LDS Aaronic & Melchizedek Priesthoods Not Mentioned In The New Testament

[Solomon Smith]

The LDS Priesthoods are mentioned nowhere in the New Testament writings.

 

[Dave-W]

Hebrews 5:6
just as He says also in another passage, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”

Hebrews 6:20
where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:11
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

 

[mark kennedy]

The book of Hebrews discusses Melchezidek and Aaron at length. Now the supposed priesthood of the LDS is another matter.

 

[Solomon Smith]

Hebrews 5:6
just as He says also in another passage, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”

Hebrews 6:20
where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:11
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

Nowhere do those verses state that the Christian members of the NT Church were to hold Priesthoods.

Those scriptures are stating that “Jesus” was a priest after the “order”.

You have provided zero evidence that those Priesthoods existed for the male members of the New Testament Church.

 

[Dave-W]

You are changing the premise.

You said "mentioned." I showed where they were mentioned.

 

[Jane_Doe]

If anyone is ACTUALLY interested in LDS perspective here, I recommend this link: Priesthood

I have no interest in "debating" here.

 

[Solomon Smith]

The book of Hebrews discusses Melchezidek and Aaron at length. Now the supposed priesthood of the LDS is another matter.

Hebrews never suggests that those Priesthoods exist for the members of the church.

 

[Solomon Smith]

You are changing the premise.

You said "mentioned." I showed where they were mentioned.

No the LDS Priesthoods aren’t mentioned in those passages.

 

[Greg J.]

Look up the qualifications of being in the order of Melchezidek (Hebrews 7:16). Everyone who is saved is a member of that order. We are also a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9).

 

[Dave-W]

Hebrews never suggests that those Priesthoods exist for the members of the church.

I know a few New Covenant believers that are Aaronic priests.

 

[Solomon Smith]

Everyone who is saved is a member of that order.

No, show me in scripture where it states that?

 

[Dave-W]

We are also a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9).

Peter wrote that specifically to JEWISH believers. It is a quote from what God told Israel back in the day:

Ex 19:5 Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; 6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.”

That was a calling specifically to the "Sons of Israel/Jacob"

 

[Solomon Smith]

I know a few New Covenant believers that are Aaronic priests.

Please don’t derail the thread. This thread is about the LDS Priesthood and the New Testament.

 

[Dave-W]

Please don’t derail the thread. This thread is about the LDS Priesthood and the New Testament.

Does not the LDS church consider what they call "priesthoods" to be the same ones in the OT?

 

[Solomon Smith]

Look up the qualifications of being in the order of Melchezidek (Hebrews 7:16). Everyone who is saved is a member of that order. We are also a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9).

No, show me in scripture a reference that states that we are all members of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Does not the LDS church consider what they call "priesthoods" to be the same ones in the OT?

Yes, but with Christ's coming there are a number of changes to the order of things from OT times to NT times. Obvious example: no more animal sacrifices, but rather Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice and we remember His sacrifice through the Lord's Supper.

 

[Dave-W]

. Obvious example: no more animal sacrifices,

While in general I agree with that, IMO it is not as simple as what you state.

In Acts 3 and 5 and other places, we read that the Church was "in the temple." What happened in the temple mostly? Animal sacrifices. (about 90%)

Read Acts 21 again. Paul and 4 men were ending a vow. A Nazirite vow if you look at the details. The details are in Numbers 6 and it involves animal sacrifices. It is also entirely voluntary. So those men and Paul himself willingly took part in a ritual of animal sacrifice.

Do I know how that all fits? Absolutely not.
I just know that it does - somehow.

 

[Jane_Doe]

While in general I agree with that, IMO it is not as simple as what you state.

In Acts 3 and 5 and other places, we read that the Church was "in the temple." What happened in the temple mostly? Animal sacrifices. (about 90%)

Read Acts 21 again. Paul and 4 men were ending a vow. A Nazirite vow if you look at the details. The details are in Numbers 6 and it involves animal sacrifices. It is also entirely voluntary. So those men and Paul himself willingly took part in a ritual of animal sacrifice.

Do I know how that all fits? Absolutely not.
I just know that it does - somehow.

If you believe that literal animal sacrifice should somehow be part of modern practice follow Christ, ok I'll acknowledge that and respect your right to believe so.

As for me, LDS do not believe that literal animal sacrifice is part of modern day following Christ.

 

[Dave-W]

If you believe that literal animal sacrifice should somehow be part of modern practice follow Christ, ok I'll acknowledge that and respect your right to believe so.

Not "should," but rather "could."

 

[Jane_Doe]

Not "should," but rather "could."

Thanks for the clarification!