LDS Melchizedek Priesthood

[n2thelight]

Melchizedek,was Christ,will just leave it at that!

 

[Preacher4Truth]

.
According to the letter to Hebrews, a Melchizedek high priest must be
childless. That alone disqualifies most Mormon men because they're typically
married with children.

In addition: Melchizedek high priests have to be human, but at the same
time they cannot be someone who came into existence by birth. In other
words: Melchizedek high priests always were, they always are, and they
always will be, i.e. they have no genealogy to trace.

This is problematic because the current Melchizedek high priest is Jesus
Christ; a Jewish man who can be easily proven not only human, but also
easily proven that he came into existence by birth, and also has a genealogy
that can be traced.

Were Jesus Christ only human, he would not qualify for Melchizedek high
priesthood. But we know from John 1:1-14 and Heb 3:3-4 that Jesus Christ
is also divine. This may seem like a trivial issue but according to the New
Testament's letter to Hebrews; in order for someone to be an effective
mediator between God and Man, he has to be both human and divine.

I seriously doubt that there's even one sensible Mormon man anywhere on
Earth who would dare lay claim to being both human and divine. Those are
some really big shoes to fill.
_

Jesus didn't "come into existence by birth." Since that is your belief you're as heretical as a Mormon that you're attempting to rebuke.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

.
According to the letter to Hebrews, a Melchizedek high priest must be childless.

Citation?

In addition: Melchizedek high priests have to be human, but at the same time they cannot be someone who came into existence by birth.

Citation for this being literal?

.
This is problematic because the current Melchizedek high priest is Jesus Christ
; a Jewish man who can be easily proven not only human, but also
easily proven that he came into existence by birth, and also has a genealogy
that can be traced.

Yeah, that thoroughly disproves your points here.

I seriously doubt that there's even one sensible Mormon man anywhere on
Earth who would dare lay claim to being both human and divine.

???
You got some crazy ideas there.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

this actual "Mormon" is very thoroughly studied on many faiths, including
various Evangelical schools of thoughts. I love study and I love Christ. My
individual choice of faith is the result of intense scripture study and prayer.

Speaking for the normal Christians hereabouts: if Mormons challenge you to
produce textual evidence to substantiate your knowledge of the Bible's two
high priesthoods: don't do it. Instead tell them that if they want textual
evidence then they will just have to study the letter to Hebrews themselves
because you're not telling.

The reason I recommend that stance is because Mormon missionaries are
supposedly well-versed so that you shouldn't have to produce textual
evidence. Don't let them talk you out of this by citing rules of academic
discussion and so forth. You're neither a salesman nor a politician, i.e. you
don't have to win; all you have to do is know what you're talking about; and
as for him that's biblically ignorant; let him be ignorant still.

● Acts 17:10-11 . . And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away
by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of
the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica,
for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures
daily, to see whether these things were so.

Follow the Berean Jews' example and demand that Mormon missionaries do
their own research. They shouldn't expect others to do it for them when they
can do it themselves. Personally I do not believe in accommodating sloth.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● Heb 5:9-11 . . He became, to all those who obey him, the source of
eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the
order of Melchizedek. Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to
explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

Though the author of the letter to Hebrews was no doubt duty-bound and
inspired by God to write it, I can sense reluctance in his tone-- not because
his audience lacked enough spiritual acumen to keep up. No, nothing like
that. The Greek word for "dull" primarily means sluggish, i.e. lazy, slow,
and/or indifferent, i.e. a lack of interest. In other words, he knew that the
recipients of his letter would likely be bored to tears by his discussion of
Jesus Christ's association with the high priest order of Melchizedek, and
would resist making an honest effort to understand it.

The author's comment is expected in a letter primarily intended for Jews; for
example:

● Matt 13:14-15 . . And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which
saith: "By hearing Ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing
Ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive" for this people's heart is waxed
gross, And their ears are dull of hearing, And their eyes they have closed.
_

 

[Jane_Doe22]

.
Speaking for the normal Christians hereabouts: if Mormons challenge you to
produce textual evidence to substantiate your knowledge of the Bible's two
high priesthoods: don't do it.

The reason I recommend that stance is because Mormon missionaries are
supposedly well-versed so that you shouldn't have to produce textual
evidence. Don't let them talk you out of this by citing rules of academic
discussion and so forth. You're neither a salesman nor a politician, i.e. you
don't have to win; all you have to do is know what you're talking about; and
as for him that's biblically ignorant; let him be ignorant still.

● Acts 17:10-11 . . And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away
by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of
the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica,
for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures
daily, to see whether these things were so.

Follow the Berean Jews' example and demand that Mormon missionaries do
their own research. They shouldn't expect others to do it for them when they
can do it themselves. Personally I do not believe in accommodating sloth.

So you're advising not actually substantiate the claims you're making or having a real discussion, or doing any real research/brain power yourself, and reinforcing their sterotypes that others are slothful.

Yeah... going disagree with you there. It's better just to talk to people. Show yourself and see them.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Correct. The true biblical teaching on the Melchizedek priesthood is that it is a HEAVENLY priesthood, and only the Lord Jesus Christ is the Great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. And He is presently in the HEAVENLY Sanctuary. Indeed, it is more than likely that Melchizedek was none other than a theophany or Christophany of Christ Himself.

The king-priest Melchizedek is a mysterious figure in the book of Genesis, where he met Abraham (Abram at the time), offered him bread and wine, and in turn received tithes from Abraham, after the slaughter of the Gentile kings connected with the abduction of Lot (Genesis 14). And then SIMPLY DISAPPEARED.

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. 19 And he blessed him [Abram], and said, Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth: 20 And blessed be the Most High God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he [Abram] gave him [Melchizedek] tithes of all.

Since kings were not normally priests, nor priests kings, we see here a type of Christ, who is BOTH King of kings and High Priest in Heaven. Therefore the Holy Spirit teaches us the origin and significance of Melchizedek in the epistle to the Hebrews.

HEBREWS 6 & 7
19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil [the Heavenly Sanctuary];
20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec [Melchizedek transliterated from Greek]
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. [Note: Melchizedek is eternal]
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. [Note: Melchizedek is eternal]
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. [Note: Melchizedek is under the New Covenant]
13 For He of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. [Note: Melchizedek is eternal]
17 For He [God the Father] testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. [Note: Melchizedek is eternal]
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath He was made priest:
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by Him [God the Father] that said unto him [God the Son], The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better Testament [Covenant]. [Note: a better Testament = the New Covenant]
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this Man, because He continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. [Note: Melchizedek is eternal]
25 Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them. [Note: the eternal security of the believer]
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for His own sins, and then for the people's: for this He did once, when He offered up Himself. [Note: Christ the High Priest was also the Lamb of God]
28 For the Law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word o24f the oath, which was since the Law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. [Note: Melchizedek is eternal]

Correct, Hebrews 7:24 shows the main reason Melchizedek is mentioned.
It is no accident that Psalm110 is quoted 6 times in the NT.

 

[friend of]

Is it true that some mormon sects are actually engaged in teaching Freemasonry?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Is it true that some mormon sects are actually engaged in teaching Freemasonry?

Free Masonary is a social. club, any person can be a part of it, and many Americans have been in the past/are.

Yes, I do realize that some people consider Masonry this big conspiracy thing. I disagree, but do acknowledge that view.

 

[Mike Waters]

When I lived in Spain my part time work in a Christian friend's Art Gallery brought me into contact with a Mormon guy who turned out to be one of the most gentle and caring 'Christlike' guys that I have ever met.
Also, now that I'm back in the UK, I attend a Christian sponsored lunch club and regularly share a table that includes a couple who I eventually found to be Mormons. They invited me to their 'church' and, out of respect, I went just one time.
But I have to say that I was greatly impressed with the fellowship there, and with the fact that, as distinct from the pensioner style dying congregations of many local Christian denominations, theirs was well attended and vibrantly comprised of a complete range of age groups.
Whilst I remain a relatively mainstream nonconformist Christian I have to say that I know of some ultra fundamentalist Christians with plenty of convictions that (to me) are on a par with the Mormon 'misconceptions'.

One day the 'darkened glass' will be no more, and we shall all "know even as we are known when we finally see Christ face to face".

 

[Mike Waters]

So this is just another slam attack on misrepresentations of another's faith? Well, that makes like #155109 from this week alone.

I enjoy membership of another forum that has an opening paragraph of its registration agreement that reads:

"In addition to the following standard registration conditions you are required to agree to abide by the forum's catholic (all embracing) ethos; which is to accept that every member who might conceivably be part of the 'Body of Christ' (yourself included) is unlikely to be either wholly right or wholly wrong, and to respond to other members accordingly"

 

[Brakelite]

The word "Antichrist" means instead of, replacement for, Christ. The entire priesthood of the Catholic church claims Mediatorial prerogatives that belong only to the true Christ who ministers in heaven as our High Priest. The only Mediator between God and man.
I admit to not knowing much about the Mormon priesthood. But if they claim any position that replaces Christ as sole Mediator, then the Mormon priesthood is replacing Christ, acting as a counterfeit, and is therefore Antichrist in nature.

 

[Mike Waters]

The word "Antichrist" means instead of, replacement for, Christ. The entire priesthood of the Catholic church claims Mediatorial prerogatives that belong only to the true Christ who ministers in heaven as our High Priest. The only Mediator between God and man.
I admit to not knowing much about the Mormon priesthood. But if they claim any position that replaces Christ as sole Mediator, then the Mormon priesthood is replacing Christ, acting as a counterfeit, and is therefore Antichrist in nature.

Personally I place great reliance on 'Christ Within' coupled with the hymn "The dearest idol I have known, what ere that idol be, help me to tear it from thy throne, and worship only Thee".
In which respect I see any such idol as being what you call "replacement for Christ" ('Christ Within' as I see it) and, by your reasoning, those who thus replace 'Christ Within' by their various idols constitute "AntiChrist".
Dare I say it (as an example), but those who quench the allotted work of God's Holy in implanting the real 'Word of God' into the "fleshy tables of a believer's heart", effectively subordinate the Holy Spirit into fourth person of the Godhead (being replaced in third place by 'their idol' of any of the 100 odd 'versions' of the Bible).
And before anyone tells me that the Bible is the "one and only verbally inspired and inerrant Word of God", permit the reminder that not a single original manuscript remains (only reproduced copies which vary slightly one from another, but nevertheless enough to quash the 'verbally inerrant' bit) and in any case just take a peep at the dictionary definition of the word 'version'...Q.E.D. ??

 

[Brakelite]

Personally I place great reliance on 'Christ Within' coupled with the hymn "The dearest idol I have known, what ere that idol be, help me to tear it from thy throne, and worship only Thee".
In which respect I see any such idol as being what you call "replacement for Christ" ('Christ Within' as I see it) and, by your reasoning, those who thus replace 'Christ Within' by their various idols constitute "AntiChrist".
Dare I say it (as an example), but those who quench the allotted work of God's Holy in implanting the real 'Word of God' into the "fleshy tables of a believer's heart", effectively subordinate the Holy Spirit into fourth person of the Godhead (being replaced in third place by 'their idol' of any of the 100 odd 'versions' of the Bible).
And before anyone tells me that the Bible is the "one and only verbally inspired and inerrant Word of God", permit the reminder that not a single original manuscript remains (only reproduced copies which vary slightly one from another, but nevertheless enough to quash the 'verbally inerrant' bit) and in any case just take a peep at the dictionary definition of the word 'version'...Q.E.D. ??

Personal idols are not counterfeit Christs. They are not fraudulently acting out as priests (intercessors/mediators). Idols they may be, but at least they are honest idols... They are not pretending to be something they are not.... Unlike the papacy.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

When I lived in Spain my part time work in a Christian friend's Art Gallery brought me into contact with a Mormon guy who turned out to be one of the most gentle and caring 'Christlike' guys that I have ever met.

Yes, they come to you in sheep's clothing, Matthew 7:15. Note 2 Corinthians 11:13-15

One day the 'darkened glass' will be no more, and we shall all "know even as we are known when we finally see Christ face to face".

Yes, yet even now we can know their "Christ" is not the Christ revealed in Scripture. Their "gospel" is not the Gospel of Scripture, they've supplanted and replaced that covenant (testament) with another covenant (testament) of "Jesus Christ." Their invented book of Mormon calls itself "another testament of Jesus Christ" yet there is no other. Note Galatians 1:8-10. That right there shows it is false, "another" "gospel."

Being nice, friendly isn't the acid test, it could mean false teacher. All cults come off this way. It's "Don't pay attention to our message, see how nice we are?" In fact @Jane_Doe22 hides what she truly believes and outright denies the teachings when we link to their official teachings and document them. Note 2 Corinthians 4:2. True Gospel preaching does not hide their true beliefs. All Mormons hide what they truly teach, this is a well known fact. Search online for Jeff Durbin and witnessing to Mormons and you will see it first-hand.

Finally, compare their different "gospel" and their different "Christ" with Scripture. Theirs is a false gospel and false Christ, it is "another testament." No need for any professing believers to be gullible.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Yes, they come to you in sheep's clothing, Matthew 7:15. Note 2 Corinthians 11:13-15



Yes, yet even now we can know their "Christ" is not the Christ revealed in Scripture. Their "gospel" is not the Gospel of Scripture, they've supplanted and replaced that covenant (testament) with another covenant (testament) of "Jesus Christ." Their invented book of Mormon calls itself "another testament of Jesus Christ" yet there is no other. Note Galatians 1:8-10. That right there shows it is false, "another" "gospel."

Being nice, friendly isn't the acid test, it could mean false teacher. All cults come off this way. It's "Don't pay attention to our message, see how nice we are?" In fact @Jane_Doe22 hides what she truly believes and outright denies the teachings when we link to their official teachings and document them. Note 2 Corinthians 4:2. True Gospel preaching does not hide their true beliefs. All Mormons hide what they truly teach, this is a well known fact. Search online for Jeff Durbin and witnessing to Mormons and you will see it first-hand.

Finally, compare their different "gospel" and their different "Christ" with Scripture. Theirs is a false gospel and false Christ, it is "another testament." No need for any professing believers to be gullible.

Amen! Well stated.

 

[bbyrd009]

Melchizedek is a person,

"Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,

ha, listen to yourself, man

Of course Melchizedek was a person.

jd, i must say i am surprised. "Of course" should tell you all you need to know imo
The amazing name Melchizedek: meaning and etymology

 

[bbyrd009]

"a horse is a horse,
of course, of course"

 

[bbyrd009]

Being nice, friendly isn't the acid test, it could mean false teacher. All cults come off this way. It's "Don't pay attention to our message, see how nice we are?" In fact @Jane_Doe22 hides what she truly believes and outright denies the teachings when we link to their official teachings and document them.

i agree with you to a point here, but a poseur will always, always always, have a Mr Hyde that quickly makes itself evident, and i dont oberve this in LDS?

At the end of the day we are judged for our works done while in the body, and imo you would be hard pressed to bring any meaningful charges against a mormon? as opposed to wadr you, i mean, and prolly even me? Not saying i wanna hear one preach, dont get me wrong, but
id rather never eat meat again
seems like was even written with Mormons in mind?

whereas no offense but you call yourself "preacher4truth," which i know you prolly meant that as respect but it might easily be understood as declaring oneself wise, yeh?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Free Masonary is a social. club, any person can be a part of it, and many Americans have been in the past/are.

Yes, I do realize that some people consider Masonry this big conspiracy thing. I disagree, but do acknowledge that view.

They’re in all churches Sissy. Personally, I don’t think they have a place in the local churches(if what I’ve read about them is true), but I don’t raise a ruckus over it. I hold my piece.