from us…. a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
    all through the ages, though, priests “ministered” to the people. there were other ordinances of the Gospel that required priesthood. They anointed, they baptised, they “kept the law”(meaning they were in charge, or “presided”), they were teachers, they led the people in worship, they presided at temple worship and covenant making. They also ordained others to the priesthood, they healed, blessed and gave the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (Aquinas gave several excellent references to this) and yes, they officiated in the temple. sacrifice was a big part of that during the days of the Law of Moses.

    back to 1 peter 2:9:
    this is referring to the fact that in the past, the tribe of Levi was chosen to hold the priestood exclusively, but now, these “Christians, these people of a new covenant” are CHOSEN. they are a peculiar people (meaning they are “purchased” by the blood of Christ)
    Peter is trying to give them the vision of what they are and what they can become!
    this, incidently, is the same thing our priesthood leaders today teach us! If we don’t “stumble at the word”, then we too are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, and holy nation and a peculiar people.
    Joseph Smith was only an instrument in the Lord’s hands in restoring the Priesthood.
    I am sure you are familiar with the Articles of Faith….well, we believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive church, namely Apostles (in the bible), prophets (in the bible), Pastors (in the bible),Teachers (in the bible), Evangelists (in the bible) and so forth. So you can see that the Bible teaches of priesthood authority and the restoration of the Priesthood was indeed a restoration of something that was once here and then was lost.
    Sacrifice by the shedding of blood was finished before the Bible was finished, therefore it is not correct to say that the ONLY thing the priesthood was good for was blood sacrifice.

  2. 2 faithoffathers
    February 17, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    Mark,

    Priests who offered sacrifice did so to direct the hearts and minds of the people to the sacrifice of Christ as ladonnamorrell explained. That specific expression of their duty ended with Christ’s sacrifice. But after Christ, that expression was changed, and holders of the priesthood, among other duties, blessed and administered the sacrament of the Lord’s supper- bread and wine in remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice- His body and blood. Priests before and after Christ always point toward Christ, either forward to or back to Him.

    The role of the priesthood does not end. How holders of the priesthood carry out their role changed after Christ.

    fof

  3. 3 markcares
    February 18, 2009 at 1:58 am

    My point is that both of you are making statements that cannot be supported by the Bible. Eveything you are contributing to the priesthood is not rooted in anything the Bible says but in what LDS scriptures state. As I already stated. nowhere does the Bible connect the administration of the Lord’s Supper or baptism or any of the other things you cite with the priesthood.

  4. February 18, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    this is the crux of things , right here. Mark, you’ve captured it well with your question

    What function of the priesthood that the Bible connects to priests does Mormonism still retain?

    this is the issue that people are dancing around.

    GERmIT

  5. 5 faithoffathers
    February 18, 2009 at 5:59 pm

    Mark,

    I have based most of my comments on the priesthood here only on the Bible. You may disagree with my interpretation, but I have relied entirely on the Bible for this discussion.

    So are you of the opinion that nobody really represents Christ or His doctrine and church definitively? The Apostles being chosen and ordained and given power over unclean spirits just refers to something vague that is available for everybody? Why the laying on of hands?

    If there is no Priesthood authority- no servents directly commissioned by Christ- than who does a person believe? Everybody has their opinions and reasons for their belief. Everybody thinks their interpretation is correct. Is this what Christ intended? I do not think He desired such an unorganized, fractured and contradictory entity as you suggest. “One faith, One Lord, on Baptism.”

    The Bible does not state the Christ was the only holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood. You too can extrapolate what you want, but your conclusion is not supported by the text itself. The Bible text is perfectly consistent with modern revelation from my perspective- there is nothing contradictory.

    I don’t think I ever got a response as to how the Law of Moses was different from the law and prophets that proceeded it. Did the priesthood come into existence only with the Law of Moses?

    Thanks,

    fof

  6. 6 markcares
    February 18, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    Fof:
    Just to sharpen the question. You state that the administraation of the bread and wine is a priesthood function. You than state that you based your response on the Bible. Please give me a biblical reference (chapter and verse) that describes the administration of the bread and wine as a priesthood function. That is all I am asking for.

  7. 7 Brad
    February 18, 2009 at 6:49 pm

    If there is no Priesthood authority- no servents directly commissioned by Christ- than who does a person believe? Everybody has their opinions and reasons for their belief. Everybody thinks their interpretation is correct. Is this what Christ intended? I do not think He desired such an unorganized, fractured and contradictory entity as you suggest. “One faith, One Lord, on Baptism.”

    FOF, are you then saying that members of a religious organization with true priesthood authority (such as you believe Mormonism is) should have a united interpretation of the Bible, since you have leaders “directly commissioned by Christ?” Is this the implication of your statement? Just want to make sure, before I comment further.

  8. 8 faithoffathers
    February 18, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    Mark,

    My point was that I had originally appealed only to Bible verses to support or demonstrate my argument and position. That does not mean that all of my beliefs regarding the priesthood are clearly outlined by the Bible. I have largely limited my discussion to simple points regarding the priesthood.

    You too have stated conclusions that are not supported by the Bible. For example, Christ being the only person to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood- show me chapter and verse that states this. You cannot. In fact, I have shown that there are at least 2 individuals that have held this priesthood based on the Bible.

    I again ask- how was the Law of Moses different from the law and priesthood before that preceded it and that was functional for 2600 years?

    What of my other questions? Interested in your thoughts?

    Brad- yes, I am saying that having Priesthood-holding, Christ-commissioned, Prophets and Apostles results in an authoritative, clear doctrine and gospel message. In saying that, I do not say that every question ever asked is answered clearly. A person can think of an infinite number of questions about peripheral and ever tangential issues that can never be answered in this life.

    People regularly post statements from church leaders that appear to contradict scripture, other church leaders, etc. These statements usually involve “deep doctrine”- things that don’t impact us much now. A person can also provide statements from the Bible that make it appear as if the Bible is contradictory. As far as doctrines that constitute the “fullness of the gospel,” the message is actually quite clear and uniform.

    If nobody on earth has that specific authority, than nobody can claim the correct interpretation of scripture. Just because a person is a believer does not mean they understand scripture perfectly. We are all thrown into the ring to slug it out via mental muscle, everybody claiming “they know.” If I am wrong, and there is no priesthood, then I have equal authority as anybody else reading the bible. Who is right?

    Thanks,

    fof

  9. 9 Brad
    February 18, 2009 at 10:03 pm

    Brad- yes, I am saying that having Priesthood-holding, Christ-commissioned, Prophets and Apostles results in an authoritative, clear doctrine and gospel message. In saying that, I do not say that every question ever asked is answered clearly. A person can think of an infinite number of questions about peripheral and ever tangential issues that can never be answered in this life.

    Ok, so we have your position documented. Let’s read on…

    People regularly post statements from church leaders that appear to contradict scripture, other church leaders, etc. These statements usually involve “deep doctrine”- things that don’t impact us much now.

    So, what you’re saying is that “it doesn’t matter, so let’s not even address it?” No go. If the priesthood you claim REALLY led to such a clear understanding, then there would be no such contradictions (apparent or otherwise), b/c those who held it would be able to clearly answer.

    A person can also provide statements from the Bible that make it appear as if the Bible is contradictory.

    You mean, just like the above statements about Mormonism? At which point my argument, like yours, would be that the interpretation is wrong, b/c the Bible doesn’t contradict itself. Which leaves us at square 1 again, with each of us believing our own particular interpretation is correct. Difference is, you have this priesthood that you say should be able to clear matters such as this up, while I’m relying solely on the Bible interpreting itself.

    As far as doctrines that constitute the “fullness of the gospel,” the message is actually quite clear and uniform.

    I would agree that the salvation message (in the Bible) is quite clear – I don’t believe, however, that the Mormon message is clear, nor do I believe that it matches up with the Bible’s message, b/c the 2 messages are different.

    If nobody on earth has that specific authority, than nobody can claim the correct interpretation of scripture.

    Quite an assumption – where do you see that it’s required, Biblically, to have any specific “authority” to correctly intepret the Bible?

    Just because a person is a believer does not mean they understand scripture perfectly.

    I would agree with that.

    We are all thrown into the ring to slug it out via mental muscle, everybody claiming “they know.”

    I wouldn’t agree. God didn’t just toss us helplessly into a ring to “slug it out”, rather He gave us His Word (the Bible) as our guide, and the Holy Spirit as our Comforter. If what I hear doesn’t align with BOTH of those, then I know it is false. Mormonism fits that description.

    If I am wrong, and there is no priesthood, then I have equal authority as anybody else reading the bible. Who is right?

    I wouldn’t say “authority”, but “opportunity.” You have just as much ability as I do to correctly interpret the Bible. Our individual methods for doing so, however, are quite different. Further, if priesthood authority has “cleared things up”, so to speak, then why are there differences of opinion, even among Mormons, as to specific Mormon beliefs? That scenario isn’t explained by your theory.

  10. February 19, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    FoF: greetings and good morning..you wrote

    If nobody on earth has that specific authority, than nobody can claim the correct interpretation of scripture. Just because a person is a believer does not mean they understand scripture perfectly. We are all thrown into the ring to slug it out via mental muscle, everybody claiming “they know.” If I am wrong, and there is no priesthood, then I have equal authority as anybody else reading the bible. Who is right?

    Hey, I like this. Yes, no one CAN claim “the one true interpretation” . True story, there was a Baptist guy whom I won’t name who have seminars across the country back when Reagan was president or thereabouts, my memory is mush….. This guys expression was “one interpretation, many applications….” back then I thought it sounded nifty….many years later, I say “gag me with a spoon”. maybe IN THE MIND OF GOD there is one interpretation, but our job very much is to “slug it out”, with the text, really, and find out what is what. I do NOT suggest that the text is purposely cryptic, or that GOD does not want to be known and understood, but YOUR take on scripture might just be much better than mine or vica versa….(in my story above, guess whose ONE interpration Mr.Seminar guy happened to believe was the ONe and ONLY ??)

    and yes, if your understanding of the scripture is clearer and more after the heart of GOD, then absolutely, you have more authority, and if that WORD is really understood, then you will be humble enough to handle that authority….much like the early apostles and believers.

    Like you work.

    GERMIT

  11. February 19, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    PS; as an add on: the WORD is best understood in groups, with accountability, studied “in community” as some people put it. One of “Seminar Guy’s” big drawbacks was his isolation in studying the WORD to get the best possible interpretation. IN THEORY, this is what seminary is SUPPOSED to do, though it doesn’t always work out that way. GOD remains a talker, and wants to be understood, but beware the man or woman who has the inside track on what the WORD is telling us.

  12. 12 ladonnamorrell
    February 19, 2009 at 4:33 pm

    “Faith of our Fathers”—YOU ROCK! you have done a great job of “trying” to sort out this mish-mosh…..but sorry to say, THEY JUST DON’T GET IT!

    everyone else: Joseph Smith had ALL of these same questions! That is why he was driven to pray about it and find out the truth. there isn’t ANY DOCTRINE in the Bible that is contrary to the Book of Mormon and the restored Gospel. God loved us so He sent the restoration of the Gospel in our day! What an amazing gift! could you all just stop and think about that for a moment? wouldn’t you LOVE for this to be true? wouldn’t you love to have a prophet of God on the earth today? Wouldn’t you love to have the heavens open? to have the Holy Priesthood? to be able to bless your family in times of illness or crisis? To make sacred covenants that bind you to God and to your family? to feel the power that obedience to the commandments brings into your life? to strive to be perfect, even as we are commanded? to reach out and share the wonderful news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with others?
    Someday, you will feel the need to know for yourself if these things are true! I hope that you will remember that Ladonna Morrell has a testimony that they are true! i grew up in a Methodist/Presbyterian home. I searched for the truth and i found it! The Gospel is True.
    you can fight against it, but you will fail! hey and if it wasn’t true, do you think it would be growing and thriving? don’t think so. you all better jump on the band wagon before it is too late!! :)

  13. 13 faithoffathers
    February 19, 2009 at 4:48 pm

    Brad,

    Graci for your details response.

    Here goes back at ya my friend:

    You said:
    “If the priesthood you claim REALLY led to such a clear understanding, then there would be no such contradictions (apparent or otherwise), b/c those who held it would be able to clearly answer.”

    You mean like Peter and Paul, or the apostles arguing who was greatest in the Kingdom? Just because individuals hold the Priesthood keys does not mean they will agree about everything there is to have an opinion about. They do agree on the foundational principles that Christ commissions them to teach.

    You said:
    “the Bible doesn’t contradict itself.”

    I can refer you to websites that lists a great many contradictions in the bible. Look at the four gospels- there are many discrepencies between the accounts. Does that mean we dismiss them- absolutely not. Because we understand each gospel was written by a man who had HIS perspective and memory and weaknesses.

    Don’t know what you mean by “the bible intrepeting itself.” Seems circular to me.

    YOu said:

    “I don’t believe, however, that the Mormon message is clear, nor do I believe that it matches up with the Bible’s message, b/c the 2 messages are different.”

    I simply disagree- the message of the LDS church is quite clear. Do you mean that what others say about the church is not clear? I would certainly accept that. But go to anything produced by the church and you will find great consistency. Every class in the church throughout the world studies the same thing every week in church.

    The message of the church is very consistent with the Bible from my perspective. In that point, we disagree.

    You said:

    “where do you see that it’s required, Biblically, to have any specific “authority” to correctly intepret the Bible?”

    It may not require authority to interpret scripture correctly, but we are left with no way of knowing who is right about their interpretation. Follow? Everybody says they are right.

    You said:

    “He gave us His Word (the Bible) as our guide, and the Holy Spirit as our Comforter. If what I hear doesn’t align with BOTH of those, then I know it is false. Mormonism fits that description.”

    I too have the Bible (I read it usually every day) and access to the Holy Spirit, and I know that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is exactly what it claims to be. It’s teachings align perfectly with the Bible.

    You said:

    “You have just as much ability as I do to correctly interpret the Bible. Our individual methods for doing so, however, are quite different.”

    How do you know our methods are different? Our conlusions? That is an unsupported conclusions. Tee hee.

    Bottom line- I study the Bible and consider myself a seeker of truth. I try to follow the Spirit in this pursuit. I assume you would say the same thing. Would you also say you have studied earnestly the BOM in a similar way and honestly sought to know if it is true? You may say that my study of the BOM has corrupted by view of the Bible- fair enough. But until you really sincerely digest it, are willing to consider it, and humbly ask God to know if the BOM is true, you will not have the benefit of both perspectives.

    If I thought the LDS church or BOM were false to any degree, I would not be a part of it. Everything good in my life has resulted from reading the Book of Mormon at age 18. It lead me from the life of a heathen to believe in Christ and give my life to Him. It is so full of truth, light, and goodness.

    Thanks for the response.

    Germit- Like the story of the pastor. Isn’t it funny how we change with time and develop different perspectives and broader understandings. While the fundamental absolutes in my “testimony” remain consistent, my view of many things changes with more time on the planet. Thank goodness.

    Peace!

    fof

  14. February 19, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    Ladonnamorell: alrighty, time for GERMIT to work off his V-8

    there isn’t ANY DOCTRINE in the Bible that is contrary to the Book of Mormon and the restored Gospel
    well, if this is the case, MORE Scripture, and fewer “just so” stories…please

    God loved us so He sent the restoration of the Gospel in our day! What an amazing gift! could you all just stop and think about that for a moment? wouldn’t you LOVE for this to be true?
    well, if I was dissatisfied with the one HE left the first time around, the answer would be “yes”, but as it is, I like what I read in the NT….seems pretty cool to me….it could be APPLIED better, but the message itself is yummy, and life-saving, in every sense of the word

    wouldn’t you love to have a prophet of God on the earth today?
    you know, surprisingly…NO….not the kind you guys have, which is VERY much like the Pope (I was raised RC, so I know a little about Popes…) from where I sit, and the Prostestant versions of having ONE BIG GUY are every bit as weird and creepy…..I’ve been down that road also….long story

    Wouldn’t you love to have the heavens open?
    Yes I would…..can’t argue a bit here…who wouldn’t ?? good thing you, or I , don’t have a monopoly on this, because we ALL need heaven pretty badly , don’t we ?

    to have the Holy Priesthood?
    doesn’t your bible come with 1st and 2cd Peter ?? mine does…..last I checked , I am a priest, but thanks for checking.

    to be able to bless your family in times of illness or crisis?
    Now you really ARE convicting me, because this is something ALL believers are to do, and some (GULP….) are just slackers, and don’t…as much as they should. Again, thank GOD that
    this blessing does not require any special role or position….

    To make sacred covenants that bind you to God and to your family?
    Covenants are a very serious deal to GOD…the only ones I want are the ones HE has carefully spelled out in the Bible…none other, thank you….if you can make a case for YOUR collection of covenants from the OT and NT, go for it girl….

    to feel the power that obedience to the commandments brings into your life?
    I’ll stop with this one for now: HECK YES….need more of that….again, you got me…but I’m not to convinced that anything LDS will propel or encourage me toward this. You are right about there being a relationship between these two, but thank GOD HE is also merciful…or I’d be extra-charred toast.

    More later….
    GERMIT

  15. February 19, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    FoF:

    It may not require authority to interpret scripture correctly, but we are left with no way of knowing who is right about their interpretation. Follow? Everybody says they are right.

    Oh, you mean like the many dozens of different versions of MORMONISM, all claiming priesthood (or at least most of them), prophetic power, and the rightful claim of ONE TRUE CHURCH….OK, now I get it….

    maybe piling on….but my self-control is whack today….

    GERMIT

    keep the faith FoF

  16. 16 Brad
    February 19, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Joseph Smith had ALL of these same questions! That is why he was driven to pray about it and find out the truth. there isn’t ANY DOCTRINE in the Bible that is contrary to the Book of Mormon and the restored Gospel.

    Ladonna, how I hurt for you. There is much that is contradictory between the Bible and the BOM. And inasmuch as you say “we” just don’t “get it”, I would say the same thing about you, unfortunately.

    wouldn’t you LOVE for this to be true?

    Wanting it to be true, doesn’t make it true. I’d love for there to not be a hell, so people wouldn’t have to experience it. Doesn’t mean there’s not a hell, b/c that’s the way God designed it, according to His plan.

    wouldn’t you love to have a prophet of God on the earth today?

    Have the Bible and the Holy Spirit – don’t need a prophet.

    Wouldn’t you love to have the heavens open?

    They are – I can talk to God anytime I want through prayer, and He has sent the Holy Spirit to live with me!

    to have the Holy Priesthood?

    I am already part of a royal priesthood and a holy nation, according to the Bible.

    to be able to bless your family in times of illness or crisis?

    God allows us to pray to Him for strength and wisdom in times of trial.

    To make sacred covenants that bind you to God and to your family?

    When I received salvation, that IS my covenant with God. Same goes for my family’s covenant with Him, as well.

    to feel the power that obedience to the commandments brings into your life?

    Doesn’t provide me with power, provides me with gratitude and satisfaction knowing that I am serving a Savior who has ALREADY saved me, DESPITE the fact that I’m a sinner!

    to strive to be perfect, even as we are commanded?

    Although nobody but Christ can ever be totally perfect, I do my best to follow Christ’s will in my life. Thankfully, b/c salvation is NOT based upon what I do, but rather on what Christ has ALREADY done, I do not have to fear the future.

    to reach out and share the wonderful news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with others?

    I love doing this.

    Someday, you will feel the need to know for yourself if these things are true!

    I know what I have said above IS true, Ladonna, b/c of what the Bible tells me. I don’t have to be a follower of Mormonism to know it.

    I hope that you will remember that Ladonna Morrell has a testimony that they are true! i grew up in a Methodist/Presbyterian home. I searched for the truth and i found it! The Gospel is True.

    How do you know, Ladonna, that Mormonism is true? Is it the witness from the Spirit, the “burning in the bosom”? What if I said I have a similar burning that Mormonism is NOT true? One of us MUST be wrong – how do we know which one?

    you can fight against it, but you will fail!

    How so? What is your basis for the statement, Ladonna? I don’t believe I’ve failed, by not acknowledging Mormonism as true.

    hey and if it wasn’t true, do you think it would be growing and thriving? don’t think so. you all better jump on the band wagon before it is too late!! :)

    Religious belief is most certainly not a “bandwagon”, Ladonna. And check your statistics. A lot of religions are “growing” – Islam is one of the chief ones. Does that mean that Islam is also true? My Southern Baptist church is growing – does that mean that it is also true? How can they all 3 be “true”, when Islam, Southern Baptists and Mormons believe drastically different things?

  17. 17 Brad
    February 19, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    FOF,

    As I guessed, this will be nothing but a he said/he said argument, so neither of us will gain much from it.

    While I believe that Mormonism is incorrect, and does not lead to salvation, I do hope that you will seriously consider its truthfulness if people question it to you. I’m sure you would say the same to me about Mormonism.

    Best wishes.

  18. February 19, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    FoF: maybe this slipped by my hawk like gaze….FoF, did you ever give scripture to match this claim ???

    But after Christ, that expression was changed, and holders of the priesthood, among other duties, blessed and administered the sacrament of the Lord’s supper- bread and wine in remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice- His body and blood.

    if you could repeat that, I’d be much obliged…next postum on the GERMIT

    Blessings on you and yours….and hurry Fri. eve. , hurry

    GERMIT

  19. February 19, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    PS: references to the 12 will be “eye-rolled” as there are NO scriptural ‘tags” , that I’m aware of, that these people were priests, other than the kind talked about by Peter (the priesthood of ALL believers…even…gasp…WOMEN…)

  20. 20 faithoffathers
    February 19, 2009 at 8:50 pm

    germit,

    I never claimed to have a scripture showing clearly that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was performed by Priesthood holders. I was answering a question as to why the Priesthood could possibly be needed after Christ. I was trying to point out that Priesthood holders before Christ directed hearts forward by shedding blood symbolic of what was the future sacrifice of Christ’s blood. Priesthood holders after Christ directed hearts and minds back to His sacrifice by offering Bread and Wine (H2O for us mormons)also in memory of His body and blood. They function the same really, but the expression or mode is different. I think we could agree the need for redirecting our hearts and minds to that offering is huge.

    Brad- I have been questioning everything for years. Hope we all do!

    fof

  21. 21 GB
    February 19, 2009 at 9:00 pm

    References to “the priesthood of All believers” will be “eye-rolled” as this doctrine did NOT exist until Martin Luther FABRICATED it. LOL!!!

  22. February 19, 2009 at 9:42 pm

    GB: laughter is good for the soul, good for the heart, so keep laughing , that’s my counsel…

    My bible has 1stPet 2:5 starting with “you also….are being built up..for a holy priesthood…” let me ask you: WHO IS ‘you also…” who is being addressed ??

    if I had never heard of Martin Luther, these are the questions that GERMIT would ask

    FoF: you wrote

    Priesthood holders after Christ directed
    hearts and minds back to His sacrifice by offering Bread and Wine (H2O for us mormons)also in memory of His body and blood. They function the same really, but the expression or mode is different. I think we could agree the need for redirecting our hearts and minds to that offering is huge

    yes we could, so we agee on this being of monumental importance…honestly probably MORE important than most ev’s realize BUT the NT just doesnt make “priesthood” or “priestly powers” part of this remembrance….all that is read INTO the text by you, my dear LDS friends, or so it seems to me. Like so many other things in the NT, you just don’t need the “special agent” to get the big bang for the buck….back to Jesus being the big deal…

    As an aside: it hits me that many of your thoughts work this way:

    1)there’s this stufff that the bible/Jesus commanded
    2)we need to do them
    3)there had to have been, and presently need to be, people to administer them
    4)these folks would have needed (and presently need) authority
    5)the Mormon priesthood to the rescue….

    that’s pretty crude, sorry, but that’s how I’m reading a lot of it….

    a double portion of weekend shalom on you and yours

    GERMIT

  23. 23 GB
    February 19, 2009 at 10:20 pm

    Germit,

    Peter would be addressing the leadership of the churches. These MEN would have been authorized (ordained to the priesthood) ministers.

    So for Peter to say (5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

    Would be no surprise.

    Also notice that “to offer up spiritual sacrifices” is reminiscent of:

    Heb. 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may OFFER both gifts and SACRIFICES for sins:

    Heb. 8:3 For EVERY high priest is ordained to OFFER gifts and SACRIFICES: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

    Heb. 13:15 By him therefore let us OFFER the SACRIFICE of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
    16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such SACRIFICES God is well pleased.

    I would be very interested if you could provide a single reference to the doctrine of “the priesthood of All believers” in any document that predates Martin Luther in a plain, clear and unmistakable way.

    I won’t hold my breath!! LOL!!!!

  24. February 19, 2009 at 10:43 pm

    GB: you wrote

    I would be very interested if you could provide a single reference to the doctrine of “the priesthood of All believers” in any document that predates Martin Luther in a plain, clear and unmistakable way.

    some things in scripture are hard to get a handle on…I don’t think this one qualifies.
    Peter addressing his audience as “you’ or whatever the greek equivalent would be starts as early as chapter 1, v.2 and v.4 back up to ch1 v.1 and we read

    Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, TO THOSE WHO RESIDE AS ALIENS, SCATTERED THROUGHOUT PONTUS, GALATIA, CAPPADOCIA, ASIA, AND BITHYNIA, WHO ARE CHOSEN…..

    you are EITHER telling me that ALL this audience are male leaders, elders of the church….OR you are telling me that somewhere between ch1.v1 and ch 2 that Peter changes who he is addressing ….. I’ll let you take it from here and defend your position.

    bonus points if you can give me AnY scholar who takes your side in this ….double bonus points if they happen NOT to be LDS…..

    keep laughing , by the way, it’s still medicine for the heart….

    GERmIT

  25. 25 GB
    February 19, 2009 at 10:57 pm

    Germit,

    Peter would have sent his epistle to the leadership of the churches. This is just COMMON SENSE!!! (which, apparently is not very common).

    These leaders were ordained. (This is quite clearly the Biblical pattern. See Luke 6:13, Luke 10:1, John 15:16, Acts 1:24, Acts 6:5, Acts 9:17, Acts 13:2, 2 Cor. 10:8,
    1 Tim. 2:7, Heb. 5:4,)

    These leaders were MEN. (See 1 Cor. 14:34-35 for a reference to how the culture was at the time.)

  26. 26 GERMIT
    February 20, 2009 at 2:38 am

    GB: excuse me if you’ve already answered this but I want to make sure

    Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, TO THOSE WHO RESIDE AS ALIENS, SCATTERED THROUGHOUT PONTUS, GALATIA, CAPPADOCIA, ASIA, AND BITHYNIA, WHO ARE CHOSEN…..

    are you telling me that ALL the people referred to in this verse are male, church leaders ??

    just checking….

    more later……….GERMIT

    PS: who the letter was DELIVERED TO is not the issue, who even READ the letter is not the issue…who is the “you” in v.2,…v4. and the rest of the epistle…

  27. 27 GB
    February 20, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    Germit,

    You are apparently missing the male bonding message of verse 22. LOL!!

    Still waiting for you to provide a pre-Luther reference that plainly, clearly and unmistakably mentions “the priesthood of all believers”.

  28. 28 ladonnamorrell
    February 20, 2009 at 3:36 pm

    oh germit! (sigh) you are beyond help….and why do i think of a strange little green gerbil with webbed feet when i see your log-on name?

  29. 29 GERMIT
    February 20, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    Ladonnamorrell: you know you’re right….”GERMIT” “GERMIE” “GERM-GERM” i’m starting to see them too….. I can blame what I smoked , and inhaled, in the 70’s I guess…..

    GB: you are way beyond convincing….but what the heck, i’ve got the NASB handy, so ….

    1stCor3:16 Do you not know that you (corinthian church) are a temple of GOD, and that the Spirit of GOD dwells in you ?

    connect the dots to 1Pet2:5 you also , as living stones (sound familiar ?) are being built up as a spiritual house for a HOLY PRIESTHOOD, to offer up spiritual sacrifices (you know…like the Levitical priesthood USED TO, before becoming obsolete) acceptable to GOD through Jesus Christ…

    Now I’ll make a wild, wild, guess that you will find this unconvincing….well, GERMIT gave it a few turns around the gerbil wheel….some of my fastest ones (I thot) but how plain do you have to have it GB ?? IRONIC: you are saying that this is LESS plain that the LDS idea of priesthood….we’re still waiting on some kind of NT support for that, but I guess wherever I see “ordained” or “prophet” I’m supposed to fill in “priesthood”…I think that’s how that works…

    PLEASE: keep laughing , life is short, so enjoy (within God’s laws) something lavishly….

    GERMIT

  30. 30 GB
    February 20, 2009 at 7:56 pm

    Germit,

    You are way beyond convincing. I find no NT reference where a woman is “ordained” to anything, perhaps you have one for me. I find no NT reference where a woman is a leader in the church(es), perhaps you have one for me. I find no Biblical reference where a woman is given the priesthood (of any legitimate type). I find no Biblical or non-Biblical reference, prior to Luther, that refers to ANYTHING like “the priesthood of all believers” and you have yet to present one.

    There is another interesting concept presented in the Bible that interweaves the Melchizedek priesthood with the apostles, but to present such evidence here is an apparent waste of time.

    So I will just keep on smiling!!!

    :-)

  31. 31 GERMIT
    February 20, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    GB: just a quick summary of assumptions that you seem to use

    1) ordained always means “priesthood”…did you know that THINGS were occaisionally “ORDAINED” in the NT ?? I’ll chase down the references if you are interested. The Levitical priests were NOT ordained but from that family….strange that GOD changed that without mentioning that change in the bible..

    2) a priest is a leader, and a leader is a priest….
    again, in the OT, the priests were NOT the leaders, they had a special function: admininster the sacrificial system…they may have done a few other things, but the SACRIFICES were the big deal, their major responsibility….until the NT…and then what ???? the NT authors use a VARIETY of words for LEADER in the NT: overseer, bishop, elder (actually, these might be the same greek word on occaision: it would be an interesting word study to track exactly how many greek words were used), but in describing LEADERS, PRIEST just is not there….precious thngs lOST ???

    3) and of course, the assumption that among the “aliens…and those who are CHOSEN…” there are NO WOMEN…. this is a blatant scriptural error on your part, and my challenge on this still stands: does AnYONE of any skill in the field of biblical studies side with GB on this…or are you just “pounding the table” ….sir..????? kind of begs the question: aren’t LDS women “CHOSEN” ??? I would hope so….

    I appreciate the mental and scriptural exercise…though we are probably talking past each other, I’d imagine.

    A glad heart has a continual feast Proverbs 15:15 feast away…

    GERMIT

  32. 32 GB
    February 20, 2009 at 10:33 pm

    Germit,

    You ASSUME to know what my assumptions are!

    Nice list of strawmen you have created there. I hope you have a lot of fun beating them to death. LOL!!

  33. 33 GERMIT
    February 20, 2009 at 10:45 pm

    GB: I’ve already given them names, and they’ll be watching college basketball with me tonight….thanks…..

    GERMIT


Comments are currently closed.

February 2009
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728  

Blog Stats

  • 182,279 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 998 other followers


%d bloggers like this: