Jefferson Tells the Truth

[_Albion]

I stated my questions plainly in my follow up explanation of priesthood in ancient Israel. I will not be drawn into tangents until you answer the questions I posed in that post....questions you have been avoiding by raising other issues, using personal insults, and otherwise blurring the topic. This will be my last post for a while as I am leaving tomorrow for 10 days in Israel. This will give you plenty of time to re-reread the thread and see the questions I posed. I am not holding my breath as I believe you do not read posts the first time around but I live in hope.

[_gdemetz]

Albion, I have carefully read over all you posts again, and I have answered all of you questions except for one. You have mentioned many things, and you asked me what things I disagreed with you about, and I mentioned them! I don't disagree with many of the things you stated, particularly about the Old Testament. Therefore, I didn't mention them! You admit that there was another man besides Christ who held this melchezidek priesthood, by the same name. What makes you think that there could not be others!?! The one question that I did not answer was how many young men in the church hold the levitical priesthood today. The answer is many! One no longer has to be a literal descendant of Abraham, or Levi for that matter to partake of certain gospel blessings because of the principle of adoption which Paul speaks of!

Once again, I emphatically state that you are absolutely wrong about the priesthood not being bestowed in the New Testament! This ordination was done by the laying on of hands. It was given to Stephen and others this way (Acts 6:6), It was given to Paul and Barnabas this way (Acts 13:3), Paul instructed Timothy not to ordain suddenly this way (since one may not be worthy - 1 Timothy 5:22), and Timothy himself was ordained this way (1 Timothy 4:14). What do you think these men (notice there were no women ordained) were ordained to?! THEY WERE ORDAINED TO THE PRESBYTERY, OR PRIESTHOOD!!! Wikipedia correctly states: "The words presbyter, presbyterium, and presbyteratus refer to priests in the English use of the word or presbyters." Therefore, as I previously stated, it is obvious that Bishop Timothy was given the priesthood, or presbytery, by the laying on of hands as were these other men (see 1 Timothy 4:14)!!!!!!! Also, as I stated before, it is obvious that others, are given this priesthood also as it states in the Book of Revelation!!!!!!!

[_Albion]

gdemetz, you did not answer my questions on how the Levitical priesthood was officiated. It doesn't really matter whether you agree or not that there was only one high priest at a time (not the countless number as in Mormonism) It doesn't matter because it is historical fact whether you agree or not. I have just returned from Israel and specifically made a point of asking a Jew I met there (degree and masters from Jerusalem University) about anyone holding the Melchizedek Priesthood...his response was a shaking of the head and a derisive laugh.

In the preceding post you make some pretty dogmatic (based on the exclamation points and such) statements. Firstly, the use of the word "presbytry" does not always refer to priesthood in the English language as checking a good dictionary will confirm. It is used sometimes in reference to various protestant churches "ordaining" elders within those organizations and can sometimes even refer to the house in which the minister lives. The Presbyterian Church uses a form of the word to described their organizational structure.

You have also references two verses to support you premise...neither fits the bill since neither specifically refers to or mentions priesthood in any way. Acts 6:6 is is part of a passage that refers to choosing of seven men to assist in ensuring that the distributions of food to all those deserving it was carried out efficiently without anyone, specifically the widows of Grecian Jews in the number, not getting their share. It is a jump to claim this is priesthood they are being called to. A better description might be what the Mormon Church calls "setting apart". 1 Tim. 14 refers to those who have been gifted to preach and teach, and the reading of scripture. Again, "set apart" for that purpose. You are drawing a conclusion to priesthood that is simply not there...priesthood, and certainly the MP, is not mentioned. I think Mormonism makes a presumption to fit their preconceived (from the mind of Joseph Smith) claim to Jesus's priesthood.

I absolutely don't by any stretch of reasoning see that 1 Timothy 5: 22 refers to priesthood at all for the same reasons as above. I know you want for these verses to support the Mormon position but they simply don't. No amount of !!!!!!!!!!!s will make it so.

You ask the question: "What makes you think there could not be others (holding the Melchizedek Priesthood?" I could respond: What makes you think there are others when the Bible makes no mention of it? I don't need to jump to conclusions to support some extra Biblical position and that is not supported by a reading of Hebrews and Jewish history.

[_gdemetz]

You don't know what you are talking about, as usual, Albion. You stated that there was only one priest. Not true! How could there be only one priest when the Old Testament clearly states that Aaron AND HIS SONS WERE GIVEN THE PPIESTHOOD, not to mention the whole tribe of Levi! You ask me to Google a site that teaches the false evangelical doctrine of the "priesthood of the believers"! Give me a break! If all believers automatically had the priesthood, then why was the priesthood given to Bishop Timothy by the laying on of hands?!? Think Albion! You really need to study the Bible prayerfully and PONDER!

[_ludwigm]

You don't know what you are talking about, as usual, Albion.

You are as rude as usual, gdemetz.
Near all of Your comments are worth to report as impolite.

Instead of this type rants, please fix "Jeffderson" to "Jefferson"

- if You are able to do that simple thing...

[_Albion]

gdemtz, I think I have about had it with you. It is clear that you do not read my posts nor give them any thought to respond. In this last post of your's you clearly misrepresent what I have said....at no point have I ever said there was not more than one priest. What I did say, and what is proven by Jewish history and culture, is that there was only one HIGH Priest as any one time. For you to suggest I have said anything other than this is deceitful. You gave a couple of references to prove your contention about priesthood in the New Testament. I gave you logical responses to these but for some reason you totally ignored them. If you have evidence against what I said, post it.

I repeat what I have said over and over....there is not one demonstrable verse indicating the conferring of either the Levitical or the MP in the New Testament. You are clutching at straws to support the Mormon position which is extra Biblical.

[_gdemetz]

OK Albion, I have given you so many already, but here is another one:

"And when they had ordained them elders in every city..." Acts 14:23

I am confident that you will have an evangelical spin to this one too as you have had for all the others, however, you never answered my question either as to why Bishop Timothy had to receive his ordination by the Laying on of hands since, according to the false non Biblical "priesthood of the believer" theory, he should have had that when he allegedly walked down the isle to make his profession of faith?

[_Albion]

gdemetz: As I have stated, you have not a single reference in the New Testament to anyone being ordained to priesthood be it Levitical or MP. I can understand your confusion since the world "ordain" is only used within Mormonism in the process of conferring Mormonism's priesthood. In reality the word ordain in not necessarily used in the way that you use it. Governments and rulers ordain things to be when they issue decrees or laws. Christian ministers are ordained to their calling but they are not ordained to a priesthood in the way that Mormons are. The verse you quote in Acts 14:23 seems to fit Mormonism nicely...after all it mentions ordaining (appointed in the more scholarly NIV) and it mentions "elders"....so by Mormon understanding I suppose the conclusion is drawn: we have a priesthood office called "elders" we ordain them, so it must mean priesthood and confirms our position. It simply doesn't...as I have explained "setting part" would be a better interpretation and one you might understand. When you can give one NTreference that clearly and with clarity talks of priesthood, using that word, I shall be glad to revisit.

Oxford Dictionary: Ordain: Confer holy orders on. 2 order officially.

Random House Dictionary: 1. To invest with ministerial or sacerdotal function s; confer holy orders upon. 2.enact or establish by law, edict, etc. 3. to decree something should be done4. to destine or predestine. 5. to order or command. Thus do the gods ordain.

[_subgenius]

gdemetz: As I have stated, you have not a single reference in the New Testament to anyone being ordained to priesthood be it Levitical or MP. I can understand your confusion since the world "ordain" is only used within Mormonism in the process of conferring Mormonism's priesthood. In reality the word ordain in not necessarily used in the way that you use it. Governments and rulers ordain things to be when they issue decrees or laws. Christian ministers are ordained to their calling but they are not ordained to a priesthood in the way that Mormons are. The verse you quote in Acts 14:23 seems to fit Mormonism nicely...after all it mentions ordaining (appointed in the more scholarly NIV) and it mentions "elders"....so by Mormon understanding I suppose the conclusion is drawn: we have a priesthood office called "elders" we ordain them, so it must mean priesthood and confirms our position. It simply doesn't...as I have explained "setting part" would be a better interpretation and one you might understand. When you can give one NTreference that clearly and with clarity talks of priesthood, using that word, I shall be glad to revisit.

Oxford Dictionary: Ordain: Confer holy orders on. 2 order officially.

Random House Dictionary: 1. To invest with ministerial or sacerdotal function s; confer holy orders upon. 2.enact or establish by law, edict, etc. 3. to decree something should be done4. to destine or predestine. 5. to order or command. Thus do the gods ordain.

Just for kicks
1 Peter 2:9...
but seriously,
Pslams 110 clearly predicts the priesthood moving from AP to MzP...this is a very sensible progression, especially within the LDS Church.
We see this in Hebrews 7:12 as well.
but i am sure you have some slight of hand, in this context, for the definition of "everlasting".....
but i digress..
you seem to be entirely unaware that the LDS Church does not believe, nor is there good and reasonable cause to believe, that Heavenly Father has closed the Book on revealing scripture and testimony to His children. I realize that the "amen" at the end of Revelations has dire meaning to you, but it is just not what you think it is.
So, while we certainly see the role of the priesthood throughout all the scriptures, your interpretation and understanding are insufficient. Seemingly your argument would cherry pick through the scriptures to support your own man-based-evangelical theology and then beat the drum of some textbook-handed-down-from-the-pulpit-of-man message - the reverse is true my friend, you should let the scriptures define your argument.

Christian ministers are "ordained" by a college degree, by an object of man, nothing more, nothing less. Ordain is used quite clearly throughout the KJV...your secular definition is just that...secular.
see also Titus 1:5 "ordain elders" - 1 Tim 5:22 "Lay hands suddenly on no man [to ordain]" and 2 Tim 1:6 - and 1 Chron 9:22, etc...
but perhaps you can explain, or justify, why a Christian minister is ever in need of being "ordained" in the first place?

Perhaps we could just wait for you to clarify Psalms 110:4 with your definition of "forever" or "for ever after"
So, quick to toss aside the Old Testament when it does not fit your secular view of the scriptures. Most would clarify and illuminate how the Old Testament actually supports their New Testament position..which is often the case with a successful argument...like the Mormon argument here.

as for "specific" references, where in the New Testament is the MzP specifically done away with? (specifically)

Personally, i think it is just abundantly clear that you, once again, are confused...this time about the priesthood administration in church and the priesthood mediation of Christ.
Clearly the laying on of hands occurs in the New Testament....clearly

i think it is wise to ponder Acts 20:28
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
overseers?
This is how Paul addresses the "elders" of the church whom he had called to him
i would also reference you to the translations of the words presbuteros and episcopos, and how they were often interchanged in the New Testament.

[_subgenius]

gdemetz: As I have stated, you have not a single reference in the New Testament to anyone being ordained to priesthood be it Levitical or MP....

Please, read in order
Titus 1:5

James 5:14-15

Romans 15:15-16

Revelation 5:8

Then pay attention to Jude 11 (if not all of Jude)...a clear notion that usurping the priesthood will not fair thee well.