T
thenobes
Guest
I see. You are saying there were no descendants of Aaron?
All died out?? I don’t think so.
Makes “surely” into pretty unsure thing.
peace,
steve
Comparing the LDS/Mormon Church With the New Testament Church
- Status
All died out?? I don’t think so.
Makes “surely” into pretty unsure thing.
peace,
steve
T
thenobes
Guest
While the generations of Aaron have existed from BC times, and so JS had no reason to restore a priesthood that God said would be everlasting ( ie wthout break), this does present the Catholic Church with the problem of a competing priesthood, so to speak, in the Hebrew line of Aaron.
peace,
steve
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
You stated, “Another Catholic source says that the role of Evangelist was uncertain”. The Catholic Encyclopedia *said *nothing of the sort. That’s what you’re reading into it. What we do see is that the Catholic Encyclopedia finds evidences to point to what the role of the Evangelist was in the early Church, and that evidence does not support the LDS equivalence of Evangelist=Patriarch.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Yes, not all bishops are apostles. Catholics believe in “apostolic succession”, the belief that the bishops are the successors of the apostles, and trace their authority back to the original apostles of the Church. However, we do not believe that the bishops are apostles, though they do hold the same office (i.e. bishop). This is a basic Catholic teaching.Not all Bishops are Apostles?
Catholic Answers says this (catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession):
Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).
As you say, the work in question, “episkopen”, is the word that has been translated as “bishop” in English. Indeed, you often hear reference to the “episcopate”, which refers to the office of bishop. So, the Greek does indeed support the view that it is the “bishopric” office that is being taken up.
Perhaps you would like to cite the relevant section from his work so we can see exactly what he is stating. However, it is quite telling that numerous Orthodox scholars and theologians, despite rejecting the Catholic claim to Papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction of the Pope, readily acknowledge the historical fact that the Church of Rome had primacy in the ancient Church. I doubt Duchesne would claim otherwise, however again, I’d like to see the actual context and statement of his.
A
Alma147
Guest
The point of my initial message was that an everlasting priesthood could hardly be done away. I haven’t argued for the contrary. Given that there are descendants of Aaron leads to the simple conclusion (if you accept Exodus as God’s word) that the priesthood can’t have been done away.
AA
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Hebrews 7 addresses this.
The priesthood in Exodus was one that prefigured the Priesthood of Jesus Christ. Also, the purpose of the Levitical priesthood was to serve at the temple, in preparation of the bloody sacrifices. This priesthood was passed on from father to son, perpetually, as the father would die of course, and so this priesthood was kept going by anointing a son.
Again, read Hebrews, where it clearly explains that Jesus fulfills the Law, including the temple sacrifice. The Levitical high priest is not needed because the Law is fulfilled. Jesus being the perfect Sacrifice. Jesus lives, and there is no need for Him to pass on His priesthood as he is The High Priest forever. He is the Christ, the Anointed One. He is both, the Sacrifice and the High Priest.
T
Tarquin
Guest
Mormons interpret this to mean a new priesthood was added alongside (or ‘upside’) the Levitical Priesthood. Confusingly, they also say that there is “only one priesthood - the Aaronic priesthood is ‘an appendage’ .”
A more correct understanding of the word μετατίθημι would be “changed,” “transferred [in]to,” “exchanged.” The “lower priesthood” did not “change.” Rather, it was “exchanged.” The “shadow” was exchanged for the “reality.” (Hebrews 10:1)
This understanding fits better with other verses relating to this change of priesthood and law.
“For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19(for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.”
“Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant”
“Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary”
“They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.”
“For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”
“The **law **is only a **shadow **of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did **not **desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.
Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll — I have come to do your will, my God.’ ”
First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first in order to establish the second.”
T
Tarquin
Guest
This is all irrelevant in the context of the way in which Mormon missionaries and members introduce their priesthoods and argue that the Mormon Church is a perfect restoration of an imagined institution existing at the time of Jesus. The points being made with “investigators” is not how fluid responsibilities were in Jesus day, under his guidance. The points being made with them is “our church structure matches the church structure described in the New Testament better than any other church on the face of the earth.”
The Mormons use the New Testament to show that there were in the time of Jesus apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, and so on. They do not explain that these terms were “fluid.” They claim that these were “offices” in the New Testament institutional Church. They then say that they are the only Church that has these offices. At least they used to, even though that has never been true.
The Mormons have “teachers” so that justifies them (Mormons) in their own eyes. They don’t have “evangelists” but by redefining - actually renaming - they claim to have evangelists, whose modern title is patriarch (or whatever). Some things that cannot deal with well, such as “pastors.” This they throw around somewhat arbitrarily, in my view, as seen in this thread. But in fact there was an actual office of “pastor” in the Mormon Church for a short time! If members knew that today, some would ask why the word “pastor” is so “fluid” - wasn’t Jesus certain about what a pastor should be. The “pastor” was sort of like “Assistant President of the Church”, “Counselor,” “Regional President,” “Assistant to the Twelve Apostles” (1941-1976, no sign of it being an office 30-33), “Patriarch” (talk about a fluid term!), and entire institutions of which the Church membership is generally ignorant (e.g., the Council of the Church, and the Common Council of the Church).
How do Mormons argue that Peter was the “longest serving” apostle? (He is *not *always called first.)
Literally, “so what”? There are precedents for calling ones, twos, threes, fives, tens, fifties, and more numbers. That is no argument for the existence of an office with the name of a Number. I’m not saying I don’t believe there could be such an office. I am saying that calling numbers of people is not supportive of the existence of an office sharing that number as its Name.
Then 4:11 could be rewritten: “So Christ himself gave the apostles as pastors, the prophets as pastors, the evangelists as pastors, and the pastor as pastors,” Or, “So Christ himself gave the pastors, pastors, pastors, pastors.”
So much for a neat and tidy priesthood structure. See how much neater it is to see pastors as something different from but in the same category as prophets and evangelists: “And he distributed gifts among the body so that some served as apostles, while others served as prophets, yet others served as evangelists, and others, too, as pastors (and teachers).”Cool. So you accept Ignatius as an authority for Priesthood offices and functions!??
- Status