Jutta wrote:by the way, the aaronic priesthood belongs ONLY to the successors of Aaron, not to ANY Kind of church priesthood. Not LDS, not RCC, not FLDS or different sects and cults.
Jutta: You are quite correct in stating that the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood was confined by direct lineage. As the book of Hebrews makes clear it was swallowed up in the higher Melchizedec priesthood to which Jesus ascended and which is eternally his and not transferable to anyone else.
I agree but it is God who cares for lineage. Obviously not in all cases but in some He does go out of His way to make certain people of a certain lineage carry out His plans.
Hi Franklin, I can see why someone would take that position, yet the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament writings are replete with examples of a theology that states the God is no respector of persons and does not show partiality.
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
Jutta: You are quite correct in stating that the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood was confined by direct lineage. As the book of Hebrews makes clear it was swallowed up in the higher Melchizedec priesthood to which Jesus ascended and which is eternally his and not transferable to anyone else.
The Hebrew writer's use of Melchizedek is fascinating. He's late to the party in chronological terms I believe. Until the Temple was destroyed I don't know that the Apostles of the Jewish Jesus movement would have agreed that there was no longer a need for Levites in the temple since they ensured that Paul attended the temple to indicate his Jewishness, but I can see how later writers would have used the character of Melchizedek to embed Jesus authority since he wasn't from a priestly lineage. Jesus himself doesn't refer to himself in this manner however. What think you?
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
Jesus, Paul and Joseph Smith all claimed authority by direct revelation against a backdrop of years of established authority lines. Though Judaism did allow for revelation through the words of Prophets who appeared to be accepted on the basis of the quality and accuracy of their teachings in terms of what was already known and how much foresight they had after the fact. These Prophets could indeed be both male and female.
Later New Testament commentators might have used perceptions of those established authority lines and interesting interpretations of the more mysterious authority line in the case of Melchizedek as pertaining to Jesus to develop ideas of cohesiveness, harmony, structure and obedience within the developing traditions, but there is good evidence I believe that Jesus attitude to authority was liberal as I have already argued.
Paul claimed his call by direct revelation. He, as far as we know, wasn't set apart or called by the Apostles. He was a living embodiment of an example of someone who Jesus perhaps would have advised the Apostles to leave him be as he was 'for them', not 'against' them. However, we do know that differences over the details did cause ripples as can be seen from the recollections of a Jerusalem Council before the Temple was destroyed.
I think all of this gives hope to various women's movements throughout the world that seek for equal footing with men in terms of management, leadership and so forth.
One interesting question is if Paul had claimed divine authority within the structure of the current LDS leadership, whether he would have been excommunicated as 'God' doesn't work that way, but through established authority lines? I think he would, and I think that point should give the church leadership and members pause for thought.
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
You will need to be specific in your response M. Needless to say that I don't agree with your perception of my attitudes.
I am arguing that Jesus had a liberal attitude to authority, and that true power was to be shown by love and service. This is not how the LDS church operates today, and this is not how the early church operated as it became institutionalised.
Jesus himself gives hope and precedent to a greater role for women, as does Paul.
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
Few days ago there was a report about the women of the new testament on German television. Under this Junia who was declared a man in the Middle Ages and Mary Magdalene, the first female apostle of the early Church. Too bad that there is not this documentation in English. The LDS would see that women had leading roles in the early church, lead and baptized even in the early Church.
“People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.” --- G.K. Chesterton
Jutta wrote:Few days ago there was a report about the women of the new testament on German television. Under this Junia who was declared a man in the Middle Ages and Mary Magdalene, the first female apostle of the early Church. Too bad that there is not this documentation in English. The LDS would see that women had leading roles in the early church, lead and baptized even in the early Church.
What I find interesting about Junia, is that the manuscript evidence indicates that translators and redactors came across the female form of the name and perplexed by the implication changed it to the masculine form, or later scholars changed the meaning of the sentence so that the Apostles esteemed her and her working partner rather than esteemed her as an Apostle.
Patriarchy was deeply embedded in Greek, Roman and indeed much of Judaic life. When Jesus talks to the Samaritan woman at the well, the men who followed him were surprised. He, as he is often portrayed as doing, went against social mores and conventions. This stance continued into the Gospels of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. The Apostles are still swept up in a patriarchal worldview, and Mary challenges that. Even if these Gospels are late, they indicate that the subject of the role of women was being grappled with by some early Jesus followers in some areas, and that these ideas were important enough that they saw some distribution around pockets of the early Christian communities.
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov