No three degrees of Glory in 1 Cor 15

[Guest]

...

[_gdemetz]

My post was not put in so I will try to post again. There are three degrees of glory of the resurrected bodies, and they will not all go to the same heaven. The ones that 'shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father' will inherit the "third heaven" which Paul as well as D&C 76 mention, Albion. The false concept that the first heaven is the earth's atmosphere, as you mentioned, can be found nowhere in any scripture!

[_Albion]

Well, gdedmetz, there's absolutely no BIblical mention of anyone other than Jesus holding the MP but that never stopped Mormons from usurping it and taking other scriptures out of context. In reading any scripture in the Bible an understanding of the local culture, history and belief is very helpful to understanding. Paul's contemporaries would have clearly understood his meaning in using "third heaven" given the understanding of the time. Mittens demonstrates this in the thread on the thief going to the "third heaven".

[_gdemetz]

Hello, Albion? the reason it was named the Melchezedek priesthood is because it was the priesthood held by Melchezedek! Also, the Jews did not want to keep speaking of the holy priesthood AFTER the order of the Son of God. Also, you comment about the thief going to the third heaven is totally false and can not be found in the Bible are any other scripture!

[_Albion]

and the nails that held Jesus to the cross are elevated to prominence in the process of usurping a priesthood to which only Jesus has entitlement.

[_Albion]

Well, that was a waste. An entire post disappeared except for the last line. To repeat. I made no reference to the thief going to the "third heaven", either for or against, only reference to Mittens' thread under that title, in which she/he explains the common understanding of Paul's day about the heavens. Did you even go there to read it? I am talking of the Bible reference where he does use the term rather than the one where he doesn't.

I understand the references to Melchizedek in the Bible. Apart from a passing reference in Psalms, there is only connection between the man Melchizedek to whom Abraham gave his tithes, signifying his specialness and holiness, and Jesus whose credentials are beyond dispute. No references anywhere between those...no mention of anyone having this priesthood...no one being sufficiently worthy until Jesus who was annointed with this holy priesthood in order to enter the holy of holies, the place where God dwells, breaking down the separation between God and man (symbolically demonstrated by the rending of the temple veil from top to bottom) to make intercession, once and for all (instead of year after year after year by the single high priest on the day of atonement). If Christ split the temple veil at his death, ending its need, why has Mormonism sewn it back together again?

Mormonism usurps a priesthood to which only Jesus is worthy and entitled to hold. The MP is not mentioned anywhere in scripture simply because no one held it till Jesus. Mormon temples may not display the cross but they certainly elevate the nails which held Christ to it, using the nail as the symbol of their false and usurped priesthood. Clearly a ritual and process inspired by the adversary.

[_gdemetz]

Albion, hello, that is why it was named after Melchezedek because he held it. One does not have to be perfect to hold it, but it sure helps as in the case of Christ. Once again, you are arguing against logic as well as against the scriptures. There is no scripture that states that Christ is the only one who holds the MELCHEZEDEK priesthood.

[_PrickKicker]

Albion, hello, that is why it was named after Melchezedek because he held it. One does not have to be perfect to hold it, but it sure helps as in the case of Christ. Once again, you are arguing against logic as well as against the scriptures. There is no scripture that states that Christ is the only one who holds the MELCHEZEDEK priesthood.

So... the church has to be named after Christ.
Prayers have to be said in the name of Christ.

But for some strange reason...
'the holy priesthood after the order of the son of God', has to be re-named after some high? priest from a pre aaronic order, whose belief system is un-established, but possibly Noachide laws, who was possibly even one of the sons of Noah, Shem? Who allegedly saved all the animals in the entire world on his boat and repopulated the earth after the flood, and whom Abraham supposedly paid protection money to in return for after life insurance?... and then was the priest of Jethro, Moses's father in-law.

So we are to believe that in order to avoid the too frequent repetition of the name of the Supreme Being... (According to Joe Smith.)

Even though the statement 'the holy priesthood after the order of the son of God', doesn't contain one of the many CODE NAMES for the son of God?

Where is the logic there?
Especially, when we pray in Jesus name 2/3 times a day, how many time does one discuss the priesthood that it would warrant this sanction?

What Utter nonsense.

[_gdemetz]

Kicker, that was a Jewish restriction of using the name of deity!

[_PrickKicker]

Kicker, that was a Jewish restriction of using the name of deity!

I think Martin Luther just got fed up with writing there real names, or got a bit to prudish,

Jewish Restriction?

Not when duplicating the Torah, It would have had to have been word for word perfect.

Perhaps Martin tried ritualistic washing every time the WORDs came up, and just wasn't as dedicated to perfection as the Jews.
So decided to change the words instead.

Who knows?