Are the LDS Family Friendly? [Archive]

John Powell

February 23rd 2004, 04:17 PM

POWELL:
I think Lilith is going to need some help from me at least in the beginning to see how to respond point-by-point.

LILITH:
As far as temple building We believe it is Heavenly Father that gives us an okay.

BILL THE CAT:
God would never give the ok to build more than one temple. Ever.

JOHN MORMON:
Good answer, Lilith.

What if God ordered more temples to be built, Bill, should His people do it? Of course. The question is WHETHER God ordered the Lehites and the Mormons to build temples besides the one in Jerusalem, not whether He could order them to do so.

LILITH:
The problem with Bethel and Dan is that the people took it upon themselves to build temples so close, not awaiting any word from God.

JOHN MORMON:
Good answer, Lilith. People building unauthorized temples, that's the error. If God authorizes it then it's ok.

BILL THE CAT:
Exactly. the people took it upon themselves to build a temple somewhere other than where the one single temple was. God has only ordained one temple to be on earth.

JOHN MORMON:
What "one single temple" are you speaking of, Bill?

Both Zerubbabel's temple and Herod's temple were built on the same approximate location as Solomon's temple, but they weren't the same building or built EXACTLY IN THE SAME SPOT (remember plate tectonics?). Consequently, it looks like you know of at least 4 "temples," Bill: the traveling tabernacle, Solomon's temple, Zerubbabel's temple, and Herod's temple.

Jacob named the place Bethel because he believed it was a "home" to God, which is what the temple is. That makes 5 "temples" you know of, Bill.

BILL THE CAT:
Never did He suggest building more than one temple.

JOHN MORMON:
If God didn't suggest that in the Bible maybe that's because there wasn't a need yet. The righteous people were mostly close enough to Jerusalem. However, how were God's people in the Americas supposed to attend the temple, huh, Bill?

BILL THE CAT:
When the people of God (the Jews) were at peace, the temple was set in Jerusalem. The only time anything was allowed anywhere else was when the tabernacle (Not the Temple) was at Shiloh.

JOHN MORMON:
What about when it was at Nob, Bill? You know, when David fled there to eat the showbread (1 Sam 21).

BILL THE CAT:
The two temples built (Solomon's and Zerubbabel's) in Jerusalem.

JOHN MORMON:
Don't forget Herod's temple, Bill. Herod's temple was NOT the same building as either Solomon's or Zerubbabel's.

BILL THE CAT:
No where else was a temple ever commanded to be built. Any more than one temple built is against the clear command of God.

JOHN MORMON:
Where is that clear command, Bill? Is it that the ONLY PLACE you can do your sacrifices and such things is in the PLACE that God designates? Are you misinterpreting that to mean there is only one place on Earth that God can so designate? The "temple" is the only "place" where certain things like animals sacrifices could be performed during the second temple period, but that doesn't necessarily mean there could not be more than one authorized temple.

What about the Jewish temples in Leontopolis and Elephantine, Bill? Apparently, the Jews in Egypt built some temples, but their people generally preferred to make the long pilgrimages to Jerusalem rather than go to the local temple.

It's sort of like some Mormons prefer to be sealed in the SLC temple rather than their local temple.

LILITH:
Our priests, bishops, quorum presidents, apostles, and prophet are all ordained by God.

JOHN MORMON:
Not quite, Lilith.

They are usually "called of God" through inspiration to God's representatives (sometimes leaders make mistakes). They are "ordained" by God's representatives if not by God Himself.

BILL THE CAT:
Says who? them?

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, Bill, says them. Who says Jesus is God, Christians? (sarcasm)

LILITH:
Unlike the people who decided to elect non members to the standing of priesthood

BILL THE CAT:
All Christians are a royal priesthood

JOHN MORMON:
Not so, Bill. Not all Christians receive the priesthood.

BILL THE CAT:

1Pe 2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

1Pe 2:10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.

BILL THE CAT:
So who is Peter referring to as a Holy Priesthood?

JOHN MORMON:
To the elect who had had the priesthood conferred upon them. You surely don't think Peter was saying "Holy Priesthood" in reference to the elect who didn't have any priesthood at all, do you, Bill? You can't just "take the honor" unto yourself, Bill, you have to be called of God and receive the priesthood by the laying on of hands.

Heb 5:4 And no man taketh this honour [high priesthood] unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

JOHN MORMON:
Peter was speaking to a MIX of the elect. Some were priesthood holders, others weren't.

BILL THE CAT:

1Pe 2:2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,

1Pe 2:3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.

BILL THE CAT:
Those who are saved.

JOHN MORMON:
To the elect (1 Pet 1:2) WHO HAVE THE PRIESTHOOD. Peter was NOT speaking to elect children, Bill, as having a "royal priesthood" except to the extent that their fathers held it. That's ridiculous.

BILL THE CAT:
The temple was built for God and His presence to meet the High Priest.

JOHN MORMON:
God, the Father and God, the Son sometimes visit the temples and the influence of God, the Holy Ghost is almost always there.

BILL THE CAT:

1Ch 29:1 Then King David said to the entire assembly, "My son Solomon, whom alone God has chosen, is still young and inexperienced and the work is great; for the temple is not for man, but for the LORD God.

BILL THE CAT:
There should never be anything going on in the temple other than making atonement for sins. No "family sealings" no "eternal marriages"

Mormon temples do not fit the bill in any aspect.

JOHN MORMON:
Not so, Bill, according to Deut 12 there was more than just "atonement for sins" sacrifices/offerings performed at the Temple.

DEUT 12:
5 But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come:

JOHN MORMON:
God's people should COME TO THE TEMPLE.

DEUT 12:
6 And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:

JOHN MORMON:
What should you do AT THE TEMPLE? Certain animal sacrifices and tithes and offerings, but also "choice" vows (see v. 11).

It shows in Deut 14 that tithing does not HAVE to be given at the temple, but it can be donated locally.

Since the times of Jesus, God no longer requires animal sacrifices be performed in His temples, but He now wants the sacrifice of a "broken heart and a contrite spirit." He no longer requires the circumcision of the man's foreskin, but the circumcision of each person's heart. That's what Mormons try to give God when they go to the Temple. God also wants "choice vows" to be made in the Temple. That's also what Mormons do there. The endowment and marriage sealing are "choice vows" the participants make to God.

Mormons apparently are closer to following God's will about this than Christians like you, Bill. Do you make personal sacrifices and choice vows in your temples? Does your church even have any temples?

John Powell

John Powell

February 23rd 2004, 04:42 PM

FOTOTUNE:
To fully understand why there are LDS temples, you have to read the book of Mormon. When the lost Jewish tribes came to America, and intermarried with the Indians, they built their own temple.

POWELL (former believer in Mormonism. Now an atheist):
Interesting.

Apparently, the view that there were non-Semitic peoples in the Americas when the Lehites and Mulekites arrived is now being taught as a matter-of-course in Mormon religion classes. When I went through the training we were taught that the ONLY people here were either Jaredites, Lehites, or Mulekites. No one else.

However, given the DNA, anthropological, and archaeological evidence pointing to the Amerindians being Mongolian in origin, that older view has become very difficult to ignore. Liberal Mormon apologists are now teaching that there were others here, but they weren't important enough to mention in the Book of Mormon. Based on that same evidence, I went another way.

The problem with this new approach is that it contradicts what early Mormons believed. Early Mormons believed that ALL the Indians were Lamanites.

However, perhaps even the leaders of the church are now supporting this view.

What GENERAL CONFERENCE talk can you point to, Bob, by one of the First Presidency (preferably), if not that by an Apostle, if not that by one of the other general authorities that says or clearly implies that the Jews intermarried with the Indians who already lived in the Americas?

Until you have that then you would seem to have the PERSONAL views of non-authoritative members, not "Mormon Doctrine."

FOTOTUNE:
According to the book of Mormon, Jesus even visited it during the time that everyone thinks that he was in the grave.

JOHN MORMON (my former believer self):
Wrong, Bob. Jesus went to the spirits in the spirit world to set up missionary work to those in spirit prison while His body was in the grave. He came to the Americas AFTER His resurrection. In fact, it may have been a whole year afterwards. The people in the Americas could feel His body, no?

FOTOTUNE:
The prophet Mormon recorded it, and his son Moroni edited, and buried the books. They record the history of the Jaredites, and the Lamanites, who came from after the Tower of Babel, and were the American Indians, ancestors. The Nephites were part of the remnant that came in 600 BCE. Dig this history. It's God inspired, I think.

bob g.

JOHN MORMON:
The Jaredites came at the time of the Tower of Babel, but the Lamanites and Nephites came together about 600 BC. Laman and Nephi came on the same boat, Bob.

John Powell

fototune

February 24th 2004, 04:36 PM

Since I'm not a Mormon now, nor have ever been, I don't claim any authority on the subject, but I do find their beliefs interesting. Someday if I have more time I'll read the book of Mormon better, along with Dianetics, by L Ron Hubbard.

:ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :blush: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem: :ahem:

POWELL (former believer in Mormonism. Now an atheist):
Interesting.

Apparently, the view that there were non-Semitic peoples in the Americas when the Lehites and Mulekites arrived is now being taught as a matter-of-course in Mormon religion classes. When I went through the training we were taught that the ONLY people here were either Jaredites, Lehites, or Mulekites. No one else.

However, given the DNA, anthropological, and archaeological evidence pointing to the Amerindians being Mongolian in origin, that older view has become very difficult to ignore. Liberal Mormon apologists are now teaching that there were others here, but they weren't important enough to mention in the Book of Mormon. Based on that same evidence, I went another way.

The problem with this new approach is that it contradicts what early Mormons believed. Early Mormons believed that ALL the Indians were Lamanites.

However, perhaps even the leaders of the church are now supporting this view.

What GENERAL CONFERENCE talk can you point to, Bob, by one of the First Presidency (preferably), if not that by an Apostle, if not that by one of the other general authorities that says or clearly implies that the Jews intermarried with the Indians who already lived in the Americas?

Until you have that then you would seem to have the PERSONAL views of non-authoritative members, not "Mormon Doctrine."

JOHN MORMON (my former believer self):
Wrong, Bob. Jesus went to the spirits in the spirit world to set up missionary w...ork to those in spirit prison while His body was in the grave. He came to the Americas AFTER His resurrection. In fact, it may have been a whole year afterwards. The people in the Americas could feel His body, no?

JOHN MORMON:
The Jaredites came at the time of the Tower of Babel, but the Lamanites and Nephites came together about 600 BC. Laman and Nephi came on the same boat, Bob.

John Powell

Bill the Cat

February 24th 2004, 08:59 PM

What if God ordered more temples to be built, Bill, should His people do it? Of course. The question is WHETHER God ordered the Lehites and the Mormons to build temples besides the one in Jerusalem, not whether He could order them to do so.

Hi John. Glad you answered. God no longer inhabits temples made by human hands. We are the temple, not a brick and mortar building. God inhabited the place where the Arc of the Covenant was. Jesus is the Arc now and He inhabits us, His Holy Temples. There is no need for any sacred temple now.

JOHN MORMON:
What "one single temple" are you speaking of, Bill?

Both Zerubbabel's temple and Herod's temple were built on the same approximate location as Solomon's temple, but they weren't the same building or built EXACTLY IN THE SAME SPOT (remember plate tectonics?). Consequently, it looks like you know of at least 4 "temples," Bill: the traveling tabernacle, Solomon's temple, Zerubbabel's temple, and Herod's temple.

Jacob named the place Bethel because he believed it was a "home" to God, which is what the temple is. That makes 5 "temples" you know of, Bill.

but they were not standing at the same time in history. That's what I am referring to.

JOHN MORMON:
If God didn't suggest that in the Bible maybe that's because there wasn't a need yet. The righteous people were mostly close enough to Jerusalem. However, how were God's people in the Americas supposed to attend the temple, huh, Bill?

This assumes that there were Jews in America at the time, does it not? That's circular reasoning.

JOHN MORMON:
What about when it was at Nob, Bill? You know, when David fled there to eat the showbread (1 Sam 21).

It was not at Jerusalem AND Nob was it?

JOHN MORMON:
Don't forget Herod's temple, Bill. Herod's temple was NOT the same building as either Solomon's or Zerubbabel's.

But it was built upon the same spot and was built as Zerubbabel's was being deconstructed. Kind of an "Extreme makeover" if you will.

JOHN MORMON:
Where is that clear command, Bill? Is it that the ONLY PLACE you can do your sacrifices and such things is in the PLACE that God designates? Are you misinterpreting that to mean there is only one place on Earth that God can so designate? The "temple" is the only "place" where certain things like animals sacrifices could be performed during the second temple period, but that doesn't necessarily mean there could not be more than one authorized temple.

The High Priest was to make sacrifices for the people in the Holy of Holies before the Arc. There was to be no other place where this was to happen.

What about the Jewish temples in Leontopolis and Elephantine, Bill? Apparently, the Jews in Egypt built some temples, but their people generally preferred to make the long pilgrimages to Jerusalem rather than go to the local temple.

God did not ordain building the temple in Leontopolis . The builder of the temple was a son ofthe murdered Onias III., and that, a mere youth at the time of his father's death, he had fled to the court of Alexandria in consequence of the Syrian persecutions, perhaps because he thought that salvation would come to his people from Egypt ("Ant." xii. 5, § 1; ib. 9, § 7).

Onias IV built it because HE THOUGHT salvation would come to his people in Egypt. It was never ordained by Scripture, nor had the presence of the Arc of the Covenant.

As far as the Elephantine temple, here is a log entry from here: http://www.baseinstitute.org/covenant.html

We have discovered historical evidence that during the reign of Manasseh in Israel, a colony of Jews - including Levitical priests - migrated from Israel and founded a colony on Elephantine Island in Egypt. It is strongly possible, if not probable, that the Elephantine Jews were escaping the desecration and persecution of wicked King Manasseh, and that they had the Ark of the Covenant with them. In our visit to Elephantine Island, we thoroughly investigated ruins of a replica Jewish temple that had been built by 650 BC, matching precisely the dimensions of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem. Of course, the practice of building temples outside of Jerusalem was strictly forbidden by Deuteronomic Law, so only the most dire of circumstances would have compelled a group of Jewish refugees to undertake such a project. Moreover, a temple replica would have been fruitless at that point in history without serving its primary function as a resting place for the Ark of the Covenant.

A number of ancient documents (such as the Elephantine Papyri) seem to confirm the existence of a Jewish Temple at Elephantine. Egypt, or at least certain districts of Egypt, would have been a safe haven for Jewish refugees, as we see from King Neco's friendly appeal to Josiah in 2 Chronicles 35:20-21, less than a generation later. (It may even be that Josiah died trying to gain enough control over Egypt to reclaim the Ark). What's more, our scholarly contact in Egypt, Dr. Atif Hanna, curator of the Aswan Museum, has concluded from his investigation that the Ark of the Covenant did indeed come to Elephantine Island during the reign of Manasseh in Israel, and that it was housed in the replica temple. However, Dr. Hanna has also determined that the replica temple was destroyed for unknown reasons - possibly the advance of a new, aggressive from of idol worship - in 410 BC.

Did Lehi have the Arc of the Covenant too?

It's sort of like some Mormons prefer to be sealed in the SLC temple rather than their local temple.

Temples are completely unnecessary today.

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, Bill, says them. Who says Jesus is God, Christians? (sarcasm)

touche!!

JOHN MORMON:
Not so, Bill. Not all Christians receive the priesthood.

Untrue. There is no longer a "priesthood" proper. We all are a royal priesthood.

JOHN MORMON:
To the elect who had had the priesthood conferred upon them. You surely don't think Peter was saying "Holy Priesthood" in reference to the elect who didn't have any priesthood at all, do you, Bill? You can't just "take the honor" unto yourself, Bill, you have to be called of God and receive the priesthood by the laying on of hands.

At the time of writing 1 Pet, there was still a priesthood attending the temple in Jerusalem. Christians never received any "priesthood" as an add-on. In becoming Christians, we all become a royal priesthood, able to minister at the throne of grace.

Heb 5:4 And no man taketh this honour [high priesthood] unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

Horribly out of context!! Here's the context. it is referring to Jesus being High Priest forever, not any Christian priesthood...

Heb 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins;
Heb 5:2 he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness;
Heb 5:3 and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself.
Heb 5:4 And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was.
Heb 5:5 So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU";

JOHN MORMON:
Peter was speaking to a MIX of the elect. Some were priesthood holders, others weren't.

not true. Peter was speaking to the elect as all being priesthood holders. Albert Barnes says this:

The meaning of this is, probably, that they “at once bore the dignity of kings, and the sanctity of priests” - Doddridge. Compare Rev_1:6; “And hath made us kings and priests unto God.” See also Isa_61:6; “But ye shall be named priests of the Lord; men shall call ye ministers of our God.” It may be, however, that the word royal is used only to denote the dignity of the priestly office which they sustained, or that they constituted, as it were, an entire nation or kingdom of priests. They were a kingdom over which he presided, and they were all priests; so that it might be said they were a kingdom of priests - a kingdom in which all the subjects were engaged in offering sacrifice to God. The expression appears to be taken from Exo_19:6 - “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests” - and is such language as one who had been educated as a Jew would be likely to employ to set forth the dignity of those whom he regarded as the people of God.

JOHN MORMON:
To the elect (1 Pet 1:2) WHO HAVE THE PRIESTHOOD. Peter was NOT speaking to elect children, Bill, as having a "royal priesthood" except to the extent that their fathers held it. That's ridiculous.

What? 1 Pet 1:2 says nothing of the sort. It says in context:

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.
1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

It is addressed to these Christians, not some supposed upper crust "priesthood holders"

JOHN MORMON:
God, the Father and God, the Son sometimes visit the temples and the influence of God, the Holy Ghost is almost always there.

I don't buy that for a second. God does not inhabit buildings of stone. He inhabits the true Temple:
2 Cor 6:16 For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.

JOHN MORMON:
Not so, Bill, according to Deut 12 there was more than just "atonement for sins" sacrifices/offerings performed at the Temple.

DEUT 12:
5 But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come:

But no mention of marriages and sealings. Where are the LDS ordinances set forth in Deut. for eternal marriage and family sealings??

JOHN MORMON:
God's people should COME TO THE TEMPLE.

DEUT 12:
6 And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:

Temples are no longer necessary. The Old has passed away, and the New is in effect. We are the temple. There is no room for a temple in the age of grace.

JOHN MORMON:
What should you do AT THE TEMPLE? Certain animal sacrifices and tithes and offerings, but also "choice" vows (see v. 11).

It shows in Deut 14 that tithing does not HAVE to be given at the temple, but it can be donated locally.

But no mention of marriages or family sealings or baptisms for the dead.

Since the times of Jesus, God no longer requires animal sacrifices be performed in His temples, but He now wants the sacrifice of a "broken heart and a contrite spirit." He no longer requires the circumcision of the man's foreskin, but the circumcision of each person's heart. That's what Mormons try to give God when they go to the Temple. God also wants "choice vows" to be made in the Temple. That's also what Mormons do there. The endowment and marriage sealing are "choice vows" the participants make to God.

"choice vows" were not matrimonial vows. Nor were they family vows. they were peace offerings between a person and the Lord. See Lev 22:21 'When a man offers a sacrifice of peace offerings to the LORD to fulfill a special vow or for a freewill offering, of the herd or of the flock, it must be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in it.

A vow could be positive (nedher) and included all promises to perform certain things for, or bring certain offerings to, God, in return for certain benefits which were hoped for at His hand (Gen_28:20-22, Jacob; Lev_27:2, Lev_27:8; Nu 30; Jdg_11:30, Jephthah; 1Sa_1:11, Hannah; 2Sa_15:8, Absalom; Jon_1:16, vows of heathen); or negative ('iṣṣār), and included promises by which a person bound himself or herself to abstain from certain things (Num_30:3). Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find the making of vows regarded as a religious duty (Deu_23:22)
ISBE

Mormons apparently are closer to following God's will about this than Christians like you, Bill. Do you make personal sacrifices and choice vows in your temples? Does your church even have any temples?

Mormons mix too much of the legalistic Old Testament into their religion. God has freed us from the need for a temple, animal sacrifices, and a human fallible high priest. I make personal sacrifices and proper vows in my temple (My body) I don't need any building, nor does my church. We simply use the building to meet and keep the elements off of us. And, no, they are not called temples.

John Powell

February 25th 2004, 04:07 PM

JOHN MORMON:
What if God ordered more temples to be built, Bill, should His people do it? Of course. The question is WHETHER God ordered the Lehites and the Mormons to build temples besides the one in Jerusalem, not whether He could order them to do so.

BILL THE CAT:
Hi John. Glad you answered. God no longer inhabits temples made by human hands. We are the temple, not a brick and mortar building. God inhabited the place where the Arc of the Covenant was. Jesus is the Arc now and He inhabits us, His Holy Temples. There is no need for any sacred temple now.

JOHN MORMON:
What if God thinks there's still a need for temple buildings today, Bill, should we build them?

Jesus is the Ark? What's the scripture for that?

JOHN MORMON:
What "one single temple" are you speaking of, Bill?

Both Zerubbabel's temple and Herod's temple were built on the same approximate location as Solomon's temple, but they weren't the same building or built EXACTLY IN THE SAME SPOT (remember plate tectonics?). Consequently, it looks like you know of at least 4 "temples," Bill: the traveling tabernacle, Solomon's temple, Zerubbabel's temple, and Herod's temple.

Jacob named the place Bethel because he believed it was a "home" to God, which is what the temple is. That makes 5 "temples" you know of, Bill.

BILL THE CAT:
but they were not standing at the same time in history. That's what I am referring to.

JOHN MORMON:
That's true about Solomon's, Zerubbabel's, and Herod's temples, but not true when considering the Elephantine and Leontopolis temples. There was apparently only one temple needed in Palestine at a time, but when the Israelites moved to distant places (like Egypt or the Americas) then there was a need for a temple closer at hand. Perhaps the Jews in captivity in Babylon didn't build a temple partly because they expected to return soon to Palestine.

JOHN MORMON:
If God didn't suggest that in the Bible maybe that's because there wasn't a need yet. The righteous people were mostly close enough to Jerusalem. However, how were God's people in the Americas supposed to attend the temple, huh, Bill?

BILL THE CAT:
This assumes that there were Jews in America at the time, does it not? That's circular reasoning.

JOHN MORMON:
Then either consider it to be a hypothetical or accept it temporarily for the sake of argument. *IF* God directed Israelites to the Americas would He have likely ordered them to build a temple where they could fulfill the Mosaic law or what?

JOHN MORMON:
What about when it was at Nob, Bill? You know, when David fled there to eat the showbread (1 Sam 21).

BILL THE CAT:
It was not at Jerusalem AND Nob was it?

JOHN MORMON:
Jerusalem was controlled by the Jebusites at this time. Do you think the Jebusites had the Ark at this time?

JOHN MORMON:
Don't forget Herod's temple, Bill. Herod's temple was NOT the same building as either Solomon's or Zerubbabel's.

BILL THE CAT:
But it was built upon the same spot and was built as Zerubbabel's was being deconstructed. Kind of an "Extreme makeover" if you will.

JOHN MORMON:
Fine.

JOHN MORMON:
Where is that clear command, Bill? Is it that the ONLY PLACE you can do your sacrifices and such things is in the PLACE that God designates? Are you misinterpreting that to mean there is only one place on Earth that God can so designate? The "temple" is the only "place" where certain things like animals sacrifices could be performed during the second temple period, but that doesn't necessarily mean there could not be more than one authorized temple.

BILL THE CAT:
The High Priest was to make sacrifices for the people in the Holy of Holies before the Arc. There was to be no other place where this was to happen.

JOHN MORMON:
It's not so much the artifacts like the ark being what matters, but the meaning of those artifacts.

If there were more than one temple and more than one "Holy of Holies," whether the original ark was there or not, then that would be another of those special places where the High Priest could do his thing.

If one says the only "place" you can get a prescription for a certain drug is at "the" doctor's office then that does not NECESSARILY mean there's only one office in the world. To be more clear you should say "place" and "a." You seem to have misunderstood Deut 12 where it speaks of "the place" as if there can only be one such place in all the world. God was apparently emphasizing that in that future time the local shrines would need to be shut down and they were going to need to do their sacrifices and such things at the temple in Jerusalem when it was built. This was NOT supposed to be a restriction on God that God could not authorize other temples in other places like Egypt or the Americas.

JOHN MORMON:
What about the Jewish temples in Leontopolis and Elephantine, Bill? Apparently, the Jews in Egypt built some temples, but their people generally preferred to make the long pilgrimages to Jerusalem rather than go to the local temple.

BILL THE CAT:
God did not ordain building the temple in Leontopolis . The builder of the temple was a son of the murdered Onias III., and that, a mere youth at the time of his father's death, he had fled to the court of Alexandria in consequence of the Syrian persecutions, perhaps because he thought that salvation would come to his people from Egypt ("Ant." xii. 5, § 1; ib. 9, § 7).

JOHN MORMON:
So maybe Josephus thinks it wasn't ordained by God. Did you ask God? Did anyone ask Onias IV? Joseph was a "mere youth" when he had his first vision. John the Baptist wasn't even born yet when he was filled with the Holy Ghost.

Josephus might have said the same thing about Nephi building a temple in the Americas had Josephus known about it. Onias IV was apparently one who should have known whether building another temple far from Jerusalem was even a legitimate possibility, no?

BILL THE CAT:
Onias IV built it because HE THOUGHT salvation would come to his people in Egypt. It was never ordained by Scripture, nor had the presence of the Arc of the Covenant.

JOHN MORMON:
Then apparently it was something understood by the leaders that it was at least LEGITIMATELY POSSIBLE to build other temples.

Maybe the Leontopolis temple didn't have the original Ark, but it might have had a replica. Whether there were scriptures supporting the construction of the Leontopolis temple is unknown because the words of Onias IV are not apparently available.

POWELL:
Perhaps Onias IV believed he was fulfilling prophecies in the Bible such as Isa 37:32.

Isa. 37: 32
32 For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of mount Zion: the zeal of the LORD of hosts shall do this.

BILL THE CAT:
As far as the Elephantine temple, here is a log entry from here: http://www.baseinstitute.org/covenant.html

We have discovered historical evidence that during the reign of Manasseh in Israel, a colony of Jews - including Levitical priests - migrated from Israel and founded a colony on Elephantine Island in Egypt. It is strongly possible, if not probable, that the Elephantine Jews were escaping the desecration and persecution of wicked King Manasseh, and that they had the Ark of the Covenant with them. In our visit to Elephantine Island, we thoroughly investigated ruins of a replica Jewish temple that had been built by 650 BC, matching precisely the dimensions of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem. Of course, the practice of building temples outside of Jerusalem was strictly forbidden by Deuteronomic Law, so only the most dire of circumstances would have compelled a group of Jewish refugees to undertake such a project.

JOHN MORMON:
Where is it "strictly forbidden" by Deuteronomic Law to build a temple outside of Jerusalem? It's not in Deut 12. Apparently, it wasn't a law that the Jews of Elephantine or Leontopolis recognized.

BILL THE CAT (quoting baseinstitute):
Moreover, a temple replica would have been fruitless at that point in history without serving its primary function as a resting place for the Ark of the Covenant.

A number of ancient documents (such as the Elephantine Papyri) seem to confirm the existence of a Jewish Temple at Elephantine. Egypt, or at least certain districts of Egypt, would have been a safe haven for Jewish refugees, as we see from King Neco's friendly appeal to Josiah in 2 Chronicles 35:20-21, less than a generation later. (It may even be that Josiah died trying to gain enough control over Egypt to reclaim the Ark). What's more, our scholarly contact in Egypt, Dr. Atif Hanna, curator of the Aswan Museum, has concluded from his investigation that the Ark of the Covenant did indeed come to Elephantine Island during the reign of Manasseh in Israel, and that it was housed in the replica temple. However, Dr. Hanna has also determined that the replica temple was destroyed for unknown reasons - possibly the advance of a new, aggressive from of idol worship - in 410 BC.

BILL THE CAT:
Did Lehi have the Arc of the Covenant too?

JOHN MORMON:
No. God allowed them to fulfill their obligations without it.

JOHN MORMON:
It's sort of like some Mormons prefer to be sealed in the SLC temple rather than their local temple.

BILL THE CAT:
Temples are completely unnecessary today.

JOHN MORMON:
Then where can you obey God's orders in Deut 12 to make your "choice vows" in the temple if there aren't any, Bill?

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, Bill, says them. Who says Jesus is God, Christians? (sarcasm)

BILL THE CAT:
touche!!

JOHN MORMON:
The point is that to persuade you I need a lot better evidence than their mere say-so.

JOHN MORMON:
Not so, Bill. Not all Christians receive the priesthood.

BILL THE CAT:
Untrue. There is no longer a "priesthood" proper. We all are a royal priesthood.

JOHN MORMON:
Ridiculous, Bill. When you say "all" who are you referring to? Baptized Christians? "Saved" Christians? Or, who? Every Christian is a priest, huh? Who is authorized to baptize or prepare / bless / pass the sacrament or marry couples in your church, Bill, anyone who is a Christian?

JOHN MORMON:
To the elect who had had the priesthood conferred upon them. You surely don't think Peter was saying "Holy Priesthood" in reference to the elect who didn't have any priesthood at all, do you, Bill? You can't just "take the honor" unto yourself, Bill, you have to be called of God and receive the priesthood by the laying on of hands.

BILL THE CAT:
At the time of writing 1 Pet, there was still a priesthood attending the temple in Jerusalem. Christians never received any "priesthood" as an add-on. In becoming Christians, we all become a royal priesthood, able to minister at the throne of grace.

JOHN MORMON:
Certain male persons received the priesthood by the laying on of hands. Everyone didn't get the priesthood automatically when they were baptized or whatever, Bill.

JOHN MORMON:

Heb 5:4 And no man taketh this honour [high priesthood] unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

BILL THE CAT:
Horribly out of context!! Here's the context. it is referring to Jesus being High Priest forever, not any Christian priesthood...

JOHN MORMON:
No, Bill, it's talking about ANY PERSON. "No man" is not speaking only of Jesus, but anyone who might claim to have the (high) priesthood. You can't just claim it, you have to be given it in the proper way. You're just claiming you Christians have it without getting it through the proper channels.

BILL THE CAT:

Heb 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins;
Heb 5:2 he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness;
Heb 5:3 and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself.
Heb 5:4 And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was.
Heb 5:5 So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU";

JOHN MORMON:
The point here is that Jesus did not take it upon Himself either! God, the Father, gave Jesus the high priesthood.

JOHN MORMON:
Peter was speaking to a MIX of the elect. Some were priesthood holders, others weren't.

BILL THE CAT:
not true. Peter was speaking to the elect as all being priesthood holders.

JOHN MORMON:
No, Bill. Surely, it was NOT the case that everyone in Peter's audience was a priest!

If a speaker says "You are good fathers and good mothers," he should NOT be understood to be implying that the men are good mothers and the women are good fathers or the boys are fathers and the girls are mothers. He is surely saying to the men that are fathers, that they're good ones, and to the women who are mothers, that they're good ones.

BILL THE CAT:
Albert Barnes says this:

The meaning of this is, probably, that they "at once bore the dignity of kings, and the sanctity of priests" - Doddridge. Compare Rev_1:6; "And hath made us kings and priests unto God."

JOHN MORMON:
This reference to "kings and priests" probably has to do with what happens in heaven. You realize, don't you, that all good Christians were not kings on Earth. The idea is that they would be given great general power (kings) and great religious power (priests) in the afterlife if they were true to their vows until the end of their lives.

BILL THE CAT (quoting BARNES):
See also Isa_61:6; "But ye shall be named priests of the Lord; men shall call ye ministers of our God." It may be, however, that the word royal is used only to denote the dignity of the priestly office which they sustained, or that they constituted, as it were, an entire nation or kingdom of priests. They were a kingdom over which he presided, and they were all priests; so that it might be said they were a kingdom of priests - a kingdom in which all the subjects were engaged in offering sacrifice to God. The expression appears to be taken from Exo_19:6 - "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests" - and is such language as one who had been educated as a Jew would be likely to employ to set forth the dignity of those whom he regarded as the people of God.

JOHN MORMON:
Notice that back in Exo 19:6 the Israelites were a "kingdom of priests" yet not everyone was a priest. Rather than the firstborn of each household being a priest, God chose the Levites (Num 3). So, why do you think that Christians being a "kingdom of priests" is so very different than the Israelites being a "kingdom of priests"?

JOHN MORMON:
To the elect (1 Pet 1:2) WHO HAVE THE PRIESTHOOD. Peter was NOT speaking to elect children, Bill, as having a "royal priesthood" except to the extent that their fathers held it. That's ridiculous.

BILL THE CAT:
What? 1 Pet 1:2 says nothing of the sort. It says in context:

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.
1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

BILL THE CAT:
It is addressed to these Christians, not some supposed upper crust "priesthood holders"

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, Bill, the epistle of Peter is to a mixed audience of elect, but when he says something like "you are a royal priesthood" he surely is speaking to those specific persons who have the priesthood. The others share in the priesthood because their fathers have it.

JOHN MORMON:
God, the Father and God, the Son sometimes visit the temples and the influence of God, the Holy Ghost is almost always there.

BILL THE CAT:
I don't buy that for a second. God does not inhabit buildings of stone. He inhabits the true Temple:

2 Cor 6:16 For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.

JOHN MORMON:
This seems to be a quote from Lev. 26:12, so apparently things had not changed from Old Testament times in this regard.

POWELL (the atheist):
This seems to be creative rewriting by Paul since apparently Lev 26:12 in neither the Masoretic text nor the LXX says "dwell in them."

JOHN MORMON:
Not so, Bill, according to Deut 12 there was more than just "atonement for sins" sacrifices / offerings performed at the Temple.

DEUT 12:
5 But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come:

BILL THE CAT:
But no mention of marriages and sealings. Where are the LDS ordinances set forth in Deut. for eternal marriage and family sealings??

JOHN MORMON:
It speaks of "choice vows." Sealings are "choice vows." The specifics of the ceremony aren't written in the scriptures because it's too sacred for the world to see. Even if sealings weren't consistently performed in the ancient temple, that does NOT necessarily mean God can't order His modern people to do so.

What are the SPECIFIC words that should be said in blessing the sacrament? Apparently, that's something lost from the Bible.

JOHN MORMON:
God's people should COME TO THE TEMPLE.

DEUT 12:
6 And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:

BILL THE CAT:
Temples are no longer necessary. The Old has passed away, and the New is in effect. We are the temple. There is no room for a temple in the age of grace.

JOHN MORMON:
Not EVERYTHING that was old passed away, Bill, just SOME of the old. People have been saved in heaven from the time of Adam due to God's grace and their individual obedience.

Isa. 33: 20
20 Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities: thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down; not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken.

JOHN MORMON:
Although Isaiah is exaggerating that the temple would never "be taken down" and "not one of the stakes shall ever be removed" and "neither shall ANY of the cords thereof be broken," the point is that temples would always be important.

JOHN MORMON:
What should you do AT THE TEMPLE? Certain animal sacrifices and tithes and offerings, but also "choice" vows (see v. 11).

It shows in Deut 14 that tithing does not HAVE to be given at the temple, but it can be donated locally.

BILL THE CAT:
But no mention of marriages or family sealings or baptisms for the dead.

JOHN MORMON:
It speaks of "choice vows." A baptism is a choice vow too, but those can be done outside the temple. Proxy baptisms, however, should be done in the temple if you have one available. Apparently, the Corinthian saints were too poor yet to have built a temple, so God probably authorized them to do their baptisms for the dead (1 Cor 15:29) in a local river like the early Mormons did.

JOHN MORMON:
Since the times of Jesus, God no longer requires animal sacrifices be performed in His temples, but He now wants the sacrifice of a "broken heart and a contrite spirit." He no longer requires the circumcision of the man's foreskin, but the circumcision of each person's heart. That's what Mormons try to give God when they go to the Temple. God also wants "choice vows" to be made in the Temple. That's also what Mormons do there. The endowment and marriage sealing are "choice vows" the participants make to God.

BILL THE CAT:
"choice vows" were not matrimonial vows. Nor were they family vows. they were peace offerings between a person and the Lord. See Lev 22:21 'When a man offers a sacrifice of peace offerings to the LORD to fulfill a special vow or for a freewill offering, of the herd or of the flock, it must be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in it.

A vow could be positive (nedher) and included all promises to perform certain things for, or bring certain offerings to, God, in return for certain benefits which were hoped for at His hand (Gen_28:20-22, Jacob; Lev_27:2, Lev_27:8; Nu 30; Jdg_11:30, Jephthah; 1Sa_1:11, Hannah; 2Sa_15:8, Absalom; Jon_1:16, vows of heathen); or negative ('is?s?a¯r), and included promises by which a person bound himself or herself to abstain from certain things (Num_30:3).

JOHN MORMON:
They did some things differently back then. The point is that God orders us today to do these things so we better do them.

BILL THE CAT:
Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find the making of vows regarded as a religious duty (Deu_23:22) ISBE

JOHN MORMON:
It's not a sin at all to avoid making certain vows like Jephthah's foolish one, but you should make certain other special vows, like baptism and marriage, or you commit a sin of omission.

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons apparently are closer to following God's will about this than Christians like you, Bill. Do you make personal sacrifices and choice vows in your temples? Does your church even have any temples?

BILL THE CAT:
Mormons mix too much of the legalistic Old Testament into their religion. God has freed us from the need for a temple, animal sacrifices, and a human fallible high priest. I make personal sacrifices and proper vows in my temple (My body) I don't need any building, nor does my church. We simply use the building to meet and keep the elements off of us. And, no, they are not called temples.

JOHN MORMON:
Do you believe there will be a temple in Jerusalem for the lost tribes to return to, or do you think temples were only a thing of the past?

Isa. 27: 13
13 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem.

JOHN MORMON:
This seems to be referring to the 10 tribes carried captive to Assyria and others who went to Egypt who would "in that day" (meaning the last days prior to the Second Coming) return to Palestine and would worship the true God in the "holy mount" or temple at Jerusalem.

John Powell

Bill the Cat

February 26th 2004, 09:58 PM

John, thanks for indulging me!! I really enjoy the dialogue!!

JOHN MORMON:
What if God thinks there's still a need for temple buildings today, Bill, should
we build them?

No, because then He’d be contradicting Himself.
Acts 17
24 " The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;

and
1 Corinthians 3
16-17 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and that temple you are.

Jesus is the Ark? What's the scripture for that?
No scripture. It’s typology.
From http://www.bible-history.com/tabernacle/TAB4The_Ark_of_the_Covenant.htm

The ark of the Covenant was a picture of Jesus Christ. The Acacia wood speaks of the indestructible humanity of Jesus. He was 100% man. God Himself became flesh and suffered the agonies of the human experience. He was tempted, He was weary, He thirsted, He had to learn the Scriptures and learn obedience and to hear God's voice and be led by the Spirit as a man. Not only does the Acacia wood tell us that He was 100% man but the pure gold that overlayed the wood teaches us that He was 100% God. Jesus said "unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins." He used the same words (Heb. eheyay asher aheyay) as when the Lord spoke to Moses at the burning bush. The Jewish Messiah was none other than Jehovah Himself visiting His people and becoming their savior by dying for the sins of the world and that is the etymology of the name Jesus (Heb. Y'shua 'Yaweh has become salvation'). Jesus condemned the religious leaders for not recognizing "the day of their visitation."
The crown of gold around the top of the ark speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords. Jesus overcame the onslaught of opposition that was set against Him His whole life by the religious leaders, the wealthy Jewish aristocracy, Rome itself, and even all the power of the enemy. He overcame even death itself and rose triumphantly and was given a crown, and glory, and honor, because He is the King. According to John it was Jesus who Isaiah saw seated on the throne of glory with the angels crying 'holy, holy, holy.'
The unbroken tables of stone set forth Jesus as the One who perfectly kept the Law and never broke God's Commandments. The Bible says that He "committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth." Jesus felt the pressure of temptation at its full intensity yet he never sinned. Even the look in His eye and the tone of His voice reflected the very perfections of the holiness of God Himself. Aaron's rod that budded also speaks of Jesus. Something that had died and supernaturally came to life again. Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life." The golden pot of manna speaks of Jesus as the bread of life who came down from heaven to bring food, the Word of God, to a world in darkness and dying of hunger.
It all points to Jesus. Even the golden poles speak of the ever living and ever present Savior who is with us in all our journeying and will never leave us nor forsake us. If you were to examine the history of the ark there would be striking resemblances to the ministry of Jesus our Lord:
The ark went before the people - Jesus went before them:
John 10:4 "And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.
The ark was in the middle of God's people - Jesus is in His people:
John 14:20 "At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
The people were to follow the ark - We are to follow Jesus:
Luke 5:27-28 After these things He went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, "Follow Me." So he left all, rose up, and followed Him.

JOHN MORMON:
That's true about Solomon's, Zerubbabel's, and Herod's temples, but not true
when considering the Elephantine and Leontopolis temples. There was apparently
only one temple needed in Palestine at a time, but when the Israelites moved to
distant places (like Egypt or the Americas) then there was a need for a temple
closer at hand. Perhaps the Jews in captivity in Babylon didn't build a temple
partly because they expected to return soon to Palestine.

The Elephantine temple apparently housed the Ark. The Leontopolis temple was built because Onias IV wanted to build it. I’m checking with Stillsmallvoice on this though to see what the Jewish sages say about these temples. Heck, I may be wrong…

JOHN MORMON:
Then either consider it to be a hypothetical or accept it temporarily for the
sake of argument. *IF* God directed Israelites to the Americas would He have
likely ordered them to build a temple where they could fulfill the Mosaic law or
what?

I do not think so at all. The only times before Christ that God had the Jews leave the Promised Land, it was into exile because of their disobedience. Nowhere in the Old Testament did He order a small group of Jews to go somewhere else just to punish the rest of them. Even righteous Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were forced into captivity. The Jews were seen as a nation, and the prophets suffered for the whole nation too. (See Ezek. 4)

JOHN MORMON:
It's not so much the artifacts like the ark being what matters, but the meaning
of those artifacts.

If there were more than one temple and more than one "Holy of Holies," whether
the original ark was there or not, then that would be another of those special
places where the High Priest could do his thing.

If one says the only "place" you can get a prescription for a certain drug is at
"the" doctor's office then that does not NECESSARILY mean there's only one
office in the world. To be more clear you should say "place" and "a." You seem
to have misunderstood Deut 12 where it speaks of "the place" as if there can
only be one such place in all the world. God was apparently emphasizing that in
that future time the local shrines would need to be shut down and they were
going to need to do their sacrifices and such things at the temple in Jerusalem
when it was built. This was NOT supposed to be a restriction on God that God
could not authorize other temples in other places like Egypt or the Americas.

John, you are attempting to give a false equivocation. There was only one “Holy of Holies” at a time. From http://www.templemount.org/0240.html during the 400 silent years between the OT and the NT, we read:

Now there was also a young rebel Jewish priest who married a Samaritan, went down to Samaria, and in rebellion against the Jewish laws, built a temple on Mount Gerizim that became a rival of the temple in Jerusalem. This caused intense, fanatical rivalry between the Jews and the Samaritans, and this rivalry is also reflected in the New Testament.

Clearly, the Jews understood that the temple in Jerusalem was the only one allowed under the Law. From the Jewish site http://www.templeinstitute.org/faqs/tabernacle-faq.html we read this about the temple:

But once the Holy Temple was erected in its permanent, pre-designated location in Jerusalem, the era of the Tabernacle officially came to a close…and the Tabernacle, for all practice and purpose, became as ancient history for Israel. New factors came into being, which irrevocably altered the previous situation: The altar of the Temple was established on its designated spot, the place on which Isaac had been bound by his father Abraham. And the Sanctuary itself was erected on "shoulder" of Mount Moriah, in keeping with the verse "He shall dwell between his shoulders" (Deut. 33:12) This is the spot which had been chosen by G-d since the very beginning of time; it was David and Samuel who clarified that it was indeed this spot, the "threshing floor of Aravna the Jebusite" (II Samuel 24:18) that G-d had chosen to rest His presence for all time. From the time that the first Holy Temple was built by King Solomon, there would be no going back to the Tabernacle.

JOHN MORMON:
So maybe Josephus thinks it wasn't ordained by God. Did you ask God? Did
anyone ask Onias IV? Joseph was a "mere youth" when he had his first vision.
John the Baptist wasn't even born yet when he was filled with the Holy Ghost.

Josephus might have said the same thing about Nephi building a temple in the
Americas had Josephus known about it. Onias IV was apparently one who should
have known whether building another temple far from Jerusalem was even a
legitimate possibility, no?

We already have seen that Jerusalem was the official site for the temple and as Deut 12 says:
Deut 12
13 " Be careful that you do not offer your burnt offerings in every cultic place you see,
14 but in the place which the LORD chooses in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you.

God had ordained Jerusalem as the place to build the temple IN ONE OF THE TRIBES, not outside the tribal land. However, slaughtering for food was ok.
Deut 12
21 "If the place which the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, then you may slaughter of your herd and flock which the LORD has given you, as I have commanded you; and you may eat within your gates whatever you desire.
26 " Only your holy things which you may have and your votive offerings, you shall take and go to the place which the LORD chooses.

God chose Jerusalem. That is the only place scripturally that the main offerings could be done. The trip HAD to be made by order of the Lord. No substitute temple was authorized. Maimomides said why it was obscured with the phrase “place the Lord has chosen”

Maimomides ( Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 45. p. 475.) gives three reasons for it; he says there are three great mysteries why the place is not clearly, but obscurely mentioned;

1) lest the Gentiles should seize upon it, and make war for the sake of it, supposing this place to be the end of the law;
2) lest they in whose hands the place then was should by all means waste and destroy it;
3) which is the chief, lest every tribe should desire to have it in its own lot and jurisdiction; and so strifes might arise among them on account of it, as happened to the priesthood:

[even] unto his habitation shall ye seek; the temple at Jerusalem is meant, where the Lord took up his dwelling, and whither men were to come and seek unto him by prayer and supplication for whatsoever they needed, and to inquire of him in matters doubtful, and they wanted counsel in:
John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible

JOHN MORMON:
Then apparently it was something understood by the leaders that it was at least
LEGITIMATELY POSSIBLE to build other temples.

Maybe the Leontopolis temple didn't have the original Ark, but it might have had
a replica. Whether there were scriptures supporting the construction of the
Leontopolis temple is unknown because the words of Onias IV are not apparently
available.

POWELL:
Perhaps Onias IV believed he was fulfilling prophecies in the Bible such as Isa
37:32.

I think Powell has it right. Onias IV wanted to make a prophecy come true on his own. This is not how God works.

JOHN MORMON:
Then where can you obey God's orders in Deut 12 to make your "choice vows" in
the temple if there aren't any, Bill?

In the temple of our bodies. He knows us and he knows the intent of our hearts. He knows us even before we speak. I showed what “choice vows” were. They are oaths, either good or bad, made between ONE PERSON and God, not several and each other.

JOHN MORMON:
Ridiculous, Bill. When you say "all" who are you referring to? Baptized
Christians? "Saved" Christians? Or, who? Every Christian is a priest, huh?
Who is authorized to baptize or prepare / bless / pass the sacrament or marry
couples in your church, Bill, anyone who is a Christian?

Well, there is secular law to worry about here. There is no difference in a “saved” Christian and a “baptized” Christian in my denomination. Any Christian can baptize and bless or pass the sacrament. Secular law makes one have to have a license in order to marry a couple. Heck, I can go on the internet and get a license to marry 2 people without any supposed priesthood authority. Witches marry couples here in VA. Do they need the priesthood in order to do it or just authorization from the Gov’t?

JOHN MORMON:
Certain male persons received the priesthood by the laying on of hands.
Everyone didn't get the priesthood automatically when they were baptized or
whatever, Bill.

Not in the New Testament. There was no need for the Aaronic priesthood any more, nor the Levitical servants.

JOHN MORMON:
No, Bill, it's talking about ANY PERSON. "No man" is not speaking only of
Jesus, but anyone who might claim to have the (high) priesthood. You can't just
claim it, you have to be given it in the proper way. You're just claiming you
Christians have it without getting it through the proper channels.

There is only one High Priest, and that is Jesus Christ. We Christians are all priests of the Lamb and of God and receive it because He bought us with His shed blood.

Revelation 1
6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father-- to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Revelation 20
6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
Revelation 5
9 And they sang a new song, saying, " Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
10 "You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."

JOHN MORMON:
The point here is that Jesus did not take it upon Himself either! God, the
Father, gave Jesus the high priesthood.

Which only one possesses at a time and is only relinquished by death. Jesus is alive forevermore, so there is no giving of the High Priesthood to anyone else ever again.

JOHN MORMON:
No, Bill. Surely, it was NOT the case that everyone in Peter's audience was a
priest

If a speaker says "You are good fathers and good mothers," he should NOT be
understood to be implying that the men are good mothers and the women are good
fathers or the boys are fathers and the girls are mothers. He is surely saying
to the men that are fathers, that they're good ones, and to the women who are
mothers, that they're good ones. !

If they were Christian, they were priests. There are no subclasses of Christian. There are giftings, like pastor, apostle, teacher, etc, but no superior “priesthood class” It’s just not there. All Christians are priests, able to approach the mercy seat. False equivocations of dividing the Body into classes doesn’t cut it.
Romans 10
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;

JOHN MORMON:
This reference to "kings and priests" probably has to do with what happens in
heaven. You realize, don't you, that all good Christians were not kings on
Earth. The idea is that they would be given great general power (kings) and
great religious power (priests) in the afterlife if they were true to their vows
until the end of their lives.

Sorry, but we are Kings and Priests even on the Earth. Rev 1:6 makes that abundantly clear.

JOHN MORMON:
Notice that back in Exo 19:6 the Israelites were a "kingdom of priests" yet not
everyone was a priest. Rather than the firstborn of each household being a
priest, God chose the Levites (Num 3). So, why do you think that Christians
being a "kingdom of priests" is so very different than the Israelites being a
"kingdom of priests"?

The word could be rendered princes in this case, not priests.

Jarchi interprets it, a kingdom of princes, as the word sometimes signifies: the subjects of this kingdom were princes, men of a princely spirit, and these princes, like those of the king of Babylon, who boasted they were altogether kings; and like the Roman senators, of whom the ambassador of Pyrrhus said, that he saw at Rome as many kings as he saw senators. And so here all the Targums render it, "kings and priests": to which reference seems to be had not only in 1 Peter 2:9 but in Revelation 1:6, they were kings when they got the victory, as in the times of Joshua, over the several kings of Canaan, and had their kingdoms divided among them; and before the priesthood was settled in the family of Aaron, every head of a family in Israel was a priest; and they were all priests at the Passover, as Philo observes: and so the spiritual Israel of God are kings and priests; they are kings, having the power and riches of kings; having got through Christ the victory over sin, Satan, and the world; and being possessed of the kingdom of grace, and heirs of the kingdom of glory; and priests, being allowed to draw nigh to God, to present themselves, souls and bodies, a holy and living sacrifice, to offer to him the sacrifices of prayer and praise through Christ, by whom they become acceptable to him: "and an holy nation"; being separated from all others, and devoted to the worship and service of God, having holy laws, and holy ordinances, and a holy service, and a holy place to perform it in, and holy persons to attend unto it, as they afterwards had. In allusion to this, the spiritual Israel, or people of God, are also called so, 1 Peter 2:9 being chosen unto holiness, redeemed from all iniquity, called with an holy calling, sanctified by the blood of Christ, and made holy by the Spirit of God, and under the influence of his grace live holy lives and conversations:
John Gill’s exposition of the Bible

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, Bill, the epistle of Peter is to a mixed audience of elect, but when he
says something like "you are a royal priesthood" he surely is speaking to those
specific persons who have the priesthood. The others share in the priesthood
because their fathers have it.

There is no evidence for this, and as I have shown, there is enough to believe that all are priests. There is no evidence in the NT at all of conferring any priesthood on “worthy” males.

JOHN MORMON:
This seems to be a quote from Lev. 26:12, so apparently things had not changed
from Old Testament times in this regard.

POWELL (the atheist):
This seems to be creative rewriting by Paul since apparently Lev 26:12 in
neither the Masoretic text nor the LXX says "dwell in them."

It’s actually a mix of Lev 26:12 and Ex. 25:8.

JOHN MORMON:
It speaks of "choice vows." Sealings are "choice vows." The specifics of the
ceremony aren't written in the scriptures because it's too sacred for the world
to see. Even if sealings weren't consistently performed in the ancient temple,
that does NOT necessarily mean God can't order His modern people to do so.

No, choice vows are not made between anyone except an individual and God.

JOHN MORMON:
Not EVERYTHING that was old passed away, Bill, just SOME of the old. People
have been saved in heaven from the time of Adam due to God's grace and their
individual obedience.

Isa. 33: 20
20 Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities: thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a
quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down; not one of the
stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any of the cords thereof be
broken.

But the need for a temple for God’s presence to dwell in passed away. He now inhabits His people through the Holy Spirit in the temple of our bodies.

JOHN MORMON:
Although Isaiah is exaggerating that the temple would never "be taken down" and
"not one of the stakes shall ever be removed" and "neither shall ANY of the
cords thereof be broken," the point is that temples would always be important.

This is Millennial.

The saints, who sojourned once in tabernacles as pilgrims, shall have a "building of God--eternal in the heavens" (2Co 5:1; Heb 11:9, 10; compare Isa 54:2).
Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown Bible Commentary

JOHN MORMON:
It speaks of "choice vows." A baptism is a choice vow too, but those can be
done outside the temple. Proxy baptisms, however, should be done in the temple
if you have one available. Apparently, the Corinthian saints were too poor yet
to have built a temple, so God probably authorized them to do their baptisms for
the dead (1 Cor 15:29) in a local river like the early Mormons did.

The Corinthian Saints were not practicing proxy baptisms. :no:

JOHN MORMON:
They did some things differently back then. The point is that God orders us
today to do these things so we better do them.

:no:

JOHN MORMON:
It's not a sin at all to avoid making certain vows like Jephthah's foolish one,
but you should make certain other special vows, like baptism and marriage, or
you commit a sin of omission.

Sorry, not getting baptized was not a sin, nor was choosing to remain single.

JOHN MORMON:
Do you believe there will be a temple in Jerusalem for the lost tribes to return
to, or do you think temples were only a thing of the past?

Isa. 27: 13
13 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown,
and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the
outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at
Jerusalem.

There will be a temple built in Jerusalem in the future, IMO, yes, but will God bless it? I’m still up in the air on this one. I can guarantee it will not look at all like the SLC temple… and this still does not mean a temple will be in every city in the world. The final temple during the Millennium will be the only one and it will be required to go to that one, as that is where Jesus will physically be.

Zech 14
17 And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them.

John Powell

March 1st 2004, 08:56 PM

BILL THE CAT:
John, thanks for indulging me!! I really enjoy the dialogue!!

POWELL:
You're welcome. I wish more true Mormons were around.

JOHN MORMON:
What if God thinks there's still a need for temple buildings today, Bill, should we build them?

BILL THE CAT:
No, because then He’d be contradicting Himself.

JOHN MORMON:
You only THINK God would be contradicting Himself.

BILL THE CAT:

Acts 17:24
24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;

BILL THE CAT:
and

1 Corinthians 3
16-17 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and that temple you are.

JOHN MORMON:
What Acts means is that the home of God, the Father, is in heaven, not on Earth, but that doesn't mean He or His Son don't visit authorized temples on occasion and that the Holy Spirit can't be there all the time.

What 1 Cor 3 means is both that your own spirit, a child of God, dwells in your body and also that God, the Holy Ghost, also dwells there if you're worthy, so you should respect your body as you would respect the Temple in Jerusalem.

Given your apparent interpretation of these words, Bill, doesn't that mean the Bible contradicts itself, since although God was still Lord of heaven and earth in Old Testament times, yet:

Exo 25:8;
8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

JOHN MORMON:
God orders Moses to build the tabernacle so that He could dwell in a tabernacle made with hands.

EXO 40:33-34
33 And he [Moses] reared up the court round about the tabernacle and the altar, and set up the hanging of the court gate. So Moses finished the work.

34 Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

JOHN MORMON:
Then, when Moses builds it, God dwells in it, at least temporarily.

Jesus is the Ark? What's the scripture for that?

BILL THE CAT:
No scripture. It’s typology.
From http://www.bible-history.com/tabern...he_Covenant.htm
<snipped>

JOHN MORMON:
So, someone has concluded that the Ark is a type of Jesus or something intended to point one to Jesus? Well, Mormons believe it too.

JOHN MORMON:
That's true about Solomon's, Zerubbabel's, and Herod's temples, but not true when considering the Elephantine and Leontopolis temples. There was apparently only one temple needed in Palestine at a time, but when the Israelites moved to distant places (like Egypt or the Americas) then there was a need for a temple closer at hand. Perhaps the Jews in captivity in Babylon didn't build a temple partly because they expected to return soon to Palestine.

BILL THE CAT:
The Elephantine temple apparently housed the Ark. The Leontopolis temple was built because Onias IV wanted to build it. I’m checking with Stillsmallvoice on this though to see what the Jewish sages say about these temples. Heck, I may be wrong

JOHN MORMON:
So could I.

POWELL:
So could I.

JOHN MORMON:
Then either consider it to be a hypothetical or accept it temporarily for the sake of argument. *IF* God directed Israelites to the Americas would He have likely ordered them to build a temple where they could fulfill the Mosaic law or what?

BILL THE CAT:
I do not think so at all. The only times before Christ that God had the Jews leave the Promised Land, it was into exile because of their disobedience. Nowhere in the Old Testament did He order a small group of Jews to go somewhere else just to punish the rest of them. Even righteous Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were forced into captivity. The Jews were seen as a nation, and the prophets suffered for the whole nation too. (See Ezek. 4)

JOHN MORMON:
You're not playing along, Bill. Assume FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT that God did by chance direct Israelites to leave where they were to go to the promised land in the Americas would He have likely ordered them to build a temple so they could fulfill the Mosaic Law?

JOHN MORMON:
It's not so much the artifacts like the ark being what matters, but the meaning of those artifacts.

If there were more than one temple and more than one "Holy of Holies," whether the original ark was there or not, then that would be another of those special places where the High Priest could do his thing.

If one says the only "place" you can get a prescription for a certain drug is at "the" doctor's office then that does not NECESSARILY mean there's only one office in the world. To be more clear you should say "place" and "a." You seem to have misunderstood Deut 12 where it speaks of "the place" as if there can only be one such place in all the world. God was apparently emphasizing that in that future time the local shrines would need to be shut down and they were going to need to do their sacrifices and such things at the temple in Jerusalem when it was built. This was NOT supposed to be a restriction on God that God could not authorize other temples in other places like Egypt or the Americas.

BILL THE CAT:
John, you are attempting to give a false equivocation. There was only one "Holy of Holies" at a time. From http://www.templemount.org/0240.html during the 400 silent years between the OT and the NT, we read:

TEMPLEMOUNT:
Now there was also a young rebel Jewish priest who married a Samaritan, went down to Samaria, and in rebellion against the Jewish laws, built a temple on Mount Gerizim that became a rival of the temple in Jerusalem. This caused intense, fanatical rivalry between the Jews and the Samaritans, and this rivalry is also reflected in the New Testament.

BILL THE CAT:
Clearly, the Jews understood that the temple in Jerusalem was the only one allowed under the Law.

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, that Jewish priest believed it was at least legitimately possible for there to be another temple besides the one in Jerusalem. Where do you suppose he learned that idea if the "Jews understood that the temple in Jerusalem was the only one allowed under the Law"?

BILL THE CAT:
From the Jewish site
http://www.templeinstitute.org/faqs/tabernacle-faq.html we read this about the temple:

TEMPLEINSTITUTE:
But once the Holy Temple was erected in its permanent, pre-designated location in Jerusalem, the era of the Tabernacle officially came to a close. . . and the Tabernacle, for all practice and purpose, became as ancient history for Israel. New factors came into being, which irrevocably altered the previous situation: The altar of the Temple was established on its designated spot, the place on which Isaac had been bound by his father Abraham. And the Sanctuary itself was erected on "shoulder" of Mount Moriah, in keeping with the verse "He shall dwell between his shoulders" (Deut. 33:12) This is the spot which had been chosen by G-d since the very beginning of time; it was David and Samuel who clarified that it was indeed this spot, the "threshing floor of Aravna the Jebusite" (II Samuel 24:18) that G-d had chosen to rest His presence for all time. From the time that the first Holy Temple was built by King Solomon, there would be no going back to the Tabernacle.

JOHN MORMON:
So there was no need to return to the portable temple after the permanent one was built in Jerusalem. Well, what if some Jews DID have to travel across large distances for long time periods like their ancestors had done when escaping from Egypt then maybe there WOULD have been such a need. Mormons don't believe Lehi had a tabernacle, but they waited until they reached the promised land to build their temple.

JOHN MORMON:
So maybe Josephus thinks it wasn't ordained by God. Did you ask God? Did anyone ask Onias IV? Joseph was a "mere youth" when he had his first vision. John the Baptist wasn't even born yet when he was filled with the Holy Ghost.

Josephus might have said the same thing about Nephi building a temple in the Americas had Josephus known about it. Onias IV was apparently one who should have known whether building another temple far from Jerusalem was even a legitimate possibility, no?

BILL THE CAT:
We already have seen that Jerusalem was the official site for the temple and as Deut 12 says:

Deut 12
13 Be careful that you do not offer your burnt offerings in every cultic place you see,

14 but in the place which the LORD chooses in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you.

BILL THE CAT:
God had ordained Jerusalem as the place to build the temple IN ONE OF THE TRIBES, not outside the tribal land. However, slaughtering for food was ok.

JOHN MORMON:
Again, "the place" does NOT necessarily mean there is only one. What it means is that in only "the temple" (any one of them if there are more than one) should such things be done.

Who says the Americas weren't part of the "tribal lands"? You don't seriously think, do you, that God could not promise more land to the Israelites than just the little bit in Palestine do you?

BILL THE CAT:

Deut 12
21 If the place which the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, then you may slaughter of your herd and flock which the LORD has given you, as I have commanded you; and you may eat within your gates whatever you desire.

26 Only your holy things which you may have and your votive offerings, you shall take and go to the place which the LORD chooses.

BILL THE CAT:
God chose Jerusalem. That is the only place scripturally that the main offerings could be done.

JOHN MORMON:
Not so, Bill, since the Book of Mormon scripture indicates that a temple was built in the Americas. :wink:

BILL THE CAT:
The trip HAD to be made by order of the Lord. No substitute temple was authorized. Maimomides said why it was obscured with the phrase "place the Lord has chosen"

Maimomides ( Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 45. p. 475.) gives three reasons for it; he says there are three great mysteries why the place is not clearly, but obscurely mentioned;

MAIMOMIDES:
1) lest the Gentiles should seize upon it, and make war for the sake of it, supposing this place to be the end of the law;

JOHN MORMON:
Unlikely since God would merely aid the Israelites in taking the holy place from the infidels.

MAIMOMIDES:
2) lest they in whose hands the place then was should by all means waste and destroy it;

JOHN MORMON:
Unlikely since the land could not be destroyed, just the plants and animals.

MAIMOMIDES:
3) which is the chief, lest every tribe should desire to have it in its own lot and jurisdiction; and so strifes might arise among them on account of it, as happened to the priesthood:

JOHN MORMON:
Unlikely, since by telling everyone beforehand that it would be in, say, Judah's territory would have given everyone that expectation.

POWELL:
The more likely reason, imo, is it was because Deut 12 was composed long after Solomon's temple, but the forger didn't want it to be an anachronism so he had God speak of a place that would be designated later.

BILL THE CAT:

JOHN GILL:
[even] unto his habitation shall ye seek; the temple at Jerusalem is meant, where the Lord took up his dwelling, and whither men were to come and seek unto him by prayer and supplication for whatsoever they needed, and to inquire of him in matters doubtful, and they wanted counsel in:

BILL THE CAT:
John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible

JOHN MORMON:
I thought you didn't believe the Lord "dwells" in such places, Bill. Apparently your source, John Gill, disagrees with you.

JOHN MORMON:
Then apparently it was something understood by the leaders that it was at least LEGITIMATELY POSSIBLE to build other temples.

Maybe the Leontopolis temple didn't have the original Ark, but it might have had a replica. Whether there were scriptures supporting the construction of the Leontopolis temple is unknown because the words of Onias IV are not apparently available.

POWELL:
Perhaps Onias IV believed he was fulfilling prophecies in the Bible such as Isa 37:32.

BILL THE CAT:
I think Powell has it right. Onias IV wanted to make a prophecy come true on his own. This is not how God works.

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe Onias IV was inspired by God. I don't have a good reason not to think so at this time.

JOHN MORMON:
Then where can you obey God's orders in Deut 12 to make your "choice vows" in the temple if there aren't any, Bill?

BILL THE CAT:
In the temple of our bodies. He knows us and he knows the intent of our hearts. He knows us even before we speak. I showed what "choice vows" were. They are oaths, either good or bad, made between ONE PERSON and God, not several and each other.

JOHN MORMON:
Oh really?

When someone is baptized, Bill, is it merely a commitment between the person and God, or are the other saints involved? Isn't baptism also a public display of the person's commitment to the other saints?

How will the word be established in the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses if only the one person and God are involved?

Whether ancient vows were only between the person and God is irrelevant since God can order us today to make vows that include our spouse and our church. We Mormons try to do what we think God wants us to do. We don't tell God that He can't do that because it contradicts what people did anciently or it contradicts our interpretation of the Bible.

JOHN MORMON:
Ridiculous, Bill. When you say "all" who are you referring to? Baptized
Christians? "Saved" Christians? Or, who? Every Christian is a priest, huh?

Who is authorized to baptize or prepare / bless / pass the sacrament or marry couples in your church, Bill, anyone who is a Christian?

BILL THE CAT:
Well, there is secular law to worry about here. There is no difference in a "saved" Christian and a "baptized" Christian in my denomination. Any Christian can baptize and bless or pass the sacrament.

JOHN MORMON:
Then could I baptize someone to become a member of your denomination? Could I visit your church on Sunday and be welcomed as one authorized to bless or pass the sacrament to those in your church? If not me, because "Mormons aren't Christians" could someone from another denomination of Christianity, say the Baptists or the Lutherans or the Episcopalians or whatever that aren't members of your denomination but still Christians, do these things in your church for your denomination?

What's the minimum age that you baptize in your church? Immediately after being baptized could that youngest person then baptize their twin sibling in your church?

BILL THE CAT:
Secular law makes one have to have a license in order to marry a couple. Heck, I can go on the internet and get a license to marry 2 people without any supposed priesthood authority. Witches marry couples here in VA. Do they need the priesthood in order to do it or just authorization from the Gov’t?

JOHN MORMON:
We're talking "eternal" marriage here, Bill. Only those with the keys like Peter had can "seal" things on Earth that can last forever.

JOHN MORMON:
Certain male persons received the priesthood by the laying on of hands.
Everyone didn't get the priesthood automatically when they were baptized or whatever, Bill.

BILL THE CAT:
Not in the New Testament. There was no need for the Aaronic priesthood any more, nor the Levitical servants.

JOHN MORMON:
What authority did Peter and the apostles have that any ordinary Christian did NOT have? According to you, apparently none. They all apparently had the same authority.

ACTS 6:6
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

JOHN MORMON:
Clearly they were giving some kind of priesthood authority to some specific persons by the laying on of hands. Those persons now had priesthood authority that other members did not have.

The "laying on of hands" was not only to give priesthood authority, but also to bless the sick (by Jesus in several places) and to give the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:17) and even gifts of the Spirit (1 Tim 4:14).

JOHN MORMON:
No, Bill, it's talking about ANY PERSON. "No man" is not speaking only of Jesus, but anyone who might claim to have the (high) priesthood. You can't just claim it, you have to be given it in the proper way. You're just claiming you Christians have it without getting it through the proper channels.

BILL THE CAT:
There is only one High Priest, and that is Jesus Christ. We Christians are all priests of the Lamb and of God and receive it because He bought us with His shed blood.

JOHN MORMON:
There is one high priest above the rest, but that doesn't mean the others who held the high priesthood lose it.

BILL THE CAT:

Revelation 1
6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father-- to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

JOHN MORMON:
I already explained a Mormon's view on the meaning of this. You think it means that all Christians are priests regardless whether they obtained it like Aaron did.

In that case why don't you think all ancient Israelites were priests when God called them a kingdom of priests?

BILL THE CAT:

Revelation 20
6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

JOHN MORMON:
Those men who are endowed in the Mormon Temples already have the priesthood and are promised that, if they are obedient, they'll have these kinds of blessings.

BILL THE CAT:
Revelation 5
9 And they sang a new song, saying, " Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

10 "You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."

JOHN MORMON:
The disagreement between us is HOW they were made a kingdom of priests to God. You think that merely being a Christian makes you an automatic priest. I think it means that there will have been the "laying on of hands" by those authorized to do so like in the O.T. and the N.T. will have been the means.

JOHN MORMON:
The point here is that Jesus did not take it upon Himself either! God, the Father, gave Jesus the high priesthood.

BILL THE CAT:
Which only one possesses at a time and is only relinquished by death. Jesus is alive forevermore, so there is no giving of the High Priesthood to anyone else ever again.

JOHN MORMON:
Only one at a time, huh? Who was the high priest to David? Was it Abiathar or Zadok or both or neither?

Jesus was "alive" for always before too, but He didn't have a body of flesh and bones yet. You don't have to have a body of flesh and bones to have the priesthood, Bill. Jesus had the priesthood even before He lived on Earth. It was by that power that He created the Earth.

JOHN MORMON:
No, Bill. Surely, it was NOT the case that everyone in Peter's audience was a priest

If a speaker says "You are good fathers and good mothers," he should NOT be understood to be implying that the men are good mothers and the women are good fathers or the boys are fathers and the girls are mothers. He is surely saying to the men that are fathers, that they're good ones, and to the women who are mothers, that they're good ones. !

BILL THE CAT:
If they were Christian, they were priests. There are no subclasses of Christian. There are giftings, like pastor, apostle, teacher, etc, but no superior "priesthood class" It’s just not there.

JOHN MORMON:
What you call "giftings," Mormons call "priesthood levels or priesthood callings."

BILL THE CAT:
All Christians are priests, able to approach the mercy seat. False equivocations of dividing the Body into classes doesn’t cut it.

JOHN MORMON:
So, how is that different from the past? Although only a certain person might have been allowed to approach the physical mercy seat in the Temple, weren't the rest still allowed to "approach the mercy seat" in basically the same way modern Christians can, by praying to God?

Apparently the ancients could "approach the mercy seat" similarly to how modern Christians can, yet they still had a "priesthood class." Your logic fails.

BILL THE CAT:
Romans 10
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;

JOHN MORMON:
God is no respecter of persons. It was that way both in Old Testament (2 Sam 14:14) and New Testament (Acts 10:34) times.

JOHN MORMON:
This reference to "kings and priests" probably has to do with what happens in heaven. You realize, don't you, that all good Christians were not kings on Earth. The idea is that they would be given great general power (kings) and great religious power (priests) in the afterlife if they were true to their vows until the end of their lives.

BILL THE CAT:
Sorry, but we are Kings and Priests even on the Earth. Rev 1:6 makes that abundantly clear.

JOHN MORMON:
It's not clear to me. What Earthly territory and Earthly subjects are you the king over that a non-Christian is NOT king over in an analogous way?

JOHN MORMON:
Notice that back in Exo 19:6 the Israelites were a "kingdom of priests" yet not everyone was a priest. Rather than the firstborn of each household being a priest, God chose the Levites (Num 3). So, why do you think that Christians being a "kingdom of priests" is so very different than the Israelites being a "kingdom of priests"?

BILL THE CAT:
The word could be rendered princes in this case, not priests.

JOHN MORMON:
Ridiculous, Bill. Where in the Old Testament should Strong's Hebrew 03548:kohen be translated as "prince" instead of "priest"?

BILL THE CAT:
Jarchi interprets it, a kingdom of princes, as the word sometimes signifies: the subjects of this kingdom were princes, men of a princely spirit, and these princes, like those of the king of Babylon, who boasted they were altogether kings; and like the Roman senators, of whom the ambassador of Pyrrhus said, that he saw at Rome as many kings as he saw senators. And so here all the Targums render it, "kings and priests": to which reference seems to be had not only in 1 Peter 2:9 but in Revelation 1:6, they were kings when they got the victory, as in the times of Joshua, over the several kings of Canaan, and had their kingdoms divided among them; and before the priesthood was settled in the family of Aaron, every head of a family in Israel was a priest; and they were all priests at the Passover, as Philo observes: and so the spiritual Israel of God are kings and priests; they are kings, having the power and riches of kings; having got through Christ the victory over sin, Satan, and the world; and being possessed of the kingdom of grace, and heirs of the kingdom of glory; and priests, being allowed to draw nigh to God, to present themselves, souls and bodies, a holy and living sacrifice, to offer to him the sacrifices of prayer and praise through Christ, by whom they become acceptable to him: "and an holy nation"; being separated from all others, and devoted to the worship and service of God, having holy laws, and holy ordinances, and a holy service, and a holy place to perform it in, and holy persons to attend unto it, as they afterwards had. In allusion to this, the spiritual Israel, or people of God, are also called so, 1 Peter 2:9 being chosen unto holiness, redeemed from all iniquity, called with an holy calling, sanctified by the blood of Christ, and made holy by the Spirit of God, and under the influence of his grace live holy lives and conversations:
John Gill’s exposition of the Bible

JOHN MORMON:
How is what a modern Christian can do in regards to "priesthood functions" significantly different from what an ancient Hebrew could do?

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, Bill, the epistle of Peter is to a mixed audience of elect, but when he says something like "you are a royal priesthood" he surely is speaking to those specific persons who have the priesthood. The others share in the priesthood because their fathers have it.

BILL THE CAT:
There is no evidence for this, and as I have shown, there is enough to believe that all are priests. There is no evidence in the NT at all of conferring any priesthood on "worthy" males.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, wouldn't you consider Stephen to be a "worthy" male who had the laying on of hands? Whether he obtained a special level in the priesthood at that time or merely a calling is not known to me.

Paul apparently didn't think women had priesthood authority equal to men because he thought they should remain silent in church (1 Cor 14:35).

We're more liberal today, so we allow women to speak in church, but men still preside.

JOHN MORMON:
This seems to be a quote from Lev. 26:12, so apparently things had not changed from Old Testament times in this regard.

POWELL (the atheist):
This seems to be creative rewriting by Paul since apparently Lev 26:12 in neither the Masoretic text nor the LXX says "dwell in them."

BILL THE CAT:
It’s actually a mix of Lev 26:12 and Ex. 25:8.

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons believe the body is a "temple" because God, the Holy Ghost might dwell there and our spirits are all God's offspring. However, we also believe that there can be more than just one temple building at a time.

POWELL:
Nice try, Bill, but that doesn't vindicate Paul's creative alteration of the O.T.

LEV 26:12
12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.

POWELL:
It says "walk among you" not "dwell within you."

EXO 25:8
8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

POWELL:
It implies that God will dwell in the "sanctuary", a building, not in the human bodies that they will make ready for Him.

2 Cor. 6: 16
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

POWELL:
Where in the O.T. did God say "I will dwell in them" or "walk in them" in reference to God dwelling or walking in people rather than in buildings?

JOHN MORMON:
Notice if it DOES refer to temple buildings then it suggests there are more than one authorized temple building! You found another scripture in support of Mormonism!

POWELL:
I seem to have forked you, Bill. If you claim that Paul's "them" was in reference to physical buildings then you would seem to have lost the current Mormon debate about the possibility of multiple temple buildings. If you claim that Paul's "them" was in reference to Christian bodies then you would seem to lose an even bigger chess piece because that's not what's said in the O.T. so you would appear to have Paul making up things and claiming they're in the O.T. That's a big piece to lose, Paul as a reliable source of Christian truth. I suggest you sacrifice the smaller piece unless you can put me "in check" or endanger a similarly valuable piece of mine somewhere else.

JOHN MORMON:
It speaks of "choice vows." Sealings are "choice vows." The specifics of the ceremony aren't written in the scriptures because it's too sacred for the world to see. Even if sealings weren't consistently performed in the ancient temple, that does NOT necessarily mean God can't order His modern people to do so.

BILL THE CAT:
No, choice vows are not made between anyone except an individual and God.

JOHN MORMON:
We could argue whether they DID in the past, but that's rather irrelevant. The question is whether they are in the present. Mormons say yes. You say no.

JOHN MORMON:
Not EVERYTHING that was old passed away, Bill, just SOME of the old. People have been saved in heaven from the time of Adam due to God's grace and their individual obedience.

Isa. 33: 20
20 Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities: thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down; not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken.

BILL THE CAT:
But the need for a temple for God’s presence to dwell in passed away. He now inhabits His people through the Holy Spirit in the temple of our bodies.

JOHN MORMON:
What stopped God from doing that in the past even when there was a physical temple?

JOHN MORMON:
Although Isaiah is exaggerating that the temple would never "be taken down" and "not one of the stakes shall ever be removed" and "neither shall ANY of the cords thereof be broken," the point is that temples would always be important.

BILL THE CAT:
This is Millennial.

The saints, who sojourned once in tabernacles as pilgrims, shall have a "building of God--eternal in the heavens" (2Co 5:1; Heb 11:9, 10; compare Isa 54:2).

Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown Bible Commentary

JOHN MORMON:
Oh, you mean the heavenly temple never has or will be destroyed?

What is the "city of solemnities" Isaiah is referring to if it isn't the city of Jerusalem? Do you think it's heaven?

JOHN MORMON:
It speaks of "choice vows." A baptism is a choice vow too, but those can be done outside the temple. Proxy baptisms, however, should be done in the temple if you have one available. Apparently, the Corinthian saints were too poor yet to have built a temple, so God probably authorized them to do their baptisms for the dead (1 Cor 15:29) in a local river like the early Mormons did.

BILL THE CAT:
The Corinthian Saints were not practicing proxy baptisms.

JOHN MORMON:
Why do you say that? Paul used the fact that they were doing "baptisms for the dead" to help persuade them to believe in the resurrection. He was arguing that it didn't make any sense to baptize for departed ones if those dead persons would never benefit since they'd never resurrect.

JOHN MORMON:
They did some things differently back then. The point is that God orders us today to do these things so we better do them.

. . .

It's not a sin at all to avoid making certain vows like Jephthah's foolish one, but you should make certain other special vows, like baptism and marriage, or you commit a sin of omission.

BILL THE CAT:
Sorry, not getting baptized was not a sin, nor was choosing to remain single.

JOHN MORMON:
If they aren't "born again" by baptism and getting the gift of the Holy Ghost then they can't enter heaven. Sorry, Bill.

John 3:5
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water [baptized] and of the Spirit [gift of the Holy Ghost], he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

JOHN MORMON:
Even Jesus had to be baptized to "fulfill all righteousness." It's a sin of omission to NOT be baptized.

Mormons believe that to enter the highest heaven where God dwells, one must also be married properly like God is married.

JOHN MORMON:
Do you believe there will be a temple in Jerusalem for the lost tribes to return to, or do you think temples were only a thing of the past?

Isa. 27: 13
13 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem.

BILL THE CAT:
There will be a temple built in Jerusalem in the future, IMO, yes, but will God bless it? I’m still up in the air on this one. I can guarantee it will not look at all like the SLC temple. . . and this still does not mean a temple will be in every city in the world. The final temple during the Millennium will be the only one and it will be required to go to that one, as that is where Jesus will physically be.

Zech 14
17 And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them.

POWELL:
Apparently, the temple of Jerusalem will be a very crowded place having millions of family representatives at the same time or there will be a lot of rainless areas of the world. Perhaps only one person from the Powell family and only one from the Cat family need make the pilgrimage for the rest of us.

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons expect Jesus will also visit the temple in New Jerusalem in Missouri and maybe some of the others around the world. I would be very disappointed if He visited only the Jerusalem temple at the Second Coming and told us Mormons we were all sheep gone astray and our temples were not His.

John Powell

Lilith

March 2nd 2004, 02:47 PM

I had a reply but it disapeared. Darn it all.

Trout

March 2nd 2004, 04:23 PM

I had a reply but it disapeared. Darn it all.
I hate it when that happens!!

Bill the Cat

March 3rd 2004, 06:39 PM

John, I’m going to pear down our discussion a bit as we seem to be repeating a few topics. Cool?

Given your apparent interpretation of these words, Bill, doesn't that mean the
Bible contradicts itself, since although God was still Lord of heaven and earth
in Old Testament times, yet:

Exo 25:8;
8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

No contradiction here. The Hebrew text of the Old Testament distinguishes between the transcendent presence of God (yashab), and his temporary dwelling (shakan) in the Old Testament temple. Solomon recognized this in his prayer of dedication for the temple when he said, "I have surely built thee an house to dwell (shakan) in . . ." Later in the prayer he acknowledged that no earthly temple could ever serve as a residence for the transcendent presence of the infinite Creator of heaven and earth: "But will God indeed dwell (yashab) on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have built thee" (1 Kings 8:12-27).

JOHN MORMON:
God orders Moses to build the tabernacle so that He could dwell in a tabernacle
made with hands.

EXO 40:33-34
33 And he [Moses] reared up the court round about the tabernacle and the altar,
and set up the hanging of the court gate. So Moses finished the work.

34 Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD
filled the tabernacle.

JOHN MORMON:
Then, when Moses builds it, God dwells in it, at least temporarily.

See above.

JOHN MORMON:
So, someone has concluded that the Ark is a type of Jesus or something intended
to point one to Jesus? Well, Mormons believe it too.

And the main purpose of the Temple was to temporarily house the Ark. Now that the ark is no longer necessary, the temple is no longer necessary.

JOHN MORMON:
You're not playing along, Bill. Assume FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT that God did by
chance direct Israelites to leave where they were to go to the promised land in
the Americas would He have likely ordered them to build a temple so they could
fulfill the Mosaic Law?

If God directed Jews somewhere else and designated somewhere else as the “Promised Land” the assumedly so, yes. However, this brings to bear the Jewish meaning of “Promised Land” Who was the land promised to? Abraham.

The history of the Jewish people begins with Abraham, and the story of Abraham begins when G-d tells him to leave his homeland, promising Abraham and his descendants a new home in the land of Canaan. (Gen. 12). This is the land now known as Israel, named after Abraham's grandson, whose descendants are the Jewish people. The land is often referred to as the Promised Land because of G-d's repeated promise (Gen. 12:7, 13:15, 15:18, 17:8) to give the land to the descendants of Abraham. Living outside of Israel is viewed as an unnatural state for a Jew. The world outside of Israel is often referred to as "galut," which is usually translated as "diaspora" (dispersion), but a more literal translation would be "exile" or "captivity." When we live outside of Israel, we are living in exile from our land
http://www.jewfaq.org/israel.htm

Who says the Americas weren't part of the "tribal lands"? You don't seriously
think, do you, that God could not promise more land to the Israelites than just
the little bit in Palestine do you?

Considering the promise was made to Abraham, and not the Jews much later, yes I do think that the only promised land was what Abraham was promised in Genesis.

JOHN MORMON:
Not so, Bill, since the Book of Mormon scripture indicates that a temple was
built in the Americas. :wink:

Cute… No archaeological evidence can substantiate that.

JOHN MORMON:
I thought you didn't believe the Lord "dwells" in such places, Bill. Apparently
your source, John Gill, disagrees with you.

See above.

JOHN MORMON:
Oh really?

When someone is baptized, Bill, is it merely a commitment between the person and
God, or are the other saints involved? Isn't baptism also a public display of
the person's commitment to the other saints?

Correct, thus baptism is not a “choice vow” nor is it of saving value because someone other than the person and Christ is needed to perform it.

How will the word be established in the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses if only the
one person and God are involved?

The person, The Father and the mediator (Christ) There is no other mediator. But there are your witnesses.

Whether ancient vows were only between the person and God is irrelevant since
God can order us today to make vows that include our spouse and our church. We
Mormons try to do what we think God wants us to do. We don't tell God that He
can't do that because it contradicts what people did anciently or it contradicts
our interpretation of the Bible.

John Mormon, this is the whole of our difference. God does not order us to make vows to each other, The New Testament mentions vows only twice, both times regarding vows made by Christians who had made vows consecrating themselves to God for some length of time, much like the Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18; 21:23; see Numbers 6:18). {This is a choice vow!} More often, the New Testament speaks of swearing oaths, a related concept. Jesus advises us not to swear at all (Matthew 5:34), but to say simply, "Yes" or "No" (verse 37). If we are honest, we have no need to take an oath. He goes so far as to say that anything more than "Yes" or "No" has its source in the father of lies (John 8:44)!

JOHN MORMON:
Then could I baptize someone to become a member of your denomination?

No, Mormonism is not recognized by Orthodoxy as Christian.

Could I visit your church on Sunday and be welcomed as one authorized to bless or pass
the sacrament to those in your church? If not me, because "Mormons aren't
Christians" could someone from another denomination of Christianity, say the
Baptists or the Lutherans or the Episcopalians or whatever that aren't members
of your denomination but still Christians, do these things in your church for
your denomination?[/QUOTE]

Yes. There is no problem with that. Usually the one getting baptized gets to select who baptizes him.

What's the minimum age that you baptize in your church? Immediately after being
baptized could that youngest person then baptize their twin sibling in your
church?

It varies per individual. Baptism is an outward confession of the already accomplished work of Christ in a believer’s life. Some don’t understand that work of Christ, so we have the “age of accountability” which is different for everyone. In the instance of the twins, yes.

JOHN MORMON:
We're talking "eternal" marriage here, Bill. Only those with the keys like
Peter had can "seal" things on Earth that can last forever.

There is no eternal marriage. It’s too long of an issue to discuss here.

JOHN MORMON:
What authority did Peter and the apostles have that any ordinary Christian did
NOT have? According to you, apparently none. They all apparently had the same
authority.

They did. There were others that were doing exactly the same things as the 12.
Luke 9
49 John answered and said, " Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us."
50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."

JOHN MORMON:
Clearly they were giving some kind of priesthood authority to some specific
persons by the laying on of hands. Those persons now had priesthood authority
that other members did not have.

The "laying on of hands" was not only to give priesthood authority, but also to
bless the sick (by Jesus in several places) and to give the gift of the Holy
Ghost (Acts 8:17) and even gifts of the Spirit (1 Tim 4:14).

It was not for conferring any “priesthood” Your quote of Acts 6:6 is out of context too. It had absolutely nothing to do with priesthood. Let’s look at context:
Acts 6
1 Now at this time while the) disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food.
2 So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.
3 "Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.
4 "But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."
5 The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.
6 And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.

It was a symbolic gesture of commissioning these 7 for the task of administering the feeding of the widows. No mention at all about priesthood.

JOHN MORMON:
There is one high priest above the rest, but that doesn't mean the others who
held the high priesthood lose it.

This is a ridiculous claim. The Aaronic priesthood was for life, then transferred, not shared. The unique priesthood of Jesus is not assumable by anyone. See the article here: http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/melchizedek.html
Where this is brought forth:

In Hebrews, the salient point made concerning Jesus' priesthood in the order of Melchizedek was that it was on the power of an indestructible life (Heb. 7:16). The fact that men who occupied the Levitical priesthood could not continue because of death was noted as a short-coming. They could pray for Israel, but their prayers were cut short by death. Jesus, as noted above, lives forever to offer intercession for His own.
Those who allegedly occupy the priesthood of Melchizedek today suffer from the same short-comings as did the priests who descended from Aaron -- they die.

JOHN MORMON:
Only one at a time, huh? Who was the high priest to David? Was it Abiathar or
Zadok or both or neither?

Don’t you mean JOHN POWELL? :poke: :teeth: Both at different times. In Mark 2:26, reference is made to an occurrence in "the days of Abiathar the high priest." But from 1 Sam. 22, we learn that this event took place when Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was high priest. The apparent discrepancy is satisfactorily explained by interpreting the words in Mark as referring to the lifetime of Abiathar, and not to his term of office. It is not implied in Mark that he was actually high priest at the time referred to. Others, however, think that the loaves belonged to Abiathar, who was at that time (Lev. 24:9) a priest, and that he either himself gave them to David, or persuaded his father to give them.
Jesus was "alive" for always before too, but He didn't have a body of flesh and
bones yet. You don't have to have a body of flesh and bones to have the
priesthood, Bill. Jesus had the priesthood even before He lived on Earth. It
was by that power that He created the Earth.

Not true at all. The New Covenant conferred the priesthood on Jesus. Nothing can take it away from Him because he does not die, therefore no successor ever need be named.

JOHN MORMON:
What you call "giftings," Mormons call "priesthood levels or priesthood
callings."

But this carries the connotation that only “worthy” people can hold these “priesthood callings” Sorry, but all men sin and fall short of the Glory of God. None are worthy. Grace is all that makes us able to approach the throne of God and grace is evenly applied to all who believe.

JOHN MORMON:
So, how is that different from the past? Although only a certain person might
have been allowed to approach the physical mercy seat in the Temple, weren't the
rest still allowed to "approach the mercy seat" in basically the same way modern
Christians can, by praying to God?

Apparently the ancients could "approach the mercy seat" similarly to how modern
Christians can, yet they still had a "priesthood class." Your logic fails.

Sorry, nice try. The ancients had to have a human mediator (the priesthood). We Christians have Jesus (THE Priest) who is more than just a fallible human. The only priest we need is Jesus, and He is our High Priest. No other will do, nor has ever done. The priesthood class was a foreshadow of Jesus’ more excellent ministry and calling (See Hebrews)

JOHN MORMON:
It's not clear to me. What Earthly territory and Earthly subjects are you the
king over that a non-Christian is NOT king over in an analogous way?

The Kingdom of God prophesied of in Dan 2.

JOHN MORMON:
Ridiculous, Bill. Where in the Old Testament should Strong's Hebrew 03548:kohen
be translated as "prince" instead of "priest"?

Sorry I didn’t edit that part. We are Kings and priests as the rest of the Gill quote showed.

and priests, being allowed to draw nigh to God, to present themselves, souls and bodies, a holy and living sacrifice, to offer to him the sacrifices of prayer and praise through Christ, by whom they become acceptable to him:

JOHN MORMON:
How is what a modern Christian can do in regards to "priesthood functions"
significantly different from what an ancient Hebrew could do?

See above. The ancient Hebrew non-priests could not present themselves to God directly, but had to go through whoever happened to be High Priest at the time.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, wouldn't you consider Stephen to be a "worthy" male who had the laying on
of hands? Whether he obtained a special level in the priesthood at that time or
merely a calling is not known to me.
It was simply a job to oversee, nothing extremely special. See my verse quote above.

Paul apparently didn't think women had priesthood authority equal to men because
he thought they should remain silent in church (1 Cor 14:35).

Yet he greets women equally in the same sentence as fellow laborers, and even lists women apostles.

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons believe the body is a "temple" because God, the Holy Ghost might dwell
there and our spirits are all God's offspring. However, we also believe that
there can be more than just one temple building at a time.

Temples are irrelevant. Jesus explained it to the woman at the well.
— John 4
20-23 Our fathers [Samaritans] worshipped in this mountain [Samaritan temple at Mt. Gerezim]; and ye [Jews] say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

http://www.irr.org/mit/temple.html
Jesus’ words in John 4:20-23 (quoted above) underline three important points regarding the Old Testament temple and its relationship to New Testament faith: (1) The Jews were God’s elect people. Through them the Lord uniquely revealed His plan of redemption, of which the temple worship system (consisting of the tabernacle/temple, Aaronic priesthood, and sacrifices) was a central part. Though the Samaritans worshipped Jehovah (or Yahweh, as modern scholars believe it should be pronounced), the one true God, they rejected important parts of His scriptural revelation1 and Jesus here pronounces their worship false (v. 22). (2) The Biblical Scriptures stipulate only one temple2 (Deuteronomy 12:5ff; 14:23-24; 16:2ff; 26:2; Leviticus 17:8-9) — the Jews and Samaritans were divided over its proper location. It is clear that Jesus sided with the Jews in this dispute:3 He here specifically identifies Himself with the Jews ("we know what we worship . . ."), and elsewhere He calls the Jerusalem temple "my Fathers house" (John 2:16). (3) Nevertheless, Jesus’ words in John 4:23 plainly signal the imminent end of worship at a temple building. … Jesus instituted a New Covenant under which God does not dwell among His people through a temple building, but in His people through the Holy Spirit.

POWELL:
Nice try, Bill, but that doesn't vindicate Paul's creative alteration of the
O.T.

LEV 26:12
12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.

POWELL:
It says "walk among you" not "dwell within you."

EXO 25:8
8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

Jesus Himself said He would dwell in us
John 15
4 " Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

Seeing as how Jesus is God, Paul offers no contradiction.

JOHN MORMON:
Oh, you mean the heavenly temple never has or will be destroyed?

What is the "city of solemnities" Isaiah is referring to if it isn't the city of
Jerusalem? Do you think it's heaven?

This was but imperfectly fulfilled in the literal Zion; but clearly and fully in the mystical Zion, the church of God, in the times of the gospel. –John Wesley

JOHN MORMON:
Why do you say that? Paul used the fact that they were doing "baptisms for the
dead" to help persuade them to believe in the resurrection. He was arguing that
it didn't make any sense to baptize for departed ones if those dead persons
would never benefit since they'd never resurrect.

It was Greco-roman rhetoric. He was making the point that even those who baptize for the dead (not including himself as me or we or us) realized there was a resurrection. There was no evidence of baptisms for the dead in any other early writings (ie. The Didache) JP did an article on it here: http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_ADFS.html

JOHN MORMON:
If they aren't "born again" by baptism and getting the gift of the Holy Ghost
then they can't enter heaven. Sorry, Bill.

John 3:5
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water
[baptized] and of the Spirit [gift of the Holy Ghost], he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God.

You make the mistaken assumption that Jesus was referring to Baptism when he says being born of Water. Jesus was answering Nicodemus’ question of how to be born again. Born of Water refers to physical birth of a woman. Nicodemus understood that much. Jesus was saying that not only must one be born of a woman (water breaking) as Nicodemus had said, but also of the Spirit (Salvation)

JOHN MORMON:
Even Jesus had to be baptized to "fulfill all righteousness." It's a sin of
omission to NOT be baptized.

In order to qualify to be a Jewish Priest, the Jew had to be washed and anointed at 30 years old. Must Mormons wait until they are 30 in order to be like Jesus?

Mormons believe that to enter the highest heaven where God dwells, one must also
be married properly like God is married.

Well, sadly, they are wrong. http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/celestial-marriage.html

POWELL:
Apparently, the temple of Jerusalem will be a very crowded place having millions
of family representatives at the same time or there will be a lot of rainless
areas of the world. Perhaps only one person from the Powell family and only one
from the Cat family need make the pilgrimage for the rest of us.

That’d be correct. The father of the family unit will go. This is also well after the events of the tribulation and the families of the world are significantly reduced.

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons expect Jesus will also visit the temple in New Jerusalem in Missouri and
maybe some of the others around the world. I would be very disappointed if He
visited only the Jerusalem temple at the Second Coming and told us Mormons we
were all sheep gone astray and our temples were not His.

Sadly, that’s what they are. Fact is, Mormonism is an invention of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. There is no real similarity in the practices of the Jews, Orthodox early Christians, and Mormons today. The only similarities are superficial names that deep down mean entirely different things.

John Powell

March 6th 2004, 06:14 AM

BILL THE CAT:
John, I’m going to pear down our discussion a bit as we seem to be repeating a few topics. Cool?

JOHN MORMON:
I guess, if you mean "pare."

JOHN MORMON:
Given your apparent interpretation of these words, Bill, doesn't that mean the Bible contradicts itself, since although God was still Lord of heaven and earth in Old Testament times, yet:

Exo 25:8;
8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

BILL THE CAT:
No contradiction here. The Hebrew text of the Old Testament distinguishes between the transcendent presence of God (yashab), and his temporary dwelling (shakan) in the Old Testament temple. Solomon recognized this in his prayer of dedication for the temple when he said, "I have surely built thee an house to dwell (shakan) in . . ." Later in the prayer he acknowledged that no earthly temple could ever serve as a residence for the transcendent presence of the infinite Creator of heaven and earth: "But will God indeed dwell (yashab) on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have built thee" (1 Kings 8:12-27).

JOHN MORMON:
Solomon acknowledged that God dwells in heaven (v. 30 and elsewhere), but the temple was also a place for God to dwell in (v. 13). The implication is that God's permananent residence is in heaven, but the temple is His home on Earth.

Solomon was apparently asking a question whether God would dwell in the temple, not claiming that God would not.

However, given what you said, apparently you believe that Solomon believed that God did not dwell in buildings made by man, yet Solomon believed that the Temple was important to God. Why then, when N.T. persons claim a similar thing about God do you conclude that means the temple is no longer necessary?

JOHN MORMON:
God orders Moses to build the tabernacle so that He could dwell in a tabernacle made with hands.

EXO 40:33-34
33 And he [Moses] reared up the court round about the tabernacle and the altar, and set up the hanging of the court gate. So Moses finished the work.

34 Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

JOHN MORMON:
Then, when Moses builds it, God dwells in it, at least temporarily.

BILL THE CAT:
See above.

JOHN MORMON:
God DID "dwell" in the temple to some significant degree according to the Bible.

JOHN MORMON:
So, someone has concluded that the Ark is a type of Jesus or something intended to point one to Jesus? Well, Mormons believe it too.

BILL THE CAT:
And the main purpose of the Temple was to temporarily house the Ark. Now that the ark is no longer necessary, the temple is no longer necessary.

JOHN MORMON:
Huh? The main purpose was not the sacrifices going on there? Where in Deut 12 did it say what should be done about the Ark? Apparently it was what went on there that was most important, not whether the Ark was there.

JOHN MORMON:
You're not playing along, Bill. Assume FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT that God did by chance direct Israelites to leave where they were to go to the promised land in the Americas would He have likely ordered them to build a temple so they could fulfill the Mosaic Law?

BILL THE CAT:
If God directed Jews somewhere else and designated somewhere else as the "Promised Land" the assumedly so, yes.

JOHN MORMON:
Thank you. Now, the issue is whether God DID do that.

BILL THE CAT:
However, this brings to bear the Jewish meaning of "Promised Land" Who was the land promised to? Abraham.

JOHN MORMON:
What about the promised land to Adam and Eve?

BILL THE CAT:

JEWFAQ:
The history of the Jewish people begins with Abraham, and the story of Abraham begins when G-d tells him to leave his homeland, promising Abraham and his descendants a new home in the land of Canaan. (Gen. 12). This is the land now known as Israel, named after Abraham's grandson, whose descendants are the Jewish people. The land is often referred to as the Promised Land because of G-d's repeated promise (Gen. 12:7, 13:15, 15:18, 17:8) to give the land to the descendants of Abraham. Living outside of Israel is viewed as an unnatural state for a Jew. The world outside of Israel is often referred to as "galut," which is usually translated as "diaspora" (dispersion), but a more literal translation would be "exile" or "captivity." When we live outside of Israel, we are living in exile from our land
http://www.jewfaq.org/israel.htm

JOHN MORMON:
It's not our fault that Jews of the diaspora don't consider themselves living in the promised land unless they're in Palestine.

JOHN MORMON:
Who says the Americas weren't part of the "tribal lands"? You don't seriously think, do you, that God could not promise more land to the Israelites than just the little bit in Palestine do you?

BILL THE CAT:
Considering the promise was made to Abraham, and not the Jews much later, yes I do think that the only promised land was what Abraham was promised in Genesis.

JOHN MORMON:
What if God called the Americas the "promised land" to certain Israelites, would it be? Of course. The question should be WHETHER God said so, not whether God COULD have said so.

JOHN MORMON:
Not so, Bill, since the Book of Mormon scripture indicates that a temple was built in the Americas.

BILL THE CAT:
Cute. . . No archaeological evidence can substantiate that.

JOHN MORMON:
There were religious buildings in the Americas, Bill. The question is whether any similar enough to Solomon's Temple have been located. Apparently, none YET.

JOHN MORMON:
I thought you didn't believe the Lord "dwells" in such places, Bill. Apparently your source, John Gill, disagrees with you.

BILL THE CAT:
See above.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok, so you don't think God's "transcendent" presence can dwell on the Earth or even the universe. Big deal. That did not change between O.T. times when the temple was important and N.T. times when you think the temple was no longer important.

JOHN MORMON:
Oh really?

When someone is baptized, Bill, is it merely a commitment between the person and God, or are the other saints involved? Isn't baptism also a public display of the person's commitment to the other saints?

BILL THE CAT:
Correct, thus baptism is not a "choice vow" nor is it of saving value because someone other than the person and Christ is needed to perform it.

JOHN MORMON:
If it's not performed by someone with God's authority then God is not obligated to honor it.

JOHN MORMON:
How will the word be established in the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses if only the one person and God are involved?

BILL THE CAT:
The person, The Father and the mediator (Christ) There is no other mediator. But there are your witnesses.

JOHN MORMON:
My point is that you NEED the witnesses.

JOHN MORMON:
Whether ancient vows were only between the person and God is irrelevant since God can order us today to make vows that include our spouse and our church. We Mormons try to do what we think God wants us to do. We don't tell God that He can't do that because it contradicts what people did anciently or it contradicts our interpretation of the Bible.

BILL THE CAT:
John Mormon, this is the whole of our difference. God does not order us to make vows to each other, The New Testament mentions vows only twice, both times regarding vows made by Christians who had made vows consecrating themselves to God for some length of time, much like the Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18; 21:23; see Numbers 6:18). {This is a choice vow!} More often, the New Testament speaks of swearing oaths, a related concept. Jesus advises us not to swear at all (Matthew 5:34), but to say simply, "Yes" or "No" (verse 37). If we are honest, we have no need to take an oath. He goes so far as to say that anything more than "Yes" or "No" has its source in the father of lies (John 8:44)!

JOHN MORMON:
IMO, Jesus was talking about swearing as part of confirmation to a claim. If someone asks "Are you Bill?" then you should reply "Yes" rather than "I swear by God's throne, yes." You seem to think that Jesus was telling Christians not to make vows to God anymore. How ridiculous.

JOHN MORMON:
Then could I baptize someone to become a member of your denomination?

BILL THE CAT:
No, Mormonism is not recognized by Orthodoxy as Christian.

JOHN MORMON:
Could I visit your church on Sunday and be welcomed as one authorized to bless or pass the sacrament to those in your church? If not me, because "Mormons aren't Christians" could someone from another denomination of Christianity, say the Baptists or the Lutherans or the Episcopalians or whatever that aren't members of your denomination but still Christians, do these things in your church for
your denomination?

BILL THE CAT:
Yes. There is no problem with that. Usually the one getting baptized gets to select who baptizes him.

JOHN MORMON:
That's hard to believe, Bill. Could you ID your church and a few of the most DISSIMILAR churches to your own that would still qualify in this regard to baptize members into your church?

JOHN MORMON:
What's the minimum age that you baptize in your church? Immediately after being baptized could that youngest person then baptize their twin sibling in your church?

BILL THE CAT:
It varies per individual. Baptism is an outward confession of the already accomplished work of Christ in a believer’s life. Some don’t understand that work of Christ, so we have the "age of accountability" which is different for everyone. In the instance of the twins, yes.

JOHN MORMON:
What's the average "age of accountability" for those in your church? If you tell me "it depends" you will be showing your ignorance of statistics.

JOHN MORMON:
We're talking "eternal" marriage here, Bill. Only those with the keys like Peter had can "seal" things on Earth that can last forever.

BILL THE CAT:
There is no eternal marriage. It’s too long of an issue to discuss here.

JOHN MORMON:
What if God said there was? Then there would be.

JOHN MORMON:
What authority did Peter and the apostles have that any ordinary Christian did NOT have? According to you, apparently none. They all apparently had the same authority.

BILL THE CAT:
They did. There were others that were doing exactly the same things as the 12.

Luke 9
49 John answered and said, " Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us."

50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."

JOHN MORMON:
This does NOT mean that the person had authority from Jesus! He's merely saying to leave those people alone since there were others they should be focusing on. Just because a person claims to have authority from God, Bill, does not mean they do.

JOHN MORMON:
Clearly they were giving some kind of priesthood authority to some specific persons by the laying on of hands. Those persons now had priesthood authority that other members did not have.

The "laying on of hands" was not only to give priesthood authority, but also to bless the sick (by Jesus in several places) and to give the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:17) and even gifts of the Spirit (1 Tim 4:14).

BILL THE CAT:
It was not for conferring any "priesthood" Your quote of Acts 6:6 is out of context too. It had absolutely nothing to do with priesthood.

JOHN MORMON:
I concede that I don't know if they were given the priesthood there or given a calling in the priesthood or given a non-priesthood calling (the kind that women might be given), but it seems likely it was a calling in the priesthood.

BILL THE CAT:
Let’s look at context:

Acts 6
1 Now at this time while the) disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food.

2 So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.

3 "Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.

4 "But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."

5 The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.

6 And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.

BILL THE CAT:
It was a symbolic gesture of commissioning these 7 for the task of administering the feeding of the widows. No mention at all about priesthood.

JOHN MORMON:
It was an AUTHORIZING gesture to put their hands on them. In our church this calling would be a priesthood calling so it probably was for them back then too.

JOHN MORMON:
There is one high priest above the rest, but that doesn't mean the others who held the high priesthood lose it.

BILL THE CAT:
This is a ridiculous claim. The Aaronic priesthood was for life, then transferred, not shared. The unique priesthood of Jesus is not assumable by anyone. See the article here: http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/melchizedek.html
Where this is brought forth:

In Hebrews, the salient point made concerning Jesus' priesthood in the order of Melchizedek was that it was on the power of an indestructible life (Heb. 7:16). The fact that men who occupied the Levitical priesthood could not continue because of death was noted as a short-coming. They could pray for Israel, but their prayers were cut short by death. Jesus, as noted above, lives forever to offer intercession for His own.

Those who allegedly occupy the priesthood of Melchizedek today suffer from the same short-comings as did the priests who descended from Aaron -- they die.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, gee, Bill, didn't Melchizedek himself die, yet he held this priesthood you speak of?

One doesn't have to be God to hold the Melchizedek priesthood, Bill. Just because God is the highest in authority does NOT mean that there aren't others who hold the same priesthood, but lessor authority.

JOHN MORMON:
Only one at a time, huh? Who was the high priest to David? Was it Abiathar or Zadok or both or neither?

BILL THE CAT:
Don’t you mean JOHN POWELL?

POWELL:
Maybe you're right given the direction this is going, but I try to have John Mormon say what is still consistent with his beliefs.

BILL THE CAT:
Both at different times.

JOHN MORMON:
Keep dancing, Bill.

Which one was high priest in 2 Sam 20:25? What in the text indicates this?

POWELL:
Who was the FIRST person in the Bible called "X, the high priest" rather than merely "X, the priest"? I'll give you some hints. It was NOT Aaron or Abiathar. It was someone whose names starts with "H."

BILL THE CAT:
In Mark 2:26, reference is made to an occurrence in "the days of Abiathar the high priest." But from 1 Sam. 22, we learn that this event took place when Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was high priest. The apparent discrepancy is satisfactorily explained by interpreting the words in Mark as referring to the lifetime of Abiathar, and not to his term of office.

POWELL:
Sure, Bill.

Acts 11:28
And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

POWELL:
Do you think Luke meant to imply that the dearth occurred sometime during the lifetime of Claudius (perhaps while he was still a young boy) or WHILE CLAUDIUS WAS CAESAR? It should be obvious to you.

Another problem for you is that Abiathar NEVER was referred to in the O.T. as "Abiathar, the high priest" but only as "Abiathar, the priest."

BILL THE CAT:
It is not implied in Mark that he was actually high priest at the time referred to.

POWELL:
Yes it is implied, Bill, just like Acts 11:28 implies that Claudius was Caesar at the time of the dearth.

BILL THE CAT:
Others, however, think that the loaves belonged to Abiathar, who was at that time (Lev. 24:9) a priest, and that he either himself gave them to David, or persuaded his father to give them.

POWELL:
Where is the textual evidence in 2 Sam that the loaves belonged to Abiathar? Abiathar isn't even mentioned in the Bible until Saul goes after Ahimelech for helping David (1 Sam 22:20). Doeg did NOT say that "Ahimelech and Abiathar" helped David, but only mentioned Ahimelech (1 Sam 22:9-10).

It's so clearly a mistake in Mark, Bill, that Matthew and Luke completely drop it from their accounts. The Bible is confused about Abiathar and Ahimelech. In fact, elsewhere it speaks of Ahimelech as being the SON of Abiathar rather than the other way around (2 Sam 8:17)!

JOHN MORMON:
Jesus was "alive" for always before too, but He didn't have a body of flesh and bones yet. You don't have to have a body of flesh and bones to have the priesthood, Bill. Jesus had the priesthood even before He lived on Earth. It was by that power that He created the Earth.

BILL THE CAT:
Not true at all. The New Covenant conferred the priesthood on Jesus. Nothing can take it away from Him because he does not die, therefore no successor ever need be named.

JOHN MORMON:
No successor ever existed even during O.T. times when you agree there were high priests of the Melchizedek order.

JOHN MORMON:
What you call "giftings," Mormons call "priesthood levels or priesthood
callings."

BILL THE CAT:
But this carries the connotation that only "worthy" people can hold these "priesthood callings" Sorry, but all men sin and fall short of the Glory of God. None are worthy. Grace is all that makes us able to approach the throne of God and grace is evenly applied to all who believe.

JOHN MORMON:
You seem to think that no one is worthy to go to heaven. How does God decide who goes and who doesn't then? How does God separate the goats from the sheep if everyone is the same?

JOHN MORMON:
So, how is that different from the past? Although only a certain person might have been allowed to approach the physical mercy seat in the Temple, weren't the rest still allowed to "approach the mercy seat" in basically the same way modern Christians can, by praying to God?

Apparently the ancients could "approach the mercy seat" similarly to how modern Christians can, yet they still had a "priesthood class." Your logic fails.

BILL THE CAT:
Sorry, nice try. The ancients had to have a human mediator (the priesthood). We Christians have Jesus (THE Priest) who is more than just a fallible human. The only priest we need is Jesus, and He is our High Priest. No other will do, nor has ever done. The priesthood class was a foreshadow of Jesus’ more excellent ministry and calling (See Hebrews)

JOHN MORMON:
Jesus existed during O.T. times, Bill. He was Jehovah. He held the priesthood then too. Nevertheless, Jehovah authorized human officials to represent Him on Earth. He did during O.T. times. He did during N.T. times. He does in modern times.

JOHN MORMON:
It's not clear to me. What Earthly territory and Earthly subjects are you the king over that a non-Christian is NOT king over in an analogous way?

BILL THE CAT:
The Kingdom of God prophesied of in Dan 2.

JOHN MORMON:
You're a KING in that kingdom? That's unlikely.

Notice that the stone would appear during post Roman times, so it was not the church of Christ's day, but a latter-day church.

It's ironic that you criticize Mormons for aspiring to be Gods rather than merely choir angels in the afterlife, but you claim to ALREADY be a king.

Perhaps in your church they should refer to each other as "King Bill" or whatever rather than "Brother Bill."

The sons of Zebedee were vying for positions of power in Christ's kingdom in the afterlife, not in this life (Luke 20:21).

JOHN MORMON:
Ridiculous, Bill. Where in the Old Testament should Strong's Hebrew 03548:kohen be translated as "prince" instead of "priest"?

BILL THE CAT:
Sorry I didn’t edit that part. We are Kings and priests as the rest of the Gill quote showed.

GILL:
and priests, being allowed to draw nigh to God, to present themselves, souls and bodies, a holy and living sacrifice, to offer to him the sacrifices of prayer and praise through Christ, by whom they become acceptable to him:

JOHN MORMON:
Then, Bill, if the Israelites were a "kingdom of priests," yet not every single person was a priest then why do you think Christians were all priests when Paul claimed that they were a "kingdom of priests"?

JOHN MORMON:
How is what a modern Christian can do in regards to "priesthood functions" significantly different from what an ancient Hebrew could do?

BILL THE CAT:
See above. The ancient Hebrew non-priests could not present themselves to God directly, but had to go through whoever happened to be High Priest at the time.

JOHN MORMON:
Sure, Bill. Which priest did Moses go through to speak to God, huh? How about Adam? How about Noah? How about David? How about Solomon? How about Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the others?

JOHN MORMON:
Well, wouldn't you consider Stephen to be a "worthy" male who had the laying on of hands? Whether he obtained a special level in the priesthood at that time or merely a calling is not known to me.

BILL THE CAT:
It was simply a job to oversee, nothing extremely special. See my verse quote above.

JOHN MORMON:
But, Bill, the ministry was "simply a job to oversee," yet that does not mean the apostles were not given the priesthood to do the ministry.

JOHN MORMON:
Paul apparently didn't think women had priesthood authority equal to men because he thought they should remain silent in church (1 Cor 14:35).

BILL THE CAT:
Yet he greets women equally in the same sentence as fellow laborers, and even lists women apostles.

JOHN MORMON:
Where does he list women apostles?

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons believe the body is a "temple" because God, the Holy Ghost might dwell there and our spirits are all God's offspring. However, we also believe that there can be more than just one temple building at a time.

BILL THE CAT:
Temples are irrelevant. Jesus explained it to the woman at the well.

John 4
20-23 Our fathers [Samaritans] worshipped in this mountain [Samaritan temple at Mt. Gerezim]; and ye [Jews] say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

JOHN MORMON:
Jesus affirmed the existing importance of the Jerusalem temple, but He prophesied that there would be a day that worship would not occur in the Jerusalem temple, yet people would still be able to worship God. That does NOT necessarily mean that temples per se would no longer be important ever. It would seem to imply that there would be OTHER temples besides the Jerusalem temple.

BILL THE CAT:
http://www.irr.org/mit/temple.html

IRR:
Jesus’ words in John 4:20-23 (quoted above) underline three important points regarding the Old Testament temple and its relationship to New Testament faith: (1) The Jews were God’s elect people. Through them the Lord uniquely revealed His plan of redemption, of which the temple worship system (consisting of the tabernacle/temple, Aaronic priesthood, and sacrifices) was a central part. Though the Samaritans worshipped Jehovah (or Yahweh, as modern scholars believe it should be pronounced), the one true God, they rejected important parts of His scriptural revelation1 and Jesus here pronounces their worship false (v. 22). (2) The Biblical Scriptures stipulate only one temple2 (Deuteronomy 12:5ff; 14:23-24; 16:2ff; 26:2; Leviticus 17:8-9)

JOHN MORMON:
The scriptures do NOT stipulate only one temple, but that the only PLACE to do certain things was in the temple. There is an allowance for more than one temple. The fact that some Jews built other temples supports this.

IRR:
--- the Jews and Samaritans were divided over its proper location. It is clear that Jesus sided with the Jews in this dispute:3 He here specifically identifies Himself with the Jews ("we know what we worship . . ."), and elsewhere He calls the Jerusalem temple "my Fathers house" (John 2:16). (3) Nevertheless, Jesus’ words in John 4:23 plainly signal the imminent end of worship at a temple building.

JOHN MORMON:
No it doesn't. His words plainly signal the imminent end of worship at THAT SPECIFIC temple building.

IRR:
. . . Jesus instituted a New Covenant under which God does not dwell among His people through a temple building, but in His people through the Holy Spirit.

JOHN MORMON:
Where is this supported that God would no longer use temple buildings?

POWELL:
Nice try, Bill, but that doesn't vindicate Paul's creative alteration of the O.T.

LEV 26:12
12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.

POWELL:
It says "walk among you" not "dwell within you."

EXO 25:8
8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

BILL THE CAT:
Jesus Himself said He would dwell in us

John 15
4 " Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.

5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.

6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

BILL THE CAT:
Seeing as how Jesus is God, Paul offers no contradiction.

POWELL:
Paul was clearly claiming to be QUOTING what is written in the OLD TESTAMENT when he said in 2 Cor 6:16 "as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." He was not PARAPHRASING something Jesus had said. If Paul had meant that Jesus had said those words then he would have likely said that Jesus had said them. Paul clearly distinguished "God" from "Jesus."

What was the "them" that God was referring to there? Was it buildings or people? If it was people then where in the O.T. did God claim that? If it was buildings, then that would imply there could be more than one temple building, right?

JOHN MORMON:
Oh, you mean the heavenly temple never has or will be destroyed?

What is the "city of solemnities" Isaiah is referring to if it isn't the city of Jerusalem? Do you think it's heaven?

BILL THE CAT:
This was but imperfectly fulfilled in the literal Zion; but clearly and fully in the mystical Zion, the church of God, in the times of the gospel. –John Wesley

JOHN MORMON:
Ok for now.

JOHN MORMON:
Why do you say that? Paul used the fact that they were doing "baptisms for the dead" to help persuade them to believe in the resurrection. He was arguing that it didn't make any sense to baptize for departed ones if those dead persons would never benefit since they'd never resurrect.

BILL THE CAT:
It was Greco-roman rhetoric. He was making the point that even those who baptize for the dead (not including himself as me or we or us) realized there was a resurrection.

JOHN MORMON:
Who cares what the non-believers did? The issue was that it didn't make sense for CHRISTIANS to baptize for the dead, yet not believe in the resurrection. That was Paul's argument. If it was that non-Christians believed in the resurrection then he should have said "Even the Greeks believe in the resurrection, so why don't you?" or something like that.

BILL THE CAT:
There was no evidence of baptisms for the dead in any other early writings (ie. The Didache) JP did an article on it here: http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_ADFS.html

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, this is one of those "sacred truths" that the Catholics or others destroyed from the records.

Given God's command that everyone must be baptized to enter heaven, but the dead can't, it makes sense to do proxy baptisms.

JOHN MORMON:
If they aren't "born again" by baptism and getting the gift of the Holy Ghost then they can't enter heaven. Sorry, Bill.

John 3:5
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water [baptized] and of the Spirit [gift of the Holy Ghost], he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

BILL THE CAT:
You make the mistaken assumption that Jesus was referring to Baptism when he says being born of Water. Jesus was answering Nicodemus’ question of how to be born again. Born of Water refers to physical birth of a woman. Nicodemus understood that much. Jesus was saying that not only must one be born of a woman (water breaking) as Nicodemus had said, but also of the Spirit (Salvation)

JOHN MORMON:
I guess the passage could be interpreted that way, but what I read is that Jesus tells Nicodemus that you must be born again and then says you must be born of water and the spirit as if BOTH of those are part of being born again.

That's why it's important to have modern prophets and other scriptures. Sometimes certain passages are too vague to understand by themselves.

JOHN MORMON:
Even Jesus had to be baptized to "fulfill all righteousness." It's a sin of omission to NOT be baptized.

BILL THE CAT:
In order to qualify to be a Jewish Priest, the Jew had to be washed and anointed at 30 years old. Must Mormons wait until they are 30 in order to be like Jesus?

JOHN MORMON:
No. God can change such things.

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons believe that to enter the highest heaven where God dwells, one must also be married properly like God is married.

BILL THE CAT:
Well, sadly, they are wrong. http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/...l-marriage.html

JOHN MORMON:
How can we become perfect like our Father in heaven if we aren't married like He is, huh? Apparently you think we have a Father in heaven, but no Mother in heaven.

POWELL:
Apparently, the temple of Jerusalem will be a very crowded place having millions of family representatives at the same time or there will be a lot of rainless areas of the world. Perhaps only one person from the Powell family and only one from the Cat family need make the pilgrimage for the rest of us.

BILL THE CAT:
That’d be correct. The father of the family unit will go. This is also well after the events of the tribulation and the families of the world are significantly reduced.

POWELL:
You don't seem to have considered the numbers involved, Bill. If the father of every family unit today were in Jerusalem at the same time, roughly how many persons would that be?

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons expect Jesus will also visit the temple in New Jerusalem in Missouri and maybe some of the others around the world. I would be very disappointed if He visited only the Jerusalem temple at the Second Coming and told us Mormons we were all sheep gone astray and our temples were not His.

BILL THE CAT:
Sadly, that’s what they are. Fact is, Mormonism is an invention of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. There is no real similarity in the practices of the Jews, Orthodox early Christians, and Mormons today. The only similarities are superficial names that deep down mean entirely different things.

POWELL:
What good evidence do you have, Bill, that Christianity is NOT an invention of people like Paul and Mark?

Your wishful thinking?

John Powell

Tophet

March 6th 2004, 10:55 PM

POWELL:
What good evidence do you have, Bill, that Christianity is NOT an invention of people like Paul and Mark?

Your wishful thinking?

No. Just unrefuted reliable eyewitness testimony. See here:

http://members.surfeu.fi/foragnostics/sgtestimony.htm

John Powell

March 7th 2004, 02:05 AM

POWELL (to Bill the Cat):
What good evidence do you have, Bill, that Christianity is NOT an invention of people like Paul and Mark?

Your wishful thinking?

TOPHET:
No. Just unrefuted reliable eyewitness testimony. See here:

http://members.surfeu.fi/foragnostics/sgtestimony.htm

POWELL:
If that kind of argument really works, Tophet, then you can read about Joseph Smith's "unrefuted reliable eyewitness testimony" in Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price and you can read about Muhammed's "unrefuted reliable eyewitness testimony" in the Quran.

John Powell

Tophet

March 7th 2004, 02:17 AM

POWELL:
If that kind of argument really works, Tophet, then you can read about Joseph Smith's "unrefuted reliable eyewitness testimony" in Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price and you can read about Muhammed's "unrefuted reliable eyewitness testimony" in the Quran.

John Powell

You're sidetracking again, John. The essay explains why the Testimony of the Evangelists is reliable, trustworthy, and acceptable in a court of law. You have failed to demonstrate otherwise.

John Powell

March 8th 2004, 12:30 AM

TOPHET:
You're sidetracking again, John. The essay explains why the Testimony of the Evangelists is reliable, trustworthy, and acceptable in a court of law. You have failed to demonstrate otherwise.

POWELL:
I've read the first part of the essay, but Greenleaf seems to be exaggerating his claims. Where he's right it appears he would have to accept the Quran as well.

I will point out one thing here that I find amusing.

Greenleaf was surely trying to distinguish the N.T. record from the Book of Mormon when he said the following, but he shot himself in the foot.

GREENLEAF:
There is no pretense that they were engraven on plates of gold and discovered in a cave, nor that they were brought from heaven by angels; but they are received as the plain narratives and writings of the men whose names they respectively bear, made public at the time they were written; . . .

POWELL:
The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in caves, Tophet, hidden from the world for thousands of years. Do skeptical scholars trust them MORE or less than our modern copies of the scriptures? MORE, because they have not been in the grubby hands of people who might be tempted to change them.

Notice also that Greenleaf is misleading his readers into thinking that he does not believe that the writings of the Bible were messages delivered by angels or God Himself to the respective writers, but they are man-made creations.

John Powell

Bill the Cat

March 9th 2004, 09:00 PM

BILL THE CAT:
John, I’m going to pear down our discussion a bit as we seem to be repeating a few topics. Cool?

JOHN MORMON:
I guess, if you mean "pare."

:rant: confounded grammar police!! :rant:

JOHN MORMON:
Solomon acknowledged that God dwells in heaven (v. 30 and elsewhere), but the temple was also a place for God to dwell in (v. 13). The implication is that God's permanent residence is in heaven, but the temple is His home on Earth.

Solomon was apparently asking a question whether God would dwell in the temple, not claiming that God would not.

However, given what you said, apparently you believe that Solomon believed that God did not dwell in buildings made by man, yet Solomon believed that the Temple was important to God. Why then, when N.T. persons claim a similar thing about God do you conclude that means the temple is no longer necessary?

Sigh… in the OT Temple period, that was how God dwelled (shakan) among man, inside the temple. However, when God visited (shakan) the Israelites, it was a type of His dwelling in us. The Holy of Holies, where the manifested presence would occur above the mercy seat, is a type of a Christian’s inner most being. All the elements of the temple, including the shakan were foreshadowing Jesus’ more excellent ministry and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And when the perfect comes, the type is no longer needed. Why do we need a substitute, when we have the real thing?
Col. 2
17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!"
22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?

This relates to things destined to perish, just as buildings are (ie. The temple) and in relation to the temporary Aaronic priesthood Hebrews says this:

Hebrews 8
1 Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.
3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer.
4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;
5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, " SEE," He says, "THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN."
6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

The author of Hebrews compares those who are of the lineage of Aaron with Christ’s ministry. The whole point of both these verses is to show that those things that are temporal are temporary and pass away. Christ’s priesthood does not and will not, nor will he share it with anyone. This also defeats any mortal now holding the same priesthood (After the type of Melchizedek) because it shows where Christ is ministering (vs 2 and 4)

JOHN MORMON:
What about the promised land to Adam and Eve?

What promised land? Verses please…

JOHN MORMON:
It's not our fault that Jews of the diaspora don't consider themselves living in the promised land unless they're in Palestine.

It’s not the Jews’ fault that Mormons don’t understand what the Jewish promised land is and made up some story about faithful Jews going somewhere else..

JOHN MORMON:
What if God called the Americas the "promised land" to certain Israelites, would it be? Of course. The question should be WHETHER God said so, not whether God COULD have said so.

Then it was not promised to the Jews. And it was not promised to Abraham, therefore it can not be the “Promised Land” There is no evidence anywhere else other than the BOM that calls the Americas “promised land”

JOHN MORMON:
There were religious buildings in the Americas, Bill. The question is whether any similar enough to Solomon's Temple have been located. Apparently, none YET.

Wishful thinking?? Is there any single thing CONCLUSIVELY shown to represent any BOM occurrence, place, or thing? Just 1? Perhaps a coin or two?

JOHN MORMON:
Ok, so you don't think God's "transcendent" presence can dwell on the Earth or even the universe. Big deal. That did not change between O.T. times when the temple was important and N.T. times when you think the temple was no longer important.

It’s all about typology. God’s presence can’t be wholly contained in anything made. However, He chose to manifest His presence in the OT Temple. The NT Temple is the believer, and the New Covenant temple is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant temple. The Old is passed away and no longer necessary, and that necessitates that all the functionality and personnel are unnecessary.

JOHN MORMON:
If it's not performed by someone with God's authority then God is not obligated to honor it.

Exactly. Christians have God’s authority. There are no special classes of Christian. There are functions that more trained disciples meet, ie. Teacher, Pastor, Apostle, etc. but no special classes.

JOHN MORMON:
My point is that you NEED the witnesses.

My point is that the witness is already there. No one else is needed, or else Christ is not enough.

JOHN MORMON:
IMO, Jesus was talking about swearing as part of confirmation to a claim. If someone asks "Are you Bill?" then you should reply "Yes" rather than "I swear by God's throne, yes." You seem to think that Jesus was telling Christians not to make vows to God anymore. How ridiculous.

No, you have my idea wrong. God does not order us to vow to each other. Like I showed, the word vow is only used twice in the NT and that is between a person and God. That’s a choice Vow. Vows between people are not.

JOHN MORMON:
That's hard to believe, Bill. Could you ID your church and a few of the most DISSIMILAR churches to your own that would still qualify in this regard to baptize members into your church?

Believe it or not, that’s the way it is. www.iphc.org The only info my church has on their website is on the FAQ page here http://www.iphc.org/info/faqs/baptism.html
However, the presiding Pastor would have to allow it to make sure that the Baptizing party was not teaching against denominational teachings on Baptism. We do not want to have a Jim Jones situation nor someone teaching that it is required for salvation.

JOHN MORMON:
What's the average "age of accountability" for those in your church? If you tell me "it depends" you will be showing your ignorance of statistics.

See the faq page above

BILL THE CAT:
They did. There were others that were doing exactly the same things as the 12.

Luke 9
49 John answered and said, " Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us."

50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."

JOHN MORMON:
This does NOT mean that the person had authority from Jesus! He's merely saying to leave those people alone since there were others they should be focusing on. Just because a person claims to have authority from God, Bill, does not mean they do.

Course he did. That’s why Jesus made the comment in vs 50.

JOHN MORMON:
It was an AUTHORIZING gesture to put their hands on them. In our church this calling would be a priesthood calling so it probably was for them back then too.

But in your church, they had to have the priesthood before receiving a calling, correct? We are not referring to callings or tasks, we are discussing actual priesthood. You redirected this line quite subtly. Bravo. You used the example given above to argue for transfer of the priesthood, not a calling or task.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, gee, Bill, didn't Melchizedek himself die, yet he held this priesthood you speak of?

There is much debate as to what exactly Melchizedek was. But if he was human and died, it is not recorded, and that is what Hebrews is referring to. He was also listed as having no beginning, so if he was human, was he never born? Did he have no actual parents? Mel was a Priest-King, and I believe that is Hebrews is saying that Jesus is. Mel was greater than Abraham illustrating that Jesus’ priesthood was better than Aaron’s. No one else is ever said to possess this priesthood.

One doesn't have to be God to hold the Melchizedek priesthood, Bill. Just because God is the highest in authority does NOT mean that there aren't others who hold the same priesthood, but lessor authority.

So give me one solid Biblical example where someone else had it.

POWELL:
Where is the textual evidence in 2 Sam that the loaves belonged to Abiathar? Abiathar isn't even mentioned in the Bible until Saul goes after Ahimelech for helping David (1 Sam 22:20). Doeg did NOT say that "Ahimelech and Abiathar" helped David, but only mentioned Ahimelech (1 Sam 22:9-10).

It's so clearly a mistake in Mark, Bill, that Matthew and Luke completely drop it from their accounts. The Bible is confused about Abiathar and Ahimelech. In fact, elsewhere it speaks of Ahimelech as being the SON of Abiathar rather than the other way around (2 Sam 8:17)!

JP answered this at http://www.tektonics.org/abby.html

JOHN MORMON:
No successor ever existed even during O.T. times when you agree there were high priests of the Melchizedek order.

There were 2. Melchizedek and Jesus. No other is listed, unless you have some early Hebrew manuscript that shows otherwise…

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?

So this verse shows that while the priesthood of Aaron was in full effect, there was no Melchizedek priest until Jesus arose. And after Jesus arose, there was no need for the temporary priesthood of Aaron.

JOHN MORMON:
You seem to think that no one is worthy to go to heaven. How does God decide who goes and who doesn't then? How does God separate the goats from the sheep if everyone is the same?

John 3:16

JOHN MORMON:
Jesus existed during O.T. times, Bill. He was Jehovah. He held the priesthood then too. Nevertheless, Jehovah authorized human officials to represent Him on Earth. He did during O.T. times. He did during N.T. times. He does in modern times.

Jesus did not have any “priesthood” before His 30th Birthday, or else He violated the Law that the priests must be 30 before beginning their service.
Hebrews 7
24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.
25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;
27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

He became the Priest and sacrifice when He offered Himself up. He was destined from Eternity to fulfill that purpose, but that purpose was not complete until it was finished in His death and resurrection.

JOHN MORMON:
You're a KING in that kingdom? That's unlikely.

Well, maybe a prince, but that’s not really helpful to the discussion at hand. I am a citizen in the Kingdom and there are none higher nor lower than me except Christ.

It's ironic that you criticize Mormons for aspiring to be Gods rather than merely choir angels in the afterlife, but you claim to ALREADY be a king.

Who said anything about choirs of angels? Not I.

Perhaps in your church they should refer to each other as "King Bill" or whatever rather than "Brother Bill."

The sons of Zebedee were vying for positions of power in Christ's kingdom in the afterlife, not in this life (Luke 20:21).

That was below the belt IMO. Actually, they refer to me as Pastor Bill or “that goofy youth pastor”

JOHN MORMON:
Ridiculous, Bill. Where in the Old Testament should Strong's Hebrew 03548:kohen be translated as "prince" instead of "priest"?

BILL THE CAT:
Sorry I didn’t edit that part. We are Kings and priests as the rest of the Gill quote showed.

GILL:
and priests, being allowed to draw nigh to God, to present themselves, souls and bodies, a holy and living sacrifice, to offer to him the sacrifices of prayer and praise through Christ, by whom they become acceptable to him:

JOHN MORMON:
Then, Bill, if the Israelites were a "kingdom of priests," yet not every single person was a priest then why do you think Christians were all priests when Paul claimed that they were a "kingdom of priests"?

OK, I see where you are trying to go with this. The verse in Exodus explaind that the Jews were to be set apart from the rest of the world the same as the priests were to be set apart from the rest of the masses of Jews. This however does not transfer over to the NT, because there is no priestly class any more.

JOHN MORMON:
Sure, Bill. Which priest did Moses go through to speak to God, huh? How about Adam? How about Noah? How about David? How about Solomon? How about Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the others?

Last I checked, Moses was speaking to God before the priestly class was set up, same with Adam and Noah. Also, those during and after the priesthood of Aaron were not offering sacrifices on the altar, were they?

JOHN MORMON:
But, Bill, the ministry was "simply a job to oversee," yet that does not mean the apostles were not given the priesthood to do the ministry.

Nor does it mean they were. You argue from silence, I argue from typology. What do you believe the priesthood of today is for exactly and how does it relate to the Levitical Priesthood?

JOHN MORMON:
Where does he list women apostles?

Romans 15:7. From http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/brooten.htm
John Chrysostom was not alone in the ancient church in taking the name to be feminine. The earliest commentator on Romans 16:7, Origen of Alexandria (e. 185-253/54), took the name to be feminine (Junta or Julia, which is a textual variant),(4) as did Jerome (340/50-419/20),(5) Hatto of Vercelli (924-961),(6) Theophylact (c.1050-c.1108),(70 and Peter Abelard (1079-1142).(8) In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the text until Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine. Without commenting on his departure from previous commentators, Aegidius simply referred to the two persons mentioned in Romans 16:7 as “these honorable men” (viri).(9) Aegidius noted that there were two variant readings for the second name: Juniam and Juliam (accusative in the verse). He preferred the reading Juliam and took it to be masculine. Thus we see that even Juliam, which modern scholars would take to be clearly feminine, has been considered masculine in the context of the title “apostle.”

He also lists and greets Priscilla before Aquilla in virtually all of the extant Greek copies. Bestowing a position of honor on a woman being listed before her husband.

No it would not. It would imply that worship was about to change. No longer would there need to be a temple in order to worship, that true worshippers would not need to visit a temple.

[quote]
JOHN MORMON:
The scriptures do NOT stipulate only one temple, but that the only PLACE to do certain things was in the temple. There is an allowance for more than one temple. The fact that some Jews built other temples supports this.

Sigh… John, the verse quite plainly says “ye [Jews] say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship” Even the Samaritans of that time understood that the Jews of that time knew where the proper temple was supposed to be at that time. The fact that other temples existed during the Exile does not mean that the Jerusalem Temple was not the Place God intended the Temple to be.

IRR:
--- the Jews and Samaritans were divided over its proper location. It is clear that Jesus sided with the Jews in this dispute:3 He here specifically identifies Himself with the Jews ("we know what we worship . . ."), and elsewhere He calls the Jerusalem temple "my Fathers house" (John 2:16). (3) Nevertheless, Jesus’ words in John 4:23 plainly signal the imminent end of worship at a temple building.

JOHN MORMON:
No it doesn't. His words plainly signal the imminent end of worship at THAT SPECIFIC temple building.

And no other place on Earth was called by Jesus “My Father’s House”

IRR:
. . . Jesus instituted a New Covenant under which God does not dwell among His people through a temple building, but in His people through the Holy Spirit.
JOHN MORMON:
Where is this supported that God would no longer use temple buildings?

70 AD.

POWELL:
Paul was clearly claiming to be QUOTING what is written in the OLD TESTAMENT when he said in 2 Cor 6:16 "as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." He was not PARAPHRASING something Jesus had said. If Paul had meant that Jesus had said those words then he would have likely said that Jesus had said them. Paul clearly distinguished "God" from "Jesus."

What was the "them" that God was referring to there? Was it buildings or people? If it was people then where in the O.T. did God claim that? If it was buildings, then that would imply there could be more than one temple building, right?

This exegetical quoting was common practice for this era. Glenn Miller explains it here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html

JOHN MORMON:
Who cares what the non-believers did? The issue was that it didn't make sense for CHRISTIANS to baptize for the dead, yet not believe in the resurrection. That was Paul's argument. If it was that non-Christians believed in the resurrection then he should have said "Even the Greeks believe in the resurrection, so why don't you?" or something like that.

JP did an article here: http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_ADFS.html and a good trashing of Barry Bickmore’s response here: http://www.tektonics.org/bickmored.html on this very subject showing how this verse is completely abused by LDS apologists.

JOHN MORMON:
I guess the passage could be interpreted that way, but what I read is that Jesus tells Nicodemus that you must be born again and then says you must be born of water and the spirit as if BOTH of those are part of being born again.

Funny, at the time Nicodemus asked, Christian Baptism had not been instituted.

JOHN MORMON:
No. God can change such things.

So Mormons are better than Jesus and don’t have to wait as long??

How can we become perfect like our Father in heaven if we aren't married like He is, huh? Apparently you think we have a Father in heaven, but no Mother in heaven.

Bingo!! Please do not try to bring Ashoreth into this discussion the way Kevin Graham did.

BILL THE CAT:
Sadly, that’s what they are. Fact is, Mormonism is an invention of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. There is no real similarity in the practices of the Jews, Orthodox early Christians, and Mormons today. The only similarities are superficial names that deep down mean entirely different things.

POWELL:
What good evidence do you have, Bill, that Christianity is NOT an invention of people like Paul and Mark?

Your wishful thinking?

Let’s stick to John Mormon in this discussion, OK? That was a big red herring.

I notice how John Mormon did not argue that the differences are more than superficial. Do you concur that there is no real similarity in the practices of Mormonism and the practices of the OT Jews?

:btc:

John Powell

March 10th 2004, 01:26 AM

JOHN MORMON:
Solomon acknowledged that God dwells in heaven (v. 30 and elsewhere), but the temple was also a place for God to dwell in (v. 13). The implication is that God's permanent residence is in heaven, but the temple is His home on Earth.

Solomon was apparently asking a question whether God would dwell in the temple, not claiming that God would not.

However, given what you said, apparently you believe that Solomon believed that God did not dwell in buildings made by man, yet Solomon believed that the Temple was important to God. Why then, when N.T. persons claim a similar thing about God do you conclude that means the temple is no longer necessary?

BILL THE CAT:
Sigh... in the OT Temple period, that was how God dwelled (shakan) among man, inside the temple. However, when God visited (shakan) the Israelites, it was a type of His dwelling in us. The Holy of Holies, where the manifested presence would occur above the mercy seat, is a type of a Christian’s inner most being. All the elements of the temple, including the shakan were foreshadowing Jesus’ more excellent ministry and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And when the perfect comes, the type is no longer needed. Why do we need a substitute, when we have the real thing?

JOHN MORMON:
I largely agree with that except for the view that the "substitute" is no longer needed. Humans need those symbols to help them understand the real thing. We still need the sacrament to help us remember our baptismal covenants. We still need churches so that we can meet with others so that we can learn and progress. We still need temples so we have a special place to learn a little more of the mysteries and make special vows to God and to get a sense of what heaven will be like.

BILL THE CAT:
Col. 2
17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,

19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.

20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,

21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!"

22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?

BILL THE CAT:
This relates to things destined to perish, just as buildings are (ie. The temple)

JOHN MORMON:
I don't see the relevance. It's not the building per se that's important, but what happens there.

BILL THE CAT:
. . . and in relation to the temporary Aaronic priesthood Hebrews says this:

Hebrews 8
1 Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.

3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer.

4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;

POWELL:
Not to get side-tracked, but FYI, this v. 4 suggests to mythicists that Paul did NOT believe that Jesus existed on the Earth, but in some intermediate realm between Earth and heaven.

BILL THE CAT:
Hebrews 8:
5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, " SEE," He says, "THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN."

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

BILL THE CAT:
The author of Hebrews compares those who are of the lineage of Aaron with Christ’s ministry. The whole point of both these verses is to show that those things that are temporal are temporary and pass away. Christ’s priesthood does not and will not, nor will he share it with anyone. This also defeats any mortal now holding the same priesthood (After the type of Melchizedek) because it shows where Christ is ministering (vs 2 and 4)

JOHN MORMON:
Where did God in the O.T. indicate that the Aaronic Priesthood was temporary, that it would eventually pass away?

Where does it say that Jesus is the ONLY Melchizedek priesthood holder? He's the supreme one next to the Father, but He's not the only one, AFAICS.

JOHN MORMON:
What about the promised land to Adam and Eve?

BILL THE CAT:
What promised land? Verses please. . .

JOHN MORMON:
Gen 1:26: ". . .and over all the earth, . . ."

The whole Earth is the promised land to the descendants of Adam.

JOHN MORMON:
It's not our fault that Jews of the diaspora don't consider themselves living in the promised land unless they're in Palestine.

BILL THE CAT:
It’s not the Jews’ fault that Mormons don’t understand what the Jewish promised land is and made up some story about faithful Jews going somewhere else..

POWELL:
Touche'

JOHN MORMON:
What if God called the Americas the "promised land" to certain Israelites, would it be? Of course. The question should be WHETHER God said so, not whether God COULD have said so.

BILL THE CAT:
Then it was not promised to the Jews. And it was not promised to Abraham, therefore it can not be the "Promised Land" There is no evidence anywhere else other than the BOM that calls the Americas "promised land"

JOHN MORMON:
If that's the case then that makes the Book of Mormon pretty important. If the only place God revealed what Abraham's promised land was in Genesis (that's not the only place) then that by itself would make Genesis pretty important.

JOHN MORMON:
There were religious buildings in the Americas, Bill. The question is whether any similar enough to Solomon's Temple have been located. Apparently, none YET.

BILL THE CAT:
Wishful thinking?? Is there any single thing CONCLUSIVELY shown to represent any BOM occurrence, place, or thing? Just 1? Perhaps a coin or two?

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, nothing conclusive enough to persuade someone like you. When I hear about something like that I'll let you know. I have faith the really good external evidence will eventually appear.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok, so you don't think God's "transcendent" presence can dwell on the Earth or even the universe. Big deal. That did not change between O.T. times when the temple was important and N.T. times when you think the temple was no longer important.

BILL THE CAT:
It’s all about typology. God’s presence can’t be wholly contained in anything made. However, He chose to manifest His presence in the OT Temple. The NT Temple is the believer, and the New Covenant temple is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant temple. The Old is passed away and no longer necessary, and that necessitates that all the functionality and personnel are unnecessary.

JOHN MORMON:
You say that, but I don't see the good Biblical evidence that shows the temple is no longer necessary. Certain sacrifices that were performed there are no longer needed, but that doesn't mean God no longer needs temples.

JOHN MORMON:
If it's not performed by someone with God's authority then God is not obligated to honor it.

BILL THE CAT:
Exactly. Christians have God’s authority. There are no special classes of Christian. There are functions that more trained disciples meet, ie. Teacher, Pastor, Apostle, etc. but no special classes.

JOHN MORMON:
Where did each of these persons in your church GET the authority? Remember that you just can't claim it, but you must get it like Aaron did, by the laying on of hands by someone ELSE who has the authority.

JOHN MORMON:
My point is that you NEED the witnesses.

BILL THE CAT:
My point is that the witness is already there. No one else is needed, or else Christ is not enough.

JOHN MORMON:
Those who are baptized are added to the church membership. You aren't just a Christian on your own. There's a GROUP you become associated with. You have responsibilities to those in the group and to the world at large. By claiming to be Christian you have a responsibility to be a good example.

JOHN MORMON:
IMO, Jesus was talking about swearing as part of confirmation to a claim. If someone asks "Are you Bill?" then you should reply "Yes" rather than "I swear by God's throne, yes." You seem to think that Jesus was telling Christians not to make vows to God anymore. How ridiculous.

BILL THE CAT:
No, you have my idea wrong. God does not order us to vow to each other. Like I showed, the word vow is only used twice in the NT and that is between a person and God. That’s a choice Vow. Vows between people are not.

JOHN MORMON:
I'm not saying choice vows are between people alone, but God is a party to them. You seem to think that NO ONE except God can be the other one involved. That seems too restrictive in my view.

JOHN MORMON:
That's hard to believe, Bill. Could you ID your church and a few of the most DISSIMILAR churches to your own that would still qualify in this regard to baptize members into your church?

BILL THE CAT:
Believe it or not, that’s the way it is. www.iphc.org The only info my church has on their website is on the FAQ page here http://www.iphc.org/info/faqs/baptism.html
However, the presiding Pastor would have to allow it to make sure that the Baptizing party was not teaching against denominational teachings on Baptism. We do not want to have a Jim Jones situation nor someone teaching that it is required for salvation.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok, so you're Pentecostal with Methodist roots. The link says any Christian baptism is acceptable.

How about if you were baptized as an infant by a Methodist priest who later became a Pentecostal priest? Would your infant baptism suffice or would you have to be baptized again?

What if the baptism were by a Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, or agnostic Unitarian priest? Would any of those suffice? In other words, Bill, which existing churches today are "Christian" according to your Pentecostal denomination?

Does one even need to be baptised to join your church or is "I believe . . ." the appropriate things good enough?

JOHN MORMON:
What's the average "age of accountability" for those in your church? If you tell me "it depends" you will be showing your ignorance of statistics.

BILL THE CAT:
See the faq page above

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, it's an age decided upon by the parents in which the child is old enough to have made a conscious decision of faith in Jesus Christ. Does the IPHC have statistics on what minimum age that tends to be?

BILL THE CAT:
They did. There were others that were doing exactly the same things as the 12.

Luke 9
49 John answered and said, " Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us."

50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."

JOHN MORMON:
This does NOT mean that the person had authority from Jesus! He's merely saying to leave those people alone since there were others they should be focusing on. Just because a person claims to have authority from God, Bill, does not mean they do.

BILL THE CAT:
Course he did. That’s why Jesus made the comment in vs 50.

JOHN MORMON:
Jesus must have been meaning something else there in v. 50 because in Luke 11:23 He says something quite different.

Luke 11:23
He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

JOHN MORMON:
I think Luke 11:23 better represents what God really means.

JOHN MORMON:
It was an AUTHORIZING gesture to put their hands on them. In our church this calling would be a priesthood calling so it probably was for them back then too.

BILL THE CAT:
But in your church, they had to have the priesthood before receiving a calling, correct?

JOHN MORMON:
Some callings don't require having the priesthood, but for those which do the man must receive the priesthood before the calling.

BILL THE CAT:
We are not referring to callings or tasks, we are discussing actual priesthood. You redirected this line quite subtly. Bravo. You used the example given above to argue for transfer of the priesthood, not a calling or task.

JOHN MORMON:
I recognize that it's unclear whether that was getting the priesthood or a calling in the priesthood or a calling outside the priesthood, but it goes to show that some Christians had more authority than other Christians and that's because someone else gave them that authority.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, gee, Bill, didn't Melchizedek himself die, yet he held this priesthood you speak of?

BILL THE CAT:
There is much debate as to what exactly Melchizedek was.

JOHN MORMON:
He was a man, king of Salem, who held the same priesthood that Jesus was described as having in Hebrews. According to Mormons, it's the same priesthood that Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Isaiah, and many others held.

BILL THE CAT:
But if he was human and died, it is not recorded, and that is what Hebrews is referring to. He was also listed as having no beginning, so if he was human, was he never born? Did he have no actual parents? Mel was a Priest-King, and I believe that is Hebrews is saying that Jesus is.

JOHN MORMON:
It's the PRIESTHOOD of Melchizedek that is without beginning or parents. Something seems to have been lost from Hebrews so it looks like it's saying Melchizedek was some kind of special creation of God.

BILL THE CAT:
Mel was greater than Abraham illustrating that Jesus’ priesthood was better than Aaron’s.

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, the Melchizedek priesthood is higher than the Aaronic. Moses, for example, had more authority than Aaron did. David and Nathan had more authority than Abiathar. David TOLD Abiathar what to do, but Nathan TOLD David what to do.

BILL THE CAT:
No one else is ever said to possess this priesthood.

JOHN MORMON:
What about David?

Psalms 110:4:
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

JOHN MORMON:
One doesn't have to be God to hold the Melchizedek priesthood, Bill. Just because God is the highest in authority does NOT mean that there aren't others who hold the same priesthood, but lessor authority.

BILL THE CAT:
So give me one solid Biblical example where someone else had it.

JOHN MORMON:
David.

POWELL:
Where is the textual evidence in 2 Sam that the loaves belonged to Abiathar? Abiathar isn't even mentioned in the Bible until Saul goes after Ahimelech for helping David (1 Sam 22:20). Doeg did NOT say that "Ahimelech and Abiathar" helped David, but only mentioned Ahimelech (1 Sam 22:9-10).

It's so clearly a mistake in Mark, Bill, that Matthew and Luke completely drop it from their accounts. The Bible is confused about Abiathar and Ahimelech. In fact, elsewhere it speaks of Ahimelech as being the SON of Abiathar rather than the other way around (2 Sam 8:17)!

BILL THE CAT:
JP answered this at http://www.tektonics.org/abby.html

POWELL:
This will have to wait for another day.

JOHN MORMON:
No successor ever existed even during O.T. times when you agree there were high priests of the Melchizedek order.

BILL THE CAT:
There were 2. Melchizedek and Jesus. No other is listed, unless you have some early Hebrew manuscript that shows otherwise. . .

JOHN MORMON:
What priesthood did Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, etc. have that authorized them to do the things that priests do such as sacrifices, huh?

BILL THE CAT:
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?

BILL THE CAT:
So this verse shows that while the priesthood of Aaron was in full effect, there was no Melchizedek priest until Jesus arose. And after Jesus arose, there was no need for the temporary priesthood of Aaron.

JOHN MORMON:
That's not what I see. I see Paul(?) arguing that if the Aaronic priesthood was enough then why was there the need for the Melchizedek Priesthood? The answer is that the Aaronic priesthood is NOT really enough!

JOHN MORMON:
You seem to think that no one is worthy to go to heaven. How does God decide who goes and who doesn't then? How does God separate the goats from the sheep if everyone is the same?

BILL THE CAT:
John 3:16

JOHN MORMON:
Then why the big deal of a judgment if all Jesus has to do is ask us if we believe? Why obey any other commandments if the ONLY commandment that matters is whether we believe in Jesus? We don't even have to love God, huh, just believe?

John 3:16 is an exclamation of God's love for us. Jesus came in HOPES that we would believe Him and so repent and then follow His example by being baptized and obeying the commandments and enduring to the end. Belief is the BEGINNING of what you must do after hearing, it's not the end of the road.

JOHN MORMON:
Jesus existed during O.T. times, Bill. He was Jehovah. He held the priesthood then too. Nevertheless, Jehovah authorized human officials to represent Him on Earth. He did during O.T. times. He did during N.T. times. He does in modern times.

BILL THE CAT:
Jesus did not have any "priesthood" before His 30th Birthday, or else He violated the Law that the priests must be 30 before beginning their service.

JOHN MORMON:
But, Bill, don't you believe Jesus is God? Are you saying that God had to wait until His Jesus person was 30 years old for God to get the true priesthood? God is the SOURCE of the priesthood. Perhaps you think the Father had the priesthood, but the Son didn't, huh?

BILL THE CAT:
Hebrews 7
24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.

25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;

27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

BILL THE CAT:
He became the Priest and sacrifice when He offered Himself up. He was destined from Eternity to fulfill that purpose, but that purpose was not complete until it was finished in His death and resurrection.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, Mormons believe that "offering up" occurred in the preexistence before the Earth even existed so maybe we agree in a way.

JOHN MORMON:
You're a KING in that kingdom? That's unlikely.

BILL THE CAT:
Well, maybe a prince, but that’s not really helpful to the discussion at hand. I am a citizen in the Kingdom and there are none higher nor lower than me except Christ.

JOHN MORMON:
Then God did NOT make you a KING, but only a CITIZEN when you became a Christian. Apparently, becoming "king" is something for the future, don't you think, maybe during the Millenium or in heaven? Then why do you think He made you a priest when you became a Christian?

JOHN MORMON:
It's ironic that you criticize Mormons for aspiring to be Gods rather than merely choir angels in the afterlife, but you claim to ALREADY be a king.

BILL THE CAT:
Who said anything about choirs of angels? Not I.

JOHN MORMON:
True. I should have asked you. What do you aspire to be in the afterlife, Bill? Do you aspire to sing praises to the God(s) that is/are or do you aspire to be a God yourself or what?

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps in your church they should refer to each other as "King Bill" or whatever rather than "Brother Bill."

The sons of Zebedee were vying for positions of power in Christ's kingdom in the afterlife, not in this life (Luke 20:21).

BILL THE CAT:
That was below the belt IMO. Actually, they refer to me as Pastor Bill or "that goofy youth pastor"

JOHN MORMON:
I see. What about the power jockeying I mentioned? Isn't that in reference to the AFTERLIFE when they'll be like kings sitting on thrones?

JOHN MORMON:
Ridiculous, Bill. Where in the Old Testament should Strong's Hebrew 03548:kohen be translated as "prince" instead of "priest"?

BILL THE CAT:
Sorry I didn’t edit that part. We are Kings and priests as the rest of the Gill quote showed.

GILL:
and priests, being allowed to draw nigh to God, to present themselves, souls and bodies, a holy and living sacrifice, to offer to him the sacrifices of prayer and praise through Christ, by whom they become acceptable to him:

JOHN MORMON:
Then, Bill, if the Israelites were a "kingdom of priests," yet not every single person was a priest then why do you think Christians were all priests when Paul claimed that they were a "kingdom of priests"?

BILL THE CAT:
OK, I see where you are trying to go with this. The verse in Exodus explaind that the Jews were to be set apart from the rest of the world the same as the priests were to be set apart from the rest of the masses of Jews. This however does not transfer over to the NT, because there is no priestly class any more.

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe you're right, but my point is that this "kingdom of priests" idea does not sufficiently support your view. I think you need a different Biblical basis.

JOHN MORMON:
Sure, Bill. Which priest did Moses go through to speak to God, huh? How about Adam? How about Noah? How about David? How about Solomon? How about Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the others?

BILL THE CAT:
Last I checked, Moses was speaking to God before the priestly class was set up, same with Adam and Noah. Also, those during and after the priesthood of Aaron were not offering sacrifices on the altar, were they?

JOHN MORMON:
Those before Aaron, including Moses, had the higher priesthood, the Melchizedek priesthood. Likewise, many of those after Moses.

David both used the prognosticating ephod (1 Sam 23:9, 1 Sam 30:7) and wore the linen ephod (2 Sam 6:14) but he wasn't a descendant of Aaron. He also offered burnt sacrifices and blessing upon the people (2 Sam 6:17-18).

Saul apparently thought he had authority to do sacrifices (1 Sam 13:9) but in that particular case he wasn't supposed to. Apparently, He was supposed to wait for Samuel to do it. Samuel, however, was not a descendant of Aaron either.

JOHN MORMON:
But, Bill, the ministry was "simply a job to oversee," yet that does not mean the apostles were not given the priesthood to do the ministry.

BILL THE CAT:
Nor does it mean they were.

JOHN MORMON:
Jesus put his hands on their heads. Didn't that give them anything?

BILL THE CAT:
You argue from silence, I argue from typology. What do you believe the priesthood of today is for exactly and how does it relate to the Levitical Priesthood?

JOHN MORMON:
The priesthood is God's power given to men. Those in the priesthood have jobs they're supposed to do like bless and pass the sacrament, baptize, anoint the sick and such things.

JOHN MORMON:
Where does he list women apostles?

BILL THE CAT:
Romans 15:7. From http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/brooten.htm
John Chrysostom was not alone in the ancient church in taking the name to be feminine. The earliest commentator on Romans 16:7, Origen of Alexandria (e. 185-253/54), took the name to be feminine (Junta or Julia, which is a textual variant),(4) as did Jerome (340/50-419/20),(5) Hatto of Vercelli (924-961),(6) Theophylact (c.1050-c.1108),(70 and Peter Abelard (1079-1142).(8) In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the text until Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine. Without commenting on his departure from previous commentators, Aegidius simply referred to the two persons mentioned in Romans 16:7 as "these honorable men" (viri).(9) Aegidius noted that there were two variant readings for the second name: Juniam and Juliam (accusative in the verse). He preferred the reading Juliam and took it to be masculine. Thus we see that even Juliam, which modern scholars would take to be clearly feminine, has been considered masculine in the context of the title "apostle."

JOHN MORMON:
I don't know about that. Maybe Julia was still a man or maybe it was a scribal error.

POWELL:
I suspect that when Mormons do give the priesthood to women (which I think is inevitable) then they'll use this as support. Early in the Mormon church, women did the sorts of things that today are restricted to those holding the priesthood. Women in the temples officiate as if they have some kind of priesthood authority.

BILL THE CAT:
He also lists and greets Priscilla before Aquilla in virtually all of the extant Greek copies. Bestowing a position of honor on a woman being listed before her husband.

JOHN MORMON:
I don't know about that either, but it doesn't mean Priscilla had more priesthood authority than her husband.

JOHN MORMON:
Jesus affirmed the existing importance of the Jerusalem temple, but He prophesied that there would be a day that worship would not occur in the Jerusalem temple, yet people would still be able to worship God. That does NOT necessarily mean that temples per se would no longer be important ever. It would seem to imply that there would be OTHER temples besides the Jerusalem temple.

BILL THE CAT:
No it would not. It would imply that worship was about to change. No longer would there need to be a temple in order to worship, that true worshippers would not need to visit a temple.

JOHN MORMON:
It does not say or clearly imply that, Bill. It merely says there will be a day that they won't be worshipping in that temple.

JOHN MORMON:
The scriptures do NOT stipulate only one temple, but that the only PLACE to do certain things was in the temple. There is an allowance for more than one temple. The fact that some Jews built other temples supports this.

BILL THE CAT:
Sigh. . . John, the verse quite plainly says "ye [Jews] say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship" Even the Samaritans of that time understood that the Jews of that time knew where the proper temple was supposed to be at that time. The fact that other temples existed during the Exile does not mean that the Jerusalem Temple was not the Place God intended the Temple to be.

JOHN MORMON:
Your argument would be more persuasive if it were placed in Egypt. Given that Samaria was so close to Judea and the temple in Jerusalem it doesn't pose the problem for me you think it should. Those in Samaria should be worshipping in Jerusalem. That's what it meant.

IRR:
--- the Jews and Samaritans were divided over its proper location. It is clear that Jesus sided with the Jews in this dispute:3 He here specifically identifies Himself with the Jews ("we know what we worship . . ."), and elsewhere He calls the Jerusalem temple "my Fathers house" (John 2:16). (3) Nevertheless, Jesus’ words in John 4:23 plainly signal the imminent end of worship at a temple building.

JOHN MORMON:
No it doesn't. His words plainly signal the imminent end of worship at THAT SPECIFIC temple building.

BILL THE CAT:
And no other place on Earth was called by Jesus "My Father’s House"

JOHN MORMON:
Well, A person can have more than one house, no? So can God.

Now, Bill, I'm going to pull a fast one on you since you're being so resistant.

You believe God is the God of the entire universe, yes? You believe there are planets similar to Earth with life on them, yes? Do you believe that PEOPLE live on any of those planets?

If no, why not?

If yes, then if God were to reveal His will to them in scriptures like our Bible and instruct them to build a temple, would that be in accordance with God's character?

If yes, if God could have more than one "Bible" and more than one "temple" in the universe for people separated from each other by the vastness of space then why couldn't God have more than one "Bible" and more than one "temple" on the Earth for people who are separated by the great ocean?

IRR:
. . . Jesus instituted a New Covenant under which God does not dwell among His people through a temple building, but in His people through the Holy Spirit.

JOHN MORMON:
Where is this supported that God would no longer use temple buildings?

BILL THE CAT:
70 AD.

JOHN MORMON:
So the FACT that the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. is good evidence to you that God didn't plan to use temples any more? Then, Bill, why wasn't the destruction in 586 B.C. also good evidence to you that God didn't plan to use temples anymore?

POWELL:
Paul was clearly claiming to be QUOTING what is written in the OLD TESTAMENT when he said in 2 Cor 6:16 "as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." He was not PARAPHRASING something Jesus had said. If Paul had meant that Jesus had said those words then he would have likely said that Jesus had said them. Paul clearly distinguished "God" from "Jesus."

What was the "them" that God was referring to there? Was it buildings or people? If it was people then where in the O.T. did God claim that? If it was buildings, then that would imply there could be more than one temple building, right?

BILL THE CAT:
This exegetical quoting was common practice for this era. Glenn Miller explains it here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html

POWELL:
I think I found what you're referring to, but all it seemed to say is the practice of combining passages together was common. It did NOT show support for the view of CHANGING the passages.

So you still have NOT answered my question.

What was the "them" that God was referring to when God said "I will dwell in them, and walk in them"?

And, where did God say those words in the O.T.?

JOHN MORMON:
Who cares what the non-believers did? The issue was that it didn't make sense for CHRISTIANS to baptize for the dead, yet not believe in the resurrection. That was Paul's argument. If it was that non-Christians believed in the resurrection then he should have said "Even the Greeks believe in the resurrection, so why don't you?" or something like that.

BILL THE CAT:
JP did an article here: http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_ADFS.html and a good trashing of Barry Bickmore’s response here: http://www.tektonics.org/bickmored.html on this very subject showing how this verse is completely abused by LDS apologists.

JOHN MORMON:
I read parts of these, but I don't see the "trashing" that you see.

If there's something particularly relevant that you're willing to defend then post it.

JOHN MORMON:
I guess the passage could be interpreted that way, but what I read is that Jesus tells Nicodemus that you must be born again and then says you must be born of water and the spirit as if BOTH of those are part of being born again.

BILL THE CAT:
Funny, at the time Nicodemus asked, Christian Baptism had not been instituted.

JOHN MORMON:
What nonsense is this, Bill? Jesus was baptized by John in chapter 1. This is chapter 3. In Chapter 3 Jesus baptizes (John 3:22, 26). Jesus is telling Nicodemus to come be baptized like the others.

JOHN MORMON:
No. God can change such things.

BILL THE CAT:
So Mormons are better than Jesus and don’t have to wait as long??

JOHN MORMON:
If I implied that I sure didn't mean to.

JOHN MORMON:
How can we become perfect like our Father in heaven if we aren't married like He is, huh? Apparently you think we have a Father in heaven, but no Mother in heaven.

BILL THE CAT:
Bingo!! Please do not try to bring Ashoreth into this discussion the way Kevin Graham did.

JOHN MORMON:
I didn't plan to. It does not make much sense for us to be God's children and God to be our Father if there is no Mother. The whole analogy kind of breaks down, Bill.

BILL THE CAT:
Sadly, that’s what they are. Fact is, Mormonism is an invention of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. There is no real similarity in the practices of the Jews, Orthodox early Christians, and Mormons today. The only similarities are superficial names that deep down mean entirely different things.

POWELL:
What good evidence do you have, Bill, that Christianity is NOT an invention of people like Paul and Mark?

Your wishful thinking?

BILL THE CAT:
Let’s stick to John Mormon in this discussion, OK? That was a big red herring.

POWELL:
:sad:

BILL THE CAT:
I notice how John Mormon did not argue that the differences are more than superficial. Do you concur that there is no real similarity in the practices of Mormonism and the practices of the OT Jews?

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons seem to follow O.T. Jewish practices MORE than your church does, Bill. I recognize that things have changed a lot since then. Well, things have changed a lot since the days of Jesus too.

POWELL:
Mormonism is an innovative attempt to merge O.T. and N.T. practices and beliefs together in an effort to respond to the criticism that the Biblical God had changed between those two time periods.

John Powell

Bill the Cat

March 13th 2004, 01:24 PM

John, I am sorry I have not had the time to reply. I will get to it this week.

Bill the Cat

March 31st 2004, 09:24 PM

Sorry it took me so long on the response

JOHN MORMON:
I largely agree with that except for the view that the "substitute" is no longer needed. Humans need those symbols to help them understand the real thing. We still need the sacrament to help us remember our baptismal covenants. We still need churches so that we can meet with others so that we can learn and progress. We still need temples so we have a special place to learn a little more of the mysteries and make special vows to God and to get a sense of what heaven will be like.

We no longer need the temple for these. The Holy Spirit is our reminder.

John 14
26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

JOHN MORMON:
I don't see the relevance. It's not the building per se that's important, but what happens there.

Exactly. All the things that the Old Testament temple prefigured have been fulfilled in Christ and the Body. The Temple was not necessary to the Apostles, other than to meet outside and evangelize the Jews.

JOHN MORMON:
Where did God in the O.T. indicate that the Aaronic Priesthood was temporary, that it would eventually pass away?

Where does it say that Jesus is the ONLY Melchizedek priesthood holder? He's the supreme one next to the Father, but He's not the only one, AFAICS.

The sacrifices and the priesthood of the Levitical order were ordained by God, but they looked forward to a permanent priesthood and a permanent sacrifice in the person and work of the Lord Himself.

What made Jesus better? Why was His ministry so different? In Hebrews, we find a number of answers to those questions. We find that Jesus was not merely another in succession of priests, but that His priesthood was unique. There had not been one like it before, and there will not be one like it again. His priesthood is the climax and culmination of priesthood before God.

Jesus' priesthood is superior due to a better calling. Other priests were chosen, but Jesus was called with an oath (Heb. 5:5; 7:21). God, who could swear by no greater than Himself, proclaimed Jesus to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Jesus' priesthood is superior due to a better covenant (Heb. 7:22; 8:6; 9:15). God found fault with the old covenant in that it could not accomplish the salvation of Israel. So He made a new covenant, and Jesus is the mediator of that covenant (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5-6).

Jesus' priesthood is superior due to a better sacrifice (Heb. 9:11ff). Those who served in the Levitical priesthood offered sacrifices annually according to commandment. Those sacrifices did not serve to put away sin. Jesus, however, by one sacrifice, forever put away sin, and now sits at God the Father's right hand (Heb. 9:24ff; 10:12).

Jesus' priesthood is superior due to an indestructible life (Heb.7:16). Many men over several centuries served in the Levitical priesthood, yet none of them could continue because of death (Heb. 7:23-25). From Aaron onward, each died and was replaced by a successor. Jesus, on the other hand, continues without end, for He ever lives to pray for us. He does not need to make any more offering, for His one offering was for all time.

From http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/melchizedek.html

The whole point of the Book of Hebrews is to show how and why the Aaronic Priesthood and the whole system set up for it was now no longer needed, because the final and adequate sacrifice was made in the person of Jesus Christ.

JOHN MORMON:
Gen 1:26: ". . .and over all the earth, . . ."

The whole Earth is the Promised Land to the descendants of Adam.

It was promised to them before Adam and Eve sinned. To the Jews of all time since the Exodus, the Promised Land has only been one place. Never did God promise the Jews any other promised land except the New Jerusalem in Eternity.

JOHN MORMON:
If that's the case then that makes the Book of Mormon pretty important. If the only place God revealed what Abraham's promised land was in Genesis (that's not the only place) then that by itself would make Genesis pretty important.

If the BOM were important, why is there no record of any of the events described in any confirmed Jewish literature? And why was it not entrusted to the Twelve Apostles? If it were so important, why did God allow it to be lost for 1200 years? Why not leave it with The Apostle John or the 3 Nephites?

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, nothing conclusive enough to persuade someone like you. When I hear about something like that I'll let you know. I have faith the really good external evidence will eventually appear.

And I have faith that it is a fabrication of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. I am 100% positive that these fictional “great cities” and “massive cultures” never existed and that they are a 19th century invention of literature forcing itself on the Mayas, Toltecs and Aztecs.

JOHN MORMON:
You say that, but I don't see the good Biblical evidence that shows the temple is no longer necessary. Certain sacrifices that were performed there are no longer needed, but that doesn't mean God no longer needs temples.

Then tell me why He still needs them. What function do they serve today and how do they compare to the function of the temple back then? Why can the things that take place in them not be accomplished in the open? Why hide them away in secret?

JOHN MORMON:
Where did each of these persons in your church GET the authority? Remember that you just can't claim it, but you must get it like Aaron did, by the laying on of hands by someone ELSE who has the authority.

We get licensed through our conference and the State of Virginia (for me). We trace our roots to John Wesley and back through the centuries from the Protestant Reformation to the Catholic Church and ultimately through the Apostles. The ability to minister and the authority of a local church body over its members has nothing to do with some supposed priesthood class. All are priests, as I have said. However, some are called to specific ministries within the body.

JOHN MORMON:
Those who are baptized are added to the church membership. You aren't just a Christian on your own. There's a GROUP you become associated with. You have responsibilities to those in the group and to the world at large. By claiming to be Christian you have a responsibility to be a good example.

And that has to do with my point, how? The point was we do not need anyone else other than Jesus Christ to produce our salvation. If baptism is necessary in order to get saved, then Jesus is not enough for us. We must place our hope of salvation on the presence of a baptizer as well. See the point now?

JOHN MORMON:
I'm not saying choice vows are between people alone, but God is a party to them. You seem to think that NO ONE except God can be the other one involved. That seems too restrictive in my view.

So give me a New Testament example where someone is ordered by God to make a vow to another person please. Please ensure the word for vow is included. Let me help…The word euche (Strongs’ 2171) is used 3 times, twice in Acts and once in James. The 2 times in Acts are vows similar to Nazarite vows (shaved heads and ritualistic washings) and in James it is rendered prayer. All are between a person and God. The word Horkos (Strongs’ 3727) is used 10 times and refers to oaths. The 6 times it is used in the Synoptics refer to Herod’s vow to his daughter in law (Matt 14, Mar 6:26), a vow to the Lord (Matt 5), a hasty vow by Peter denying Christ (Matt 26:72) and an oath from the Lord (Luk 1:73) It is used once in Acts of an oath from God (Acts 2:30), Twice in Hebrews, once of a man-instituted oath to settle a conflict (Heb 6:16) and the other of God’s oath to man (Heb 6:17), and once in James warning against swearing oaths to other men (Ja 5:12). The 2 similar words used show no indication of God requiring two people to vow to each other, nor that these oaths have to be made in the Temple.

How about if you were baptized as an infant by a Methodist priest who later became a Pentecostal priest? Would your infant baptism suffice or would you have to be baptized again?

We do not accept infant baptism, so no, it would not suffice

What if the baptism were by a Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, or agnostic Unitarian priest? Would any of those suffice? In other words, Bill, which existing churches today are "Christian" according to your Pentecostal denomination?

Belief in the core doctrines of Orthodox Christianity. http://www.iphc.org/docs/theology/artfaith.html Articles 1-4, 6, 7, and 14 are not negotiable. Articles 5 is necessary, but flexible for the Catholics with the Apocrypha, although we do not agree it is inspired. Articles 8-13 are denominational distinctions and not considered “Core doctrine of Christianity”

Does one even need to be baptised to join your church or is "I believe . . ." the appropriate things good enough?

A proper understanding of our doctrine is necessary to join our church as a voting member, but in order to be in the Body of Christ, “I believe” is sufficient providing you really do believe the way Jesus commands.

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, it's an age decided upon by the parents in which the child is old enough to have made a conscious decision of faith in Jesus Christ. Does the IPHC have statistics on what minimum age that tends to be?

Sorry, but I don’t think we do. Usually it is between 11 and 13, IIRC.

JOHN MORMON:
I recognize that it's unclear whether that was getting the priesthood or a calling in the priesthood or a calling outside the priesthood, but it goes to show that some Christians had more authority than other Christians and that's because someone else gave them that authority.

There is an ecclesiastical structure to the body of Christ, but not classes. There are those in positions of authority and those usually are the “pastorally” gifted people, however the church body elects them. There still is no priesthood class. The pastorate can be occupied by non-licensed people (like myself) or licensed. However, Mormon “priesthood” and Christian pastorate and ecclesiastical structures past and present are completely different.

JOHN MORMON:
He was a man, king of Salem, who held the same priesthood that Jesus was described as having in Hebrews. According to Mormons, it's the same priesthood that Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Isaiah, and many others held.

Well, if that’s the case, then Hebrews is wrong when it speaks of this…
Hebrews 7
6 But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises.
7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.
8 In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on.
9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes,
10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

These verses de facto include Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as being lesser than Melchizedek, not equal. It also shows that they did not possess any priesthood other than Levi and that being the Levitical line, not Melchizedek, or else Abraham was an equal to Melchizedek, not the lesser as scripture dictates.

BILL THE CAT:
No one else is ever said to possess this priesthood.

JOHN MORMON:
What about David?

Psalms 110:4:
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

This verse is directly applied to Jesus, not David. See Hebrews 7:17

BILL THE CAT:
So give me one solid Biblical example where someone else had it.

JOHN MORMON:
David.

Sorry, but Hebrews 7:16-17 show the criteria of the Melchizedek Priesthood (an indestructible life, which no other man possesses) and David was not the object of this declaration.

JOHN MORMON:
No successor ever existed even during O.T. times when you agree there were high priests of the Melchizedek order.

BILL THE CAT:
There were 2. Melchizedek and Jesus. No other is listed, unless you have some early Hebrew manuscript that shows otherwise. . .

JOHN MORMON:
What priesthood did Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, etc. have that authorized them to do the things that priests do such as sacrifices, huh?

They were their own priests, there was no order of priesthood… There was no priesthood ascribed to any of them other than in Hebrews where Abraham and Levi are linked to the Levitical priesthood. Also, there is no indication that Melchizedek ever offered animal sacrifices in the fashion of Adam, Noah, etc.

JOHN MORMON:
That's not what I see. I see Paul(?) arguing that if the Aaronic priesthood was enough then why was there the need for the Melchizedek Priesthood? The answer is that the Aaronic priesthood is NOT really enough!

But there is no indication that they existed simultaneously, nor that anyone held both priesthoods the way Mormons claim they do. Matter of fact, this chapter (Hebrews 7) showed that the arising holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood (Jesus) was in no way of the priesthood of Aaron.

JOHN MORMON:
Then why the big deal of a judgment if all Jesus has to do is ask us if we believe? Why obey any other commandments if the ONLY commandment that matters is whether we believe in Jesus? We don't even have to love God, huh, just believe?

Decontextualizing the word “belief” is a grave error that is eating away at today’s church. It encompasses obedience and love for God.

John 3:16 is an exclamation of God's love for us. Jesus came in HOPES that we would believe Him and so repent and then follow His example by being baptized and obeying the commandments and enduring to the end. Belief is the BEGINNING of what you must do after hearing, it's not the end of the road.

John 3:15-18 is a covenant layout for us. A covenant is described as this:

ISBE

(1) A statement of the terms agreed upon
(2) An oath by each party to observe the terms, God being witness of the oath
(3) A curse invoked by each one upon himself in case disregard of the agreement.
(4) The formal ratification of the covenant by some solemn external act.

#1 is filled by “shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
#2 is filled by “For God so loved the world” and “that whoever believes in Him”
#3 is filled by “ He who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
#4 is filled by “that He gave His only begotten Son”

JOHN MORMON:
But, Bill, don't you believe Jesus is God? Are you saying that God had to wait until His Jesus person was 30 years old for God to get the true priesthood? God is the SOURCE of the priesthood. Perhaps you think the Father had the priesthood, but the Son didn't, huh?

The Father needs no priesthood. The Son holds the only priesthood that is necessary. There is a distinction there, but it’s one of function, not person. Priesthood was only necessary to intercede to God for the people. Which brings up a question I’ve always wondered. For LDS, did Jesus hold the Aaronic Priesthood?

JOHN MORMON:
Well, Mormons believe that "offering up" occurred in the preexistence before the Earth even existed so maybe we agree in a way.

If that were the case, then His mortal death on the cross was worthless.

JOHN MORMON:
Then God did NOT make you a KING, but only a CITIZEN when you became a Christian. Apparently, becoming "king" is something for the future, don't you think, maybe during the Millenium or in heaven? Then why do you think He made you a priest when you became a Christian?

Because I can enter the Holy of Holies and make my offering directly to Him. Do you deny that?

JOHN MORMON:
The priesthood is God's power given to men. Those in the priesthood have jobs they're supposed to do like bless and pass the sacrament, baptize, anoint the sick and such things.

:hrm: no. The Priesthood is an office held by a mediator between God and men and those tasked with the ritual purifying of the temple grounds. It was not God’s power. Please give some scriptural reference of your statement.

JOHN MORMON:
Jesus affirmed the existing importance of the Jerusalem temple, but He prophesied that there would be a day that worship would not occur in the Jerusalem temple, yet people would still be able to worship God. That does NOT necessarily mean that temples per se would no longer be important ever. It would seem to imply that there would be OTHER temples besides the Jerusalem temple.

BILL THE CAT:
No it would not. It would imply that worship was about to change. No longer would their need to be a temple in order to worship, that true worshippers would not need to visit a temple.

JOHN MORMON:
It does not say or clearly imply that, Bill. It merely says there will be a day that they won't be worshipping in that temple.

:sigh:… John, even the Samaritan woman understood that the Jewish laws did not allow their temple. Jesus was telling her in context that things were about to change forever. It is an entirely different form of worship than the blood sacrifices in the Temples; it would be a worshipping in Spirit and truth.

JOHN MORMON:
Your argument would be more persuasive if it were placed in Egypt. Given that Samaria was so close to Judea and the temple in Jerusalem it doesn't pose the problem for me you think it should. Those in Samaria should be worshipping in Jerusalem. That's what it meant.

Not really, it says “Jews say that Jerusalem is the place MEN ought to worship” not Samaritans. It is inclusive of all men and where they should worship, not just the local Samaritans.

Now, Bill, I'm going to pull a fast one on you since you're being so resistant.

You believe God is the God of the entire universe, yes? You believe there are planets similar to Earth with life on them, yes? Do you believe that PEOPLE live on any of those planets?

:nsm:

If yes, then if God were to reveal His will to them in scriptures like our Bible and instruct them to build a temple, would that be in accordance with God's character?

All I know is that if there are others, Jesus’ sacrifice here on Earth was enough for them too. He died “once for all”

If yes, if God could have more than one "Bible" and more than one "temple" in the universe for people separated from each other by the vastness of space then why couldn't God have more than one "Bible" and more than one "temple" on the Earth for people who are separated by the great ocean?

This is a lot of assumptions John…

JOHN MORMON:
So the FACT that the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. is good evidence to you that God didn't plan to use temples any more? Then, Bill, why wasn't the destruction in 586 B.C. also good evidence to you that God didn't plan to use temples anymore?

Because Messiah had not yet come and fulfilled the need for the temple.

JOHN MORMON:
What nonsense is this, Bill? Jesus was baptized by John in chapter 1. This is chapter 3. In Chapter 3 Jesus baptizes (John 3:22, 26). Jesus is telling Nicodemus to come be baptized like the others.

John’s baptism was one of repentance unto the Law, not grace. They were entirely different.

BILL THE CAT:
I notice how John Mormon did not argue that the differences are more than superficial. Do you concur that there is no real similarity in the practices of Mormonism and the practices of the OT Jews?

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons seem to follow O.T. Jewish practices MORE than your church does, Bill. I recognize that things have changed a lot since then. Well, things have changed a lot since the days of Jesus too.

Such as? Name 5 things that are even remotely similar to the OT Jewish practices and I’ll show you how they are absolutely not even close.

John Powell

April 1st 2004, 03:22 PM

BILL THE CAT:
Sorry it took me so long on the response

JOHN MORMON:
No problem.

JOHN MORMON:
I largely agree with that except for the view that the "substitute" is no longer needed. Humans need those symbols to help them understand the real thing. We still need the sacrament to help us remember our baptismal covenants. We still need churches so that we can meet with others so that we can learn and progress. We still need temples so we have a special place to learn a little more of the mysteries and make special vows to God and to get a sense of what heaven will be like.

BILL THE CAT:
We no longer need the temple for these. The Holy Spirit is our reminder.

John 14
26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

JOHN MORMON:
If God commanded your church to build temples would you help out, Bill? Of course. We Mormons believe God has ordered us to build temples so that's why we do it. Whether this contradicts your interpretation of the Bible is rather irrelevant to our thinking.

The Holy Spirit is not some being who popped into existence after Jesus's Earthly ministry was completed, Bill, or one who was twiddling His thumbs for all of prior eternity with nothing to do until that moment. The Holy spirit influenced people prior to and during the ministry of Jesus. The situation was that WHILE Jesus was on the Earth the influence of this other member of the Godhead was restricted compared to the norm.

JOHN MORMON:
I don't see the relevance. It's not the building per se that's important, but what happens there.

BILL THE CAT:
Exactly. All the things that the Old Testament temple prefigured have been fulfilled in Christ and the Body. The Temple was not necessary to the Apostles, other than to meet outside and evangelize the Jews.

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps they had built their own holy places or planned to when they could afford it.

JOHN MORMON:
Where did God in the O.T. indicate that the Aaronic Priesthood was temporary, that it would eventually pass away?

Where does it say that Jesus is the ONLY Melchizedek priesthood holder? He's the supreme one next to the Father, but He's not the only one, AFAICS.

BILL THE CAT:
The sacrifices and the priesthood of the Levitical order were ordained by God, but they looked forward to a permanent priesthood and a permanent sacrifice in the person and work of the Lord Himself.

JOHN MORMON:
Please quote the O.T. where it indicates that the Aaronic Priesthood was NOT eternal, that it would eventually be replaced by the Melchizedek Priesthood.

God authorized these priests. You see, the "true" priesthood is God's authority. It's God's power, but He sometimes authorizes others to act in His behalf, to represent Him.

BILL THE CAT:
What made Jesus better? Why was His ministry so different? In Hebrews, we find a number of answers to those questions. We find that Jesus was not merely another in succession of priests, but that His priesthood was unique. There had not been one like it before, and there will not be one like it again. His priesthood is the climax and culmination of priesthood before God.

JOHN MORMON:
Given that Melchizedek had the same priesthood and apparently David too it's not so unique. What priesthood did the prophets like Samuel have that were NOT descendants of Aaron or even Levi? It was the Melchizedek priesthood.

BILL THE CAT:
Jesus' priesthood is superior due to a better calling. Other priests were chosen, but Jesus was called with an oath (Heb. 5:5; 7:21). God, who could swear by no greater than Himself, proclaimed Jesus to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

JOHN MORMON:
Jesus was called too, before the Earth was.

BILL THE CAT:
Jesus' priesthood is superior due to a better covenant (Heb. 7:22; 8:6; 9:15). God found fault with the old covenant in that it could not accomplish the salvation of Israel. So He made a new covenant, and Jesus is the mediator of that covenant (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5-6).

JOHN MORMON:
Actually it was an old covenant that was reintroduced. Moses tried to get His people to the point where they could accept the full Gospel, but they weren't ready, so God supplied the lesser covenant, the Mosaic Law. David, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham were NOT subject to the Mosaic Law, but to the Gospel where their sacrifices were done knowing they were pointing to the eventual sacrifice of Jesus.

BILL THE CAT:
Jesus' priesthood is superior due to a better sacrifice (Heb. 9:11ff). Those who served in the Levitical priesthood offered sacrifices annually according to commandment. Those sacrifices did not serve to put away sin. Jesus, however, by one sacrifice, forever put away sin, and now sits at God the Father's right hand (Heb. 9:24ff; 10:12).

JOHN MORMON:
You don't believe Jesus is sitting anywhere other than where the Father sits since they are the same God.

BILL THE CAT:
Jesus' priesthood is superior due to an indestructible life (Heb.7:16). Many men over several centuries served in the Levitical priesthood, yet none of them could continue because of death (Heb. 7:23-25). From Aaron onward, each died and was replaced by a successor. Jesus, on the other hand, continues without end, for He ever lives to pray for us. He does not need to make any more offering, for His one offering was for all time.

From http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/melchizedek.html

The whole point of the Book of Hebrews is to show how and why the Aaronic Priesthood and the whole system set up for it was now no longer needed, because the final and adequate sacrifice was made in the person of Jesus Christ.

JOHN MORMON:
Rather, it's to show that the Aaronic priesthood alone is insufficient.

JOHN MORMON:
Gen 1:26: ". . .and over all the earth, . . ."

The whole Earth is the Promised Land to the descendants of Adam.

BILL THE CAT:
It was promised to them before Adam and Eve sinned. To the Jews of all time since the Exodus, the Promised Land has only been one place. Never did God promise the Jews any other promised land except the New Jerusalem in Eternity.

JOHN MORMON:
Well gee, Bill, since they couldn't even have descendants to occupy all that land UNTIL they partook of the fruit, that would seem to be rather problematic. The descendants of Adam took possession of the whole Earth. That was God's will.

JOHN MORMON:
If that's the case then that makes the Book of Mormon pretty important. If the only place God revealed what Abraham's promised land was in Genesis (that's not the only place) then that by itself would make Genesis pretty important.

BILL THE CAT:
If the BOM were important, why is there no record of any of the events described in any confirmed Jewish literature? And why was it not entrusted to the Twelve Apostles? If it were so important, why did God allow it to be lost for 1200 years? Why not leave it with The Apostle John or the 3 Nephites?

JOHN MORMON:
So that God could accomplish a "marvelous work and a wonder" in our latter days.

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, nothing conclusive enough to persuade someone like you. When I hear about something like that I'll let you know. I have faith the really good external evidence will eventually appear.

BILL THE CAT:
And I have faith that it is a fabrication of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. I am 100% positive that these fictional "great cities" and "massive cultures" never existed and that they are a 19th century invention of literature forcing itself on the Mayas, Toltecs and Aztecs.

JOHN MORMON:
No you aren't. You're at most 99% certain. You're not even 100% certain God exists.

JOHN MORMON:
You say that, but I don't see the good Biblical evidence that shows the temple is no longer necessary. Certain sacrifices that were performed there are no longer needed, but that doesn't mean God no longer needs temples.

BILL THE CAT:
Then tell me why He still needs them. What function do they serve today and how do they compare to the function of the temple back then? Why can the things that take place in them not be accomplished in the open? Why hide them away in secret?

JOHN MORMON:
Today: The sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, endowments, sealings, vicarious work, inspiration.

Back then: The sacrifice of animals, the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, endowments, sealings, vicarious work, inspiration.

These things can be done in the open if God so orders. Apparently, God doesn't want them done in the open.

JOHN MORMON:
Where did each of these persons in your church GET the authority? Remember that you just can't claim it, but you must get it like Aaron did, by the laying on of hands by someone ELSE who has the authority.

BILL THE CAT:
We get licensed through our conference and the State of Virginia (for me). We trace our roots to John Wesley and back through the centuries from the Protestant Reformation to the Catholic Church and ultimately through the Apostles. The ability to minister and the authority of a local church body over its members has nothing to do with some supposed priesthood class. All are priests, as I have said. However, some are called to specific ministries within the body.

JOHN MORMON:
But, Bill, when Wesley left the Catholics then he lost any claim to authority through them. Any Christians that followed the Catholics have to claim authority doesn't matter or they got the authority from God or they're sunk. Mormons claim they got it directly from God.

JOHN MORMON:
Those who are baptized are added to the church membership. You aren't just a Christian on your own. There's a GROUP you become associated with. You have responsibilities to those in the group and to the world at large. By claiming to be Christian you have a responsibility to be a good example.

BILL THE CAT:
And that has to do with my point, how? The point was we do not need anyone else other than Jesus Christ to produce our salvation. If baptism is necessary in order to get saved, then Jesus is not enough for us. We must place our hope of salvation on the presence of a baptizer as well. See the point now?

JOHN MORMON:
You need the Father and the Holy Spirit too. Those are other persons you depend on. You need your parents and your ancestors too. Without them you would not have been born and, so, could not have been saved. You need the writers and characters of the Bible because without the Bible you wouldn't know what you needed to do to be saved. You need the other Christians because without them the Bible would not have been preserved for you to read. You need yourself, Bill, because if you don't do what you need to do you won't be saved either. You need more than just Jesus, Bill.

You need baptism because Jesus said you need it. Even He was baptized although He had no sin to repent of.

JOHN MORMON:
I'm not saying choice vows are between people alone, but God is a party to them. You seem to think that NO ONE except God can be the other one involved. That seems too restrictive in my view.

BILL THE CAT:
So give me a New Testament example where someone is ordered by God to make a vow to another person please. Please ensure the word for vow is included. Let me help…The word euche (Strongs’ 2171) is used 3 times, twice in Acts and once in James. The 2 times in Acts are vows similar to Nazarite vows (shaved heads and ritualistic washings) and in James it is rendered prayer. All are between a person and God. The word Horkos (Strongs’ 3727) is used 10 times and refers to oaths. The 6 times it is used in the Synoptics refer to Herod’s vow to his daughter in law (Matt 14, Mar 6:26), a vow to the Lord (Matt 5), a hasty vow by Peter denying Christ (Matt 26:72) and an oath from the Lord (Luk 1:73) It is used once in Acts of an oath from God (Acts 2:30), Twice in Hebrews, once of a man-instituted oath to settle a conflict (Heb 6:16) and the other of God’s oath to man (Heb 6:17), and once in James warning against swearing oaths to other men (Ja 5:12). The 2 similar words used show no indication of God requiring two people to vow to each other, nor that these oaths have to be made in the Temple.

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe I can't give you exactly what you request. Would you agree that there are such things as "marriage vows" between the husband and the wife or do you deny that there are such things? Do you agree that marriage is instituted by God? Will that suffice?

JOHN MORMON:
How about if you were baptized as an infant by a Methodist priest who later became a Pentecostal priest? Would your infant baptism suffice or would you have to be baptized again?

BILL THE CAT:
We do not accept infant baptism, so no, it would not suffice

JOHN MORMON:
What if the baptism were by a Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, or agnostic Unitarian priest? Would any of those suffice? In other words, Bill, which existing churches today are "Christian" according to your Pentecostal denomination?

BILL THE CAT:
Belief in the core doctrines of Orthodox Christianity. http://www.iphc.org/docs/theology/artfaith.html Articles 1-4, 6, 7, and 14 are not negotiable. Articles 5 is necessary, but flexible for the Catholics with the Apocrypha, although we do not agree it is inspired. Articles 8-13 are denominational distinctions and not considered “Core doctrine of Christianity”

JOHN MORMON:
Who decided which articles were negotiable and which were not?

JOHN MORMON:
Does one even need to be baptised to join your church or is "I believe . . ." the appropriate things good enough?

BILL THE CAT:
A proper understanding of our doctrine is necessary to join our church as a voting member, but in order to be in the Body of Christ, “I believe” is sufficient providing you really do believe the way Jesus commands.

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, your meaning of "believe" has been altered to mean "believe and obey the commandments."

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, it's an age decided upon by the parents in which the child is old enough to have made a conscious decision of faith in Jesus Christ. Does the IPHC have statistics on what minimum age that tends to be?

BILL THE CAT:
Sorry, but I don’t think we do. Usually it is between 11 and 13, IIRC.

JOHN MORMON:
I see. Mormons baptize at age 8.

POWELL:
I think the older the better. 8 is still so young the kids are doing it mostly just to please their parents. I'm thinking people should be baptized when they become 16 or adults.

JOHN MORMON:
I recognize that it's unclear whether that was getting the priesthood or a calling in the priesthood or a calling outside the priesthood, but it goes to show that some Christians had more authority than other Christians and that's because someone else gave them that authority.

BILL THE CAT:
There is an ecclesiastical structure to the body of Christ, but not classes. There are those in positions of authority and those usually are the “pastorally” gifted people, however the church body elects them. There still is no priesthood class. The pastorate can be occupied by non-licensed people (like myself) or licensed. However, Mormon “priesthood” and Christian pastorate and ecclesiastical structures past and present are completely different.

JOHN MORMON:
He was a man, king of Salem, who held the same priesthood that Jesus was described as having in Hebrews. According to Mormons, it's the same priesthood that Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Isaiah, and many others held.

BILL THE CAT:
Well, if that’s the case, then Hebrews is wrong when it speaks of this…

Hebrews 7
6 But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises.
7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.
8 In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on.
9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes,
10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

JOHN MORMON:
There was some confusion here about Melchizedek. Do you believe that Melchizedek had no mother or father, no beginning and no end and this guy was merely King of Salem?

BILL THE CAT:
These verses de facto include Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as being lesser than Melchizedek, not equal. It also shows that they did not possess any priesthood other than Levi and that being the Levitical line, not Melchizedek, or else Abraham was an equal to Melchizedek, not the lesser as scripture dictates.

JOHN MORMON:
If you accept that Melchizedek was a descendant of Noah and Adam then your argument is weakened considerably. Was Melchizedek floating in the flood waters for months while Noah was in the ark?

BILL THE CAT:
No one else is ever said to possess this priesthood.

JOHN MORMON:
What about David?

Psalms 110:4:
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

BILL THE CAT:
This verse is directly applied to Jesus, not David. See Hebrews 7:17

JOHN MORMON:
These words were spoken to David. They had a dual meaning. They applied to David and to Jesus. You do accept double fulfillments, don't you? David was a priest too, you know, although he was not a Levite.

BILL THE CAT:
So give me one solid Biblical example where someone else had it.

JOHN MORMON:
David.

BILL THE CAT:
Sorry, but Hebrews 7:16-17 show the criteria of the Melchizedek Priesthood (an indestructible life, which no other man possesses) and David was not the object of this declaration.

JOHN MORMON:
So, you believe that Melchizedek had an indestructable life? If yes, and that he had no beginning then you apparently think Melchizedek was floating in the flood waters like a "Highlander" who can't drown.

JOHN MORMON:
No successor ever existed even during O.T. times when you agree there were high priests of the Melchizedek order.

BILL THE CAT:
There were 2. Melchizedek and Jesus. No other is listed, unless you have some early Hebrew manuscript that shows otherwise. . .

JOHN MORMON:
What priesthood did Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, etc. have that authorized them to do the things that priests do such as sacrifices, huh?

BILL THE CAT:
They were their own priests, there was no order of priesthood… There was no priesthood ascribed to any of them other than in Hebrews where Abraham and Levi are linked to the Levitical priesthood. Also, there is no indication that Melchizedek ever offered animal sacrifices in the fashion of Adam, Noah, etc.

JOHN MORMON:
The reference to Melchizedek is too short to say, but pretty much everyone holy back then was offering animal sacrifices so it would be strange if Mechizedek was not.

JOHN MORMON:
That's not what I see. I see Paul(?) arguing that if the Aaronic priesthood was enough then why was there the need for the Melchizedek Priesthood? The answer is that the Aaronic priesthood is NOT really enough!

BILL THE CAT:
But there is no indication that they existed simultaneously, nor that anyone held both priesthoods the way Mormons claim they do. Matter of fact, this chapter (Hebrews 7) showed that the arising holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood (Jesus) was in no way of the priesthood of Aaron.

JOHN MORMON:
The Aaronic Priesthood is just a part of the Melchizedek priesthood. It's all from God, Bill.

JOHN MORMON:
Then why the big deal of a judgment if all Jesus has to do is ask us if we believe? Why obey any other commandments if the ONLY commandment that matters is whether we believe in Jesus? We don't even have to love God, huh, just believe?

BILL THE CAT:
Decontextualizing the word “belief” is a grave error that is eating away at today’s church. It encompasses obedience and love for God.

JOHN MORMON:
No it doesn't. A person who believes has a belief. Obedience is a separate issue. One can believe God exists yet disobey His commandments. "Belief" is an English word, not a Greek word. If you want to know the meaning then you should look it up in an English dictionary, not a Greek or Hebrew dictionary.

JOHN MORMON:
John 3:16 is an exclamation of God's love for us. Jesus came in HOPES that we would believe Him and so repent and then follow His example by being baptized and obeying the commandments and enduring to the end. Belief is the BEGINNING of what you must do after hearing, it's not the end of the road.

JOHN MORMON:
John 3:15-18 is a covenant layout for us. A covenant is described as this:

ISBE

(1) A statement of the terms agreed upon
(2) An oath by each party to observe the terms, God being witness of the oath
(3) A curse invoked by each one upon himself in case disregard of the agreement.
(4) The formal ratification of the covenant by some solemn external act.

#1 is filled by “shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
#2 is filled by “For God so loved the world” and “that whoever believes in Him”
#3 is filled by “ He who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
#4 is filled by “that He gave His only begotten Son”

JOHN MORMON:
Interesting.

JOHN MORMON:
But, Bill, don't you believe Jesus is God? Are you saying that God had to wait until His Jesus person was 30 years old for God to get the true priesthood? God is the SOURCE of the priesthood. Perhaps you think the Father had the priesthood, but the Son didn't, huh?

BILL THE CAT:
The Father needs no priesthood. The Son holds the only priesthood that is necessary. There is a distinction there, but it’s one of function, not person. Priesthood was only necessary to intercede to God for the people. Which brings up a question I’ve always wondered. For LDS, did Jesus hold the Aaronic Priesthood?

JOHN MORMON:
Not that I know of. If you have the Melchizedek Priesthood then you have authority to officiate in the Aaronic Priesthood functions.

God is the SOURCE of the priesthood. God's power is His priesthood. When God authorizes others to serve as His priests then He's delegating some of His authority to them.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, Mormons believe that "offering up" occurred in the preexistence before the Earth even existed so maybe we agree in a way.

BILL THE CAT:
If that were the case, then His mortal death on the cross was worthless.

JOHN MORMON:
You misunderstand, Bill. I'm saying that Jesus AGREED to be the Savior before the Earth existed, not that He was crucified in the preexistence.

JOHN MORMON:
Then God did NOT make you a KING, but only a CITIZEN when you became a Christian. Apparently, becoming "king" is something for the future, don't you think, maybe during the Millenium or in heaven? Then why do you think He made you a priest when you became a Christian?

BILL THE CAT:
Because I can enter the Holy of Holies and make my offering directly to Him. Do you deny that?

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, I deny that in the way I think you think. You have to work through God's representatives. God is in heaven listening to your prayers, but He has people on Earth serving as His representatives. If you're worthy you can pass through the veil by properly responding to the representative of Jesus at the veil, and then pass into the Celestial Room.

JOHN MORMON:
The priesthood is God's power given to men. Those in the priesthood have jobs they're supposed to do like bless and pass the sacrament, baptize, anoint the sick and such things.

BILL THE CAT:
no. The Priesthood is an office held by a mediator between God and men and those tasked with the ritual purifying of the temple grounds. It was not God’s power. Please give some scriptural reference of your statement.

JOHN MORMON:
It's so obvious, Bill. If it's not God's power then it's man's power and God has no responsibility to accept any of it. God instructed Moses to instruct Aaron. God is in charge. It's God's authority. Aaron did not have the priesthood merely because Aaron wanted to. It was because God gave Aaron the authority.

Are you saying that the Levitical and Aaronic priests were exercising their own power when they officiated in the Temple?

BILL THE CAT:
No it would not. It would imply that worship was about to change. No longer would their need to be a temple in order to worship, that true worshippers would not need to visit a temple.

JOHN MORMON:
It does not say or clearly imply that, Bill. It merely says there will be a day that they won't be worshipping in that temple.

BILL THE CAT:
:sigh:… John, even the Samaritan woman understood that the Jewish laws did not allow their temple. Jesus was telling her in context that things were about to change forever. It is an entirely different form of worship than the blood sacrifices in the Temples; it would be a worshipping in Spirit and truth.

JOHN MORMON:
Are you suggesting that Moses and Aaron were NOT worshipping in Spirit and truth because they had animal sacrifices?

JOHN MORMON:
Your argument would be more persuasive if it were placed in Egypt. Given that Samaria was so close to Judea and the temple in Jerusalem it doesn't pose the problem for me you think it should. Those in Samaria should be worshipping in Jerusalem. That's what it meant.

BILL THE CAT:
Not really, it says “Jews say that Jerusalem is the place MEN ought to worship” not Samaritans. It is inclusive of all men and where they should worship, not just the local Samaritans.

JOHN MORMON:
You think that means men in the Americas should also be traveling to Jerusalem to worship, huh? You think men on one of God's other inhabited planets are supposed to travel across interstellar space to worship in Jerusalem, huh?

JOHN MORMON:
Now, Bill, I'm going to pull a fast one on you since you're being so resistant.

You believe God is the God of the entire universe, yes? You believe there are planets similar to Earth with life on them, yes? Do you believe that PEOPLE live on any of those planets?

BILL THE CAT:
:nsm:

JOHN MORMON:
I didn't ask if you KNOW, Bill, but if you BELIEVE. What do you believe about this "other worlds" idea?

JOHN MORMON:
If yes, then if God were to reveal His will to them in scriptures like our Bible and instruct them to build a temple, would that be in accordance with God's character?

BILL THE CAT:
All I know is that if there are others, Jesus’ sacrifice here on Earth was enough for them too. He died “once for all”

JOHN MORMON:
You don't know that, Bill. That may only apply to everyone on Earth. Jesus did not die for the Father, so Jesus did not die for "all." Maybe God has other "only begotten Sons" that are supposed to be the Saviors to other worlds.

JOHN MORMON:
If yes, if God could have more than one "Bible" and more than one "temple" in the universe for people separated from each other by the vastness of space then why couldn't God have more than one "Bible" and more than one "temple" on the Earth for people who are separated by the great ocean?

BILL THE CAT:
This is a lot of assumptions John…

JOHN MORMON:
I'm confident you can deal with the hypothetical. It's not my fault your church hasn't seriously considered such things.

JOHN MORMON:
So the FACT that the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. is good evidence to you that God didn't plan to use temples any more? Then, Bill, why wasn't the destruction in 586 B.C. also good evidence to you that God didn't plan to use temples anymore?

BILL THE CAT:
Because Messiah had not yet come and fulfilled the need for the temple.

JOHN MORMON:
ONE of the needs of the temple, namely animal sacrifices. People still needed other things that could be provided for by the temple.

JOHN MORMON:
What nonsense is this, Bill? Jesus was baptized by John in chapter 1. This is chapter 3. In Chapter 3 Jesus baptizes (John 3:22, 26). Jesus is telling Nicodemus to come be baptized like the others.

BILL THE CAT:
John’s baptism was one of repentance unto the Law, not grace. They were entirely different.

JOHN MORMON:
No they weren't, otherwise for John to baptize Jesus would be unacceptable. Why would Jesus be an example on how to be baptized, but do it the wrong way, huh?

BILL THE CAT:
I notice how John Mormon did not argue that the differences are more than superficial. Do you concur that there is no real similarity in the practices of Mormonism and the practices of the OT Jews?

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons seem to follow O.T. Jewish practices MORE than your church does, Bill. I recognize that things have changed a lot since then. Well, things have changed a lot since the days of Jesus too.

BILL THE CAT:
Such as? Name 5 things that are even remotely similar to the OT Jewish practices and I’ll show you how they are absolutely not even close.

JOHN MORMON:
These were Mormon practices done to follow, to some extent, O.T. practices.

1. Prophets.
2. Temples.
3. Patriarchal blessings.
4. Polygamy (discontinued).
5. The killing of sinners, such as religious enemies (discontinued).

John Powell

Bill the Cat

April 7th 2004, 07:36 PM

JOHN MORMON:
If God commanded your church to build temples would you help out, Bill? Of course. We Mormons believe God has ordered us to build temples so that's why we do it. Whether this contradicts your interpretation of the Bible is rather irrelevant to our thinking.

If someone said that God told him or her to build new temple, I would be extremely skeptical. The temple was a type, just as all the items in them were. Now that the object of the type is here, I would not want to go back to the bondage of the Law nor the temple associated with it.

BILL THE CAT:
Exactly. All the things that the Old Testament temple prefigured have been fulfilled in Christ and the Body. The Temple was not necessary to the Apostles, other than to meet outside and evangelize the Jews.

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps they had built their own holy places or planned to when they could afford it.

The temple existed when their ministry was going on. The only reason that they even paid attention to it was to gather outside and proselytize the Jews. They were not interested in building "holy places." They were investing their efforts instituting local church bodies in houses and going to the synagogues to proclaim Jesus and Him crucified.

JOHN MORMON:
Please quote the O.T. where it indicates that the Aaronic Priesthood was NOT eternal, that it would eventually be replaced by the Melchizedek Priesthood.

The solution is to be found in the meaning of the word "everlasting" which, in the original tongues (e.g. Gk. aeon) does not mean "forever and ever without end" but "until the end of the age" or "age-lasting". Thus the Levitical priesthood would remain until the end of the Mosaic age, as indeed it did, until Jesus' unique priesthood replaced it. JP stated it like this:

"Barr discusses this word extensively in his work Biblical Words for Time, and translates 'olam as meaning "in perpetuity." Does this mean, though, that the thing described will last forever? Probably not. One may argue that the thing described is intended to last forever, but 'olam is clearly used in places to describe something which will end:
Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.

There is an obvious limitation involved here, namely, the life of the slave (cf. 1 Sam. 1:22-8). Here, then, 'olam stresses permanence, and assumably, the man would be a slave forever if he lived that long!"
From http://www.tektonics.org/mormandprsts.html

God authorized these priests. You see, the "true" priesthood is God's authority. It's God's power, but He sometimes authorizes others to act in His behalf, to represent Him.
The Priesthood was an order instituted to make offerings to God and to intercede between God and His chosen people. There was no "power" or "authority" involved.

JOHN MORMON:
Given that Melchizedek had the same priesthood and apparently David too it's not so unique. What priesthood did the prophets like Samuel have that were NOT descendants of Aaron or even Levi? It was the Melchizedek priesthood.

Most were prophets, not priests, and could not enter the Holy of Holies in the Temple. Samuel was a Levite (1Chr 6) and thus was an Aaronic Priesthood holder.

The whole point of the Book of Hebrews is to show how and why the Aaronic Priesthood and the whole system set up for it was now no longer needed, because the final and adequate sacrifice was made in the person of Jesus Christ.
JOHN MORMON:
Rather, it's to show that the Aaronic priesthood alone is insufficient.

John Gill says about Hebrews:
And the occasion and design of it is, to set forth the superior excellency of Christ to angels and men, to Moses, to Joshua, to Aaron, and his sons, and the preferableness of his priesthood and sacrifice to the Levitical priesthood and its sacrifices; to teach the Hebrews the true knowledge of the mysteries of their law; to point out to them the design, use, and abrogation of its ceremonies; and to prepare them for what afflictions and persecutions they would be called to endure for Christ; and to exhort them to perseverance, and to strengthen them against apostasy, as well as to instruct them in the various duties of religion.

Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown say:

Hebrews unites the ordinances of Leviticus with their antitypical Gospel fulfillment.

B.W.Johnson says about Hebrews:

the superiority of Christianity to Judaism is demonstrated by showing the superlative excellence of Christ. He is (1) superior to the prophets; (2) superior to the angels; (3) superior to Moses. (4) His priesthood is superior to that of Aaron, being a priest after the order of Melchizedek. (5) Then the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old is shown, being a better covenant, based upon better promises. This is shown in Chs. 8, 9, 10.

So you see, it does not show inclusiveness of the Aaronic priesthood into Melchizedek, but contrasts the two as entirely different. It shows the superiority of Christ's priesthood over Aaron's, not the inclusion of Aaron's into Jesus'

JOHN MORMON:
Well gee, Bill, since they couldn't even have descendants to occupy all that land UNTIL they partook of the fruit, which would seem to be rather problematic. The descendants of Adam took possession of the whole Earth. That was God's will.

The command to be fruitful and multiply was given prior to the fall.

BILL THE CAT:
If the BOM were important, why is there no record of any of the events described in any confirmed Jewish literature? And why was it not entrusted to the Twelve Apostles? If it were so important, why did God allow it to be lost for 1200 years? Why not leave it with The Apostle John or the 3 Nephites?

JOHN MORMON:
So that God could accomplish a "marvelous work and a wonder" in our latter days.

That was a dodge. Why was there no record anywhere else of the events in it? Heck, even the little bit of it that supposedly happened in the Near East is nowhere to be found in any other Jewish records. Josephus doesn't even mention it. Seems it would have been important enough to the Jews to include in the Antiquities, don't you think?
BILL THE CAT:
And I have faith that it is a fabrication of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. I am 100% positive that these fictional "great cities" and "massive cultures" never existed and that they are a 19th century invention of literature forcing itself on the Mayas, Toltecs and Aztecs.
JOHN MORMON:
No you aren't. You're at most 99% certain. You're not even 100% certain God exists.

Maybe a bad choice of words, but I still am confident that it did not happen. Heck, I'm gambling my after-life on it.
JOHN MORMON:
You say that, but I don't see the good Biblical evidence that shows the temple is no longer necessary. Certain sacrifices that were performed there are no longer needed, but that doesn't mean God no longer needs temples.

BILL THE CAT:
Then tell me why He still needs them. What function do they serve today and how do they compare to the function of the temple back then? Why can the things that take place in them not be accomplished in the open? Why hide them away in secret?
JOHN MORMON:
Today: The sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, endowments, sealings, vicarious work, inspiration.
Back then: The sacrifice of animals, the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, endowments, sealings, vicarious work, inspiration.

The sacrifice of a broken heart does not require a temple. The "Endowment" is just a film reciting the LDS idea of creation and the fall; no temple needed and no parallel to the Old Testament temple. Sealings do not necessitate a temple and were not performed in the Old Testament temple. Vicarious work had a surface level parallel, but was not done on behalf of the dead in the OT temple. The High Priest did it on behalf of the people of Israel. Not sure what you mean by "inspiration"
BILL THE CAT:
And that has to do with my point, how? The point was we do not need anyone else other than Jesus Christ to produce our salvation. If baptism is necessary in order to get saved, then Jesus is not enough for us. We must place our hope of salvation on the presence of a baptizer as well. See the point now?
JOHN MORMON:
You need the Father and the Holy Spirit too. Those are other persons you depend on. You need your parents and your ancestors too. Without them you would not have been born and, so, could not have been saved. You need the writers and characters of the Bible because without the Bible you wouldn't know what you needed to do to be saved. You need the other Christians because without them the Bible would not have been preserved for you to read. You need yourself, Bill, because if you don't do what you need to do you won't be saved either. You need more than just Jesus, Bill.

That is not what I mean at all John. I do not need anyone else at the time of my salvation in order for it to be applied to me. The covenant was proposed to me by God the Father in John 3:15-18, and I must respond the way the terms were set forth. No other way was set forth. Not Baptism, not vicarious work, not anything other than "whosoever believes in Him"

You need baptism because Jesus said you need it. Even He was baptized although He had no sin to repent of.

And that negates the salvific aspect of it. Jesus did not need to be saved. He also did not tell the thief on the cross that he had to get baptized before he would be seen in the Kingdom.

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe I can't give you exactly what you request. Would you agree that there are such things as "marriage vows" between the husband and the wife or do you deny that there are such things? Do you agree that marriage is instituted by God? Will that suffice?

Yes, God institutes it, but it was not performed in the OT Temple. It was usually done in the Bride's father's house, not the temple. "The bride is carried to the Chupat Chatanim, or Canopy of Bridegrooms (Mishnah Sotah 9:14), a dome shaped crimson silk and gold wedding canopy, where her groom, adorned with a garland of roses and myrhh awaits her."
BILL THE CAT:
Belief in the core doctrines of Orthodox Christianity. http://www.iphc.org/docs/theology/artfaith.html Articles 1-4, 6, 7, and 14 are not negotiable. Articles 5 is necessary, but flexible for the Catholics with the Apocrypha, although we do not agree it is inspired. Articles 8-13 are denominational distinctions and not considered "Core doctrine of Christianity"
JOHN MORMON:
Who decided which articles were negotiable and which were not?

The founders of my denomination formed the articles of faith and used accepted Orthodox core beliefs. The optional ones were set in place to describe the doctrine of entire sanctification and a few other theological ideas that set us apart from the other denominations.
JOHN MORMON:
Does one even need to be baptised to join your church or is "I believe . . ." the appropriate things good enough?

BILL THE CAT:
A proper understanding of our doctrine is necessary to join our church as a voting member, but in order to be in the Body of Christ, "I believe" is sufficient providing you really do believe the way Jesus commands.
JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, your meaning of "believe" has been altered to mean "believe and obey the commandments."

No, it has not been altered. The Greek word for belief is pistis, meaning belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same, fidelity, and faithfulness. See JP's article here: http://www.tektonics.org/whatfaith.html
JOHN MORMON:
There was some confusion here about Melchizedek. Do you believe that Melchizedek had no mother or father, no beginning and no end and this guy was merely King of Salem?

No, I believe that his parentage, birth, and death were not recorded. It was used as an idiom. John Gill says this:

Which is to be understood not of his person, but of his priesthood; that his father was not a priest, nor did his mother descend from any in that office; nor had he either a predecessor or a successor in it, as appears from any authentic accounts: or this is to be interpreted, not of his natural, but scriptural being; for no doubt, as he was a mere man, he had a father, and a mother, and a natural lineage and descent; but of these no mention is made in Scripture, and therefore said to be without them; and so the Syriac version renders it; "whose father and mother are not written in the genealogies"; or there is no genealogical account of them

John Wesley says:

- without pedigree - Recorded, without any account of his descent from any ancestors of the priestly order.
- Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life - Mentioned by Moses. But being - In all these respects.
- Made like the Son of God - Who is really without father, as to his human nature; without mother, as to his divine; and in this also,
- without pedigree - Neither descended from any ancestors of the priestly order.

BILL THE CAT:
These verses de facto include Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as being lesser than Melchizedek, not equal. It also shows that they did not possess any priesthood other than Levi and that being the Levitical line, not Melchizedek, or else Abraham was an equal to Melchizedek, not the lesser as scripture dictates.
JOHN MORMON:
If you accept that Melchizedek was a descendant of Noah and Adam then your argument is weakened considerably. Was Melchizedek floating in the floodwaters for months while Noah was in the ark?

Not so. He is a type of Christ. His Priesthood was superior to the Levitical priesthood as witnessed by the tithe.
BILL THE CAT:
No one else is ever said to possess this priesthood.

JOHN MORMON:
These words were spoken to David. They had a dual meaning. They applied to David and to Jesus. You do accept double fulfillments, don't you? David was a priest too, you know, although he was not a Levite.

David wrote it. It was not spoken to him. This whole passage is Messianic. Virtually all commentators agree that it is directly referring to the Messiah alone as is clear from the quotation by Christ, Matthew 22:43 and from the references to it by the apostle, Acts 2:34.
BILL THE CAT:
So give me one solid Biblical example where someone else had it.

JOHN MORMON:
David.

BILL THE CAT:
Sorry, but Hebrews 7:16-17 show the criteria of the Melchizedek Priesthood (an indestructible life, which no other man possesses) and David was not the object of this declaration.
JOHN MORMON:
So, you believe that Melchizedek had an indestructible life? If yes, and that he had no beginning then you apparently think Melchizedek was floating in the floodwaters like a "Highlander" who can't drown.

His end was not recorded, and thus it was compared to Jesus who had no end in Hebrews. On a side issue, The Levitical Priesthood was not directly held by Levi, so I ask, would it would make sense that Melchizedek did not directly hold the Melchizedek Priesthood? It was simply named after him because of the characteristics of his parentage and lineage not being recorded and thus a parallel to him was drawn to describe the Messiah who would literally have no priestly lineage nor a beginning or end of days... :nsm: just rambling some ideas out there...

JOHN MORMON:
That's not what I see. I see Paul (?) arguing that if the Aaronic priesthood was enough then why was there the need for the Melchizedek Priesthood? The answer is that the Aaronic priesthood is NOT really enough!

BILL THE CAT:
But there is no indication that they existed simultaneously, nor that anyone held both priesthoods the way Mormons claim they do. Matter of fact, this chapter (Hebrews 7) showed that the arising holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood (Jesus) was in no way of the priesthood of Aaron.
JOHN MORMON:
The Aaronic Priesthood is just a part of the Melchizedek priesthood. It's all from God, Bill.
And this is scripturally justified...how? Melchizedek was not of the line of Abraham, so could not have been a Levitical Priesthood holder. That breaks the whole argument in two.

JOHN MORMON:
Then why the big deal of a judgment if all Jesus has to do is ask us if we believe? Why obey any other commandments if the ONLY commandment that matters is whether we believe in Jesus? We don't even have to love God, huh, just believe?

BILL THE CAT:
Decontextualizing the word "belief" is a grave error that is eating away at today's church. It encompasses obedience and love for God.
JOHN MORMON:
No it doesn't. A person who believes has a belief. Obedience is a separate issue. One can believe God exists yet disobey His commandments. "Belief" is an English word, not a Greek word. If you want to know the meaning then you should look it up in an English dictionary, not a Greek or Hebrew dictionary.

My point is made. You just decontextualized the word used. The NT was not written in English.
JOHN MORMON:
But, Bill, don't you believe Jesus is God? Are you saying that God had to wait until His Jesus person was 30 years old for God to get the true priesthood? God is the SOURCE of the priesthood. Perhaps you think the Father had the priesthood, but the Son didn't, huh?

BILL THE CAT:
The Father needs no priesthood. The Son holds the only priesthood that is necessary. There is a distinction there, but it's one of function, not person. Priesthood was only necessary to intercede to God for the people. Which brings up a question I've always wondered. For LDS, did Jesus hold the Aaronic Priesthood?
JOHN MORMON:
Not that I know of. If you have the Melchizedek Priesthood then you have authority to officiate in the Aaronic Priesthood functions.

I thought you just said earlier that the Aaronic Priesthood was a part of the Melchizedek Priesthood...:huh: JOHN MORMON:
The Aaronic Priesthood is just a part of the Melchizedek priesthood. It's all from God, Bill.
So I ask again. Did Jesus have the Aaronic Priesthood?

God is the SOURCE of the priesthood. God's power is His priesthood. When God authorizes others to serve as His priests then He's delegating some of His authority to them.
God's power is His Word, not the Priesthood. The priesthood is to offer sacrifice and intercession for others and yourself. That's it. It has absolutely zip to do with power.

JOHN MORMON:
If you're worthy you can pass through the veil by properly responding to the representative of Jesus at the veil, and then pass into the Celestial Room.

What veil? Jesus' death ripped the veil once and for all. I need no other to intercede for me. No "representative." He is my mediator. It is not a chain gang.
JOHN MORMON:
It's so obvious, Bill. If it's not God's power then it's man's power and God has no responsibility to accept any of it. God instructed Moses to instruct Aaron. God is in charge. It's God's authority. Aaron did not have the priesthood merely because Aaron wanted to. It was because God gave Aaron the authority.

God has a responsibility to accept it because He said He would accept it. It was the covenant promise of the OT (#2 on the Covenant list from the ISBE)

Are you saying that the Levitical and Aaronic priests were exercising their own power when they officiated in the Temple?
No, I'm saying that they were not operating in any power. It was a service to the Lord they were performing.

JOHN MORMON:
Are you suggesting that Moses and Aaron were NOT worshipping in Spirit and truth because they had animal sacrifices?

No, I am suggesting that their worship had to be done in a specific place. Jesus was announcing the changing of all that. B.W. Johnson says:

The time is at hand, says the Lord, when a worship of forms, or at holy places, will not meet the demands of the Father. He must be worshiped with the heart, in spirit and in truth. Spiritual worship can be offered in any land, wherever the soul can humble itself before God.
JOHN MORMON:
You think that means men in the Americas should also be traveling to Jerusalem to worship, huh? You think men on one of God's other inhabited planets are supposed to travel across interstellar space to worship in Jerusalem, huh?

The Bible is silent on these matters. There is no Biblical support for anything like what you are proposing. The Bible does not say that there are other inhabited planets. This rests on the entire presupposition that God ordered some Jews to go to America, which there is no biblical support for.
JOHN MORMON:
I didn't ask if you KNOW, Bill, but if you BELIEVE. What do you believe about this "other worlds" idea?

I believe we are alone. It's a personal belief, not one I can back up with hard data, but I believe it nonetheless.
JOHN MORMON:
You don't know that, Bill. That may only apply to everyone on Earth. Jesus did not die for the Father, so Jesus did not die for "all." Maybe God has other "only begotten Sons" that are supposed to be the Saviors to other worlds.

That is ridiculous and not a Mormon idea at all. God only has one begotten son. The word monogenes is implicit of uniqueness. If there were another begotten son, then it Jesus would logically not be the "only" begotten.
JOHN MORMON:
ONE of the needs of the temple, namely animal sacrifices. People still needed other things that could be provided for by the temple.

We seem to be going around in circles. There is no need for a temple to do any of the things Mormons say that are necessarily accomplished in a temple.
JOHN MORMON:
No they weren't, otherwise for John to baptize Jesus would be unacceptable. Why would Jesus be an example on how to be baptized, but do it the wrong way, huh?

There is scriptural evidence that John's baptism was not the same:
Acts 19
3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, " Into John's baptism."
4 Paul said, " John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

BILL THE CAT:
Such as? Name 5 things that are even remotely similar to the OT Jewish practices and I'll show you how they are absolutely not even close.
JOHN MORMON:
These were Mormon practices done to follow, to some extent, O.T. practices.

Thanks for the list. I'll take them one by one:

1. Prophets.
That don't pass the prophet's test http://www.tektonics.org/josproph.html and http://www.irr.org/mit/jsfalpro.html

2. Temples.
Which bear no resemblance to either of the temples of the OT physically or functionally

3. Patriarchal blessings.
once again, bears no resemblance to Biblical patriarchal blessings http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/patriarchal-blessings.html

4. Polygamy (discontinued).
Which was practiced against Biblical restrictions prohibiting marrying sisters (Lev 18:18) Also it was merely tolerated, not approved.

5. The killing of sinners, such as religious enemies (discontinued).
Yeah, I may have to give you that one, however unjust I may see the Mountain Meadows Massacre or the "I would throw a javelin through my adulterous wife's heart" comment made by Brigham Young.

Now, give me 5 examples of New Testament practices that are similar to LDS practices...:teeth:

John Powell

April 8th 2004, 07:01 PM

JOHN MORMON (JM):
If God commanded your church to build temples would you help out, Bill? Of course. We Mormons believe God has ordered us to build temples so that's why we do it. Whether this contradicts your interpretation of the Bible is rather irrelevant to our thinking.

BILL THE CAT (BTC):
If someone said that God told him or her to build new temple, I would be extremely skeptical. The temple was a type, just as all the items in them were. Now that the object of the type is here, I would not want to go back to the bondage of the Law nor the temple associated with it.

BTC:
Exactly. All the things that the Old Testament temple prefigured have been fulfilled in Christ and the Body. The Temple was not necessary to the Apostles, other than to meet outside and evangelize the Jews.

JM:
Perhaps they had built their own holy places or planned to when they could afford it.

BTC:
The temple existed when their ministry was going on. The only reason that they even paid attention to it was to gather outside and proselytize the Jews. They were not interested in building "holy places." They were investing their efforts instituting local church bodies in houses and going to the synagogues to proclaim Jesus and Him crucified.

JOHN MORMON:
You don't seem to understand what a holy place is, Bill. You seem to think the temple is the only holy place there can be. It's not called "the Holy Land" just because the temple used to be there. The Mount of Transfiguration was not called the "holy mount" because the Jerusalem temple was built there (2 Pet 1:18). The Christians were so interested in having holy places that they tried to BE traveling temples themselves.

JM:
Please quote the O.T. where it indicates that the Aaronic Priesthood was NOT eternal, that it would eventually be replaced by the Melchizedek Priesthood.

BTC:
The solution is to be found in the meaning of the word "everlasting" which, in the original tongues (e.g. Gk. aeon) does not mean "forever and ever without end" but "until the end of the age" or "age-lasting". Thus the Levitical priesthood would remain until the end of the Mosaic age, as indeed it did, until Jesus' unique priesthood replaced it. JP stated it like this:

"Barr discusses this word extensively in his work Biblical Words for Time, and translates 'olam as meaning "in perpetuity." Does this mean, though, that the thing described will last forever? Probably not. One may argue that the thing described is intended to last forever, but 'olam is clearly used in places to describe something which will end:

Exodus 21:6
Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.

JOHN MORMON:
Sure, Bill. If Adam had partaken of the tree of life would he have lived 'olam = "forever" or only 'olam = "until the end of the age," say until about the days of Noah? Gen 3:22 uses Strong's Hebrew 05769: 'olam.

BTC:
There is an obvious limitation involved here, namely, the life of the slave (cf. 1 Sam. 1:22-8). Here, then, 'olam stresses permanence, and assumably, the man would be a slave forever if he lived that long!"
From http://www.tektonics.org/mormandprsts.html

JOHN MORMON:
Of course. The command did not mean he would be a slave after he was dead. Likewise, if all the Israelites were dead then the Aaronic priesthood would cease. However, since there are still Israelites (especially adopted) the Aaronic priesthood still exists.

JM:
God authorized these priests. You see, the "true" priesthood is God's authority. It's God's power, but He sometimes authorizes others to act in His behalf, to represent Him.

BTC:
The Priesthood was an order instituted to make offerings to God and to intercede between God and His chosen people. There was no "power" or "authority" involved.

JOHN MORMON:
Ridiculous, Bill. Then anyone could do it. No one had special "authority" from God.

JM:
Given that Melchizedek had the same priesthood and apparently David too it's not so unique. What priesthood did the prophets like Samuel have that were NOT descendants of Aaron or even Levi? It was the Melchizedek priesthood.

BTC:
Most were prophets, not priests, and could not enter the Holy of Holies in the Temple. Samuel was a Levite (1Chr 6) and thus was an Aaronic Priesthood holder.

JOHN MORMON:
Not so, Bill. That Samuel in 1 Chr 6 cannot be the same Samuel we're concerned about because that Samuel in 1 Chr 6 was a Levite whose firstborn son was named Vashi. Our Samuel's firstborn son was named Joel (1 Sam 8:2). Curiosly, however, their second born sons both had the same name. Oh well, that happens sometimes. Furthermore, our Samuel, according to 1 Sam 1 was the son of Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite.

So, what priesthood did this Ephrathite Samuel have if he wasn't a Levite? The Melchizedek, of course.

Also, what priesthood did David have that authorized him to do the priestly things he did if he was not a Levite? Surely you're not going to suggest David was a Levite too are you?

What priesthood did Adam and his posterity (like Melchizedek) have that weren't Levites? The Melchizedek, of course. In those earlier days before Melchizedek they called it something like "The Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God."

D&C 107:
1 THERE are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.

2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.

4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

5 All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.

6 But there are two divisions or grand heads - one is the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the other is the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood.

BTC:
The whole point of the Book of Hebrews is to show how and why the Aaronic Priesthood and the whole system set up for it was now no longer needed, because the final and adequate sacrifice was made in the person of Jesus Christ.

JOHN MORMON:
Rather, it's to show that the Aaronic priesthood alone is insufficient.

BTC:
John Gill says about Hebrews:

And the occasion and design of it is, to set forth the superior excellency of Christ to angels and men, to Moses, to Joshua, to Aaron, and his sons, and the preferableness of his priesthood and sacrifice to the Levitical priesthood and its sacrifices; to teach the Hebrews the true knowledge of the mysteries of their law; to point out to them the design, use, and abrogation of its ceremonies; and to prepare them for what afflictions and persecutions they would be called to endure for Christ; and to exhort them to perseverance, and to strengthen them against apostasy, as well as to instruct them in the various duties of religion.

Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown say:

Hebrews unites the ordinances of Leviticus with their antitypical Gospel fulfillment.

B.W.Johnson says about Hebrews:

the superiority of Christianity to Judaism is demonstrated by showing the superlative excellence of Christ. He is (1) superior to the prophets; (2) superior to the angels; (3) superior to Moses. (4) His priesthood is superior to that of Aaron, being a priest after the order of Melchizedek. (5) Then the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old is shown, being a better covenant, based upon better promises. This is shown in Chs. 8, 9, 10.

BTC:
So you see, it does not show inclusiveness of the Aaronic priesthood into Melchizedek, but contrasts the two as entirely different. It shows the superiority of Christ's priesthood over Aaron's, not the inclusion of Aaron's into Jesus'

JOHN MORMON:
There was much I agreed with in your quotes, but I don't see the necessity for the termination of the Aaronic priesthood, just the termination of certain things that used to be associated with the Aaronic priesthood.

JM:
Well gee, Bill, since they couldn't even have descendants to occupy all that land UNTIL they partook of the fruit, which would seem to be rather problematic. The descendants of Adam took possession of the whole Earth. That was God's will.

BTC:
The command to be fruitful and multiply was given prior to the fall.

JOHN MORMON:
I know, Bill. But, it was a command they could not obey until AFTER they partook of the tree of knowledge. Adam and Eve did not have children until AFTER they were expelled from the Garden.

BTC:
If the BOM were important, why is there no record of any of the events described in any confirmed Jewish literature? And why was it not entrusted to the Twelve Apostles? If it were so important, why did God allow it to be lost for 1200 years? Why not leave it with The Apostle John or the 3 Nephites?

JM:
So that God could accomplish a "marvelous work and a wonder" in our latter days.

BTC:
That was a dodge. Why was there no record anywhere else of the events in it?

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe there were more references but they were lost from the Bible. What remains, however, is still indicative.

Who do you think are the "other sheep" Jesus referred to in John 10:16 if not Israelites in other parts of the world?

What do you think is the "stick of Joseph" in Ezek 37 if the "stick of Judah" is the Bible of the Jews?

BTC:
Heck, even the little bit of it that supposedly happened in the Near East is nowhere to be found in any other Jewish records. Josephus doesn't even mention it. Seems it would have been important enough to the Jews to include in the Antiquities, don't you think?

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe. I guess Josephus missed it. Hey, maybe it was there but the Catholics took it out!

BTC:
And I have faith that it is a fabrication of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. I am 100% positive that these fictional "great cities" and "massive cultures" never existed and that they are a 19th century invention of literature forcing itself on the Mayas, Toltecs and Aztecs.

JM:
No you aren't. You're at most 99% certain. You're not even 100% certain God exists.

BTC:
Maybe a bad choice of words, but I still am confident that it did not happen. Heck, I'm gambling my after-life on it.

JOHN MORMON:
So am I.

POWELL:
So am I. However, in my case I don't think there's much chance of collecting so I don't think I'm missing out.

JM:
You say that, but I don't see the good Biblical evidence that shows the temple is no longer necessary. Certain sacrifices that were performed there are no longer needed, but that doesn't mean God no longer needs temples.

BTC:
Then tell me why He still needs them. What function do they serve today and how do they compare to the function of the temple back then? Why can the things that take place in them not be accomplished in the open? Why hide them away in secret?

JM:
Today: The sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, endowments, sealings, vicarious work, inspiration.

Back then: The sacrifice of animals, the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, endowments, sealings, vicarious work, inspiration.

BTC:
The sacrifice of a broken heart does not require a temple. The "Endowment" is just a film reciting the LDS idea of creation and the fall; no temple needed and no parallel to the Old Testament temple. Sealings do not necessitate a temple and were not performed in the Old Testament temple. Vicarious work had a surface level parallel, but was not done on behalf of the dead in the OT temple. The High Priest did it on behalf of the people of Israel. Not sure what you mean by "inspiration"

JOHN MORMON:
You're supposed to make "choice vows" in the temple. The sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit could be one of those choice vows. The endowment consists of sacred instructions and promises available to those who are worthy. These secret activities of the temple are not mentioned in the existing Bible, but an adulterated form was preserved by the masons of Solomon's temple and restored in its proper form by Joseph Smith. Sealings are pretty special things, so they should be done in the temple.

BTC:
And that has to do with my point, how? The point was we do not need anyone else other than Jesus Christ to produce our salvation. If baptism is necessary in order to get saved, then Jesus is not enough for us. We must place our hope of salvation on the presence of a baptizer as well. See the point now?

JOHN MORMON:
In that case, Bill, you don't need Jesus anymore either since Jesus did His thing. Jesus could cease to exist or move on to another plane of existence and it wouldn't matter to you in terms of being "saved." All you need is someone like the Father to keep things going in heaven.

We Mormons believe we need a lot more than just Jesus. We need our relatives and they need us. We're God's huge spiritual family.

JM:
You need the Father and the Holy Spirit too. Those are other persons you depend on. You need your parents and your ancestors too. Without them you would not have been born and, so, could not have been saved. You need the writers and characters of the Bible because without the Bible you wouldn't know what you needed to do to be saved. You need the other Christians because without them the Bible would not have been preserved for you to read. You need yourself, Bill, because if you don't do what you need to do you won't be saved either. You need more than just Jesus, Bill.

BTC:
That is not what I mean at all John. I do not need anyone else at the time of my salvation in order for it to be applied to me. The covenant was proposed to me by God the Father in John 3:15-18, and I must respond the way the terms were set forth. No other way was set forth. Not Baptism, not vicarious work, not anything other than "whosoever believes in Him"

JOHN MORMON:
And obeys Him. Don't forget that sinners don't go to heaven, Bill. Belief alone is not enough. The devils believe, but don't go to heaven.

JM:
You need baptism because Jesus said you need it. Even He was baptized although He had no sin to repent of.

BTC:
And that negates the salvific aspect of it. Jesus did not need to be saved. He also did not tell the thief on the cross that he had to get baptized before he would be seen in the Kingdom.

JOHN MORMON:
If Jesus was not baptized then He would not have fulfilled all righteousness. Jesus did not say that the thief would be in heaven, but in paradise. That's a pre-judgment situation. Until someone was vicariously baptized for the thief, he would not qualify for heaven.

JM:
Maybe I can't give you exactly what you request. Would you agree that there are such things as "marriage vows" between the husband and the wife or do you deny that there are such things? Do you agree that marriage is instituted by God? Will that suffice?

BTC:
Yes, God institutes it, but it was not performed in the OT Temple. It was usually done in the Bride's father's house, not the temple. "The bride is carried to the Chupat Chatanim, or Canopy of Bridegrooms (Mishnah Sotah 9:14), a dome shaped crimson silk and gold wedding canopy, where her groom, adorned with a garland of roses and myrhh awaits her."

JOHN MORMON:
Marriages yes, but sealings should be done in the temple.

Adam and Eve were sealed in the Garden, perhaps by God Himself.

BTC:
Belief in the core doctrines of Orthodox Christianity. http://www.iphc.org/docs/theology/artfaith.html Articles 1-4, 6, 7, and 14 are not negotiable. Articles 5 is necessary, but flexible for the Catholics with the Apocrypha, although we do not agree it is inspired. Articles 8-13 are denominational distinctions and not considered "Core doctrine of Christianity"

JM:
Who decided which articles were negotiable and which were not?

BTC:
The founders of my denomination formed the articles of faith and used accepted Orthodox core beliefs. The optional ones were set in place to describe the doctrine of entire sanctification and a few other theological ideas that set us apart from the other denominations.

JM:
Does one even need to be baptised to join your church or is "I believe . . ." the appropriate things good enough?

BTC:
A proper understanding of our doctrine is necessary to join our church as a voting member, but in order to be in the Body of Christ, "I believe" is sufficient providing you really do believe the way Jesus commands.

JM:
Apparently, your meaning of "believe" has been altered to mean "believe and obey the commandments."

BTC:
No, it has not been altered. The Greek word for belief is pistis, meaning belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same, fidelity, and faithfulness. See JP's article here: http://www.tektonics.org/whatfaith.html

JOHN MORMON:
Sure, Bill. Then are you saying that devils "pistis = believe" in this "and obey" way that you're implying (see James 2:19)?

JM:
There was some confusion here about Melchizedek. Do you believe that Melchizedek had no mother or father, no beginning and no end and this guy was merely King of Salem?

BTC:
No, I believe that his parentage, birth, and death were not recorded. It was used as an idiom. John Gill says this:

Which is to be understood not of his person, but of his priesthood; that his father was not a priest, nor did his mother descend from any in that office; nor had he either a predecessor or a successor in it, as appears from any authentic accounts: or this is to be interpreted, not of his natural, but scriptural being; for no doubt, as he was a mere man, he had a father, and a mother, and a natural lineage and descent; but of these no mention is made in Scripture, and therefore said to be without them; and so the Syriac version renders it; "whose father and mother are not written in the genealogies"; or there is no genealogical account of them

John Wesley says:

- without pedigree - Recorded, without any account of his descent from any ancestors of the priestly order.
- Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life - Mentioned by Moses. But being - In all these respects.
- Made like the Son of God - Who is really without father, as to his human nature; without mother, as to his divine; and in this also,
- without pedigree - Neither descended from any ancestors of the priestly order.

BTC:
These verses de facto include Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as being lesser than Melchizedek, not equal. It also shows that they did not possess any priesthood other than Levi and that being the Levitical line, not Melchizedek, or else Abraham was an equal to Melchizedek, not the lesser as scripture dictates.

JM:
If you accept that Melchizedek was a descendant of Noah and Adam then your argument is weakened considerably. Was Melchizedek floating in the floodwaters for months while Noah was in the ark?

BTC:
Not so. He is a type of Christ. His Priesthood was superior to the Levitical priesthood as witnessed by the tithe.

JOHN MORMON:
Just because Jesus might pay Caesar's tax does not imply that Jesus thought Caesar's power was superior to His own. Just because Jesus allowed John to baptize Him did not mean He thought John's authority was greater than His own.

BTC:
No one else is ever said to possess this priesthood.

JM:
These words were spoken to David. They had a dual meaning. They applied to David and to Jesus. You do accept double fulfillments, don't you? David was a priest too, you know, although he was not a Levite.

BTC:
David wrote it. It was not spoken to him.

JOHN MORMON:
What? David wrote what God told Him to write, but God was not speaking to David?

The issue is whether those words related to Jesus alone or if they ALSO related to David. I think they also related to David. Jesus was to supplant David and take David's mutual secular + religious authority. Jesus only used His religious authority on His First Coming, but in the Second Coming, Jesus will also exercise secular authority over the whole Earth.

BTC:
This whole passage is Messianic. Virtually all commentators agree that it is directly referring to the Messiah alone as is clear from the quotation by Christ, Matthew 22:43 and from the references to it by the apostle, Acts 2:34.

JOHN MORMON:
Then do you think Isa 7:14-16 is referring to the Messiah alone and not also to the child born during Isaiah's day who was to learn to distinguish good from evil before those two kings were to be removed?

BTC:
So give me one solid Biblical example where someone else had it.

JM:
David.

BTC:
Sorry, but Hebrews 7:16-17 show the criteria of the Melchizedek Priesthood (an indestructible life, which no other man possesses) and David was not the object of this declaration.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, Melchizedek did not have an indestructible life either. The man did die eventually.

JM:
So, you believe that Melchizedek had an indestructible life? If yes, and that he had no beginning then you apparently think Melchizedek was floating in the floodwaters like a "Highlander" who can't drown.

BTC:
His end was not recorded, and thus it was compared to Jesus who had no end in Hebrews.

JOHN MORMON:
Whoopie doo! A lot of characters in the Bible died without their end being recorded! The point is that the priesthood which Melchizedek and Jesus and others held was without beginning of days or end of years and without mother or father for it was the power of God Himself given to His representatives.

BTC:
On a side issue, The Levitical Priesthood was not directly held by Levi, so I ask, would it would make sense that Melchizedek did not directly hold the Melchizedek Priesthood? It was simply named after him because of the characteristics of his parentage and lineage not being recorded and thus a parallel to him was drawn to describe the Messiah who would literally have no priestly lineage nor a beginning or end of days... just rambling some ideas out there...

JOHN MORMON:
You're right that Levi did not hold the Levitical priesthood since that was not active until much later. Perhaps he held the Melchizedek priesthood.

JM:
That's not what I see. I see Paul (?) arguing that if the Aaronic priesthood was enough then why was there the need for the Melchizedek Priesthood? The answer is that the Aaronic priesthood is NOT really enough!

BTC:
But there is no indication that they existed simultaneously, nor that anyone held both priesthoods the way Mormons claim they do. Matter of fact, this chapter (Hebrews 7) showed that the arising holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood (Jesus) was in no way of the priesthood of Aaron.

JOHN MORMON:
In a sense God has them both since they are both based on His authority. Prior to Moses and Aaron, there was no need for the lesser or Aaronic priesthood. When the Israelites proved they weren't ready for the full Gospel, God gave them a lesser covenant and a lesser priesthood to officiate.

JM:
The Aaronic Priesthood is just a part of the Melchizedek priesthood. It's all from God, Bill.

BTC:
And this is scripturally justified...how? Melchizedek was not of the line of Abraham, so could not have been a Levitical Priesthood holder. That breaks the whole argument in two.

JOHN MORMON:
In order to be God's representative you need God's authority. That's what the priesthood is.

JM:
Then why the big deal of a judgment if all Jesus has to do is ask us if we believe? Why obey any other commandments if the ONLY commandment that matters is whether we believe in Jesus? We don't even have to love God, huh, just believe?

BTC:
Decontextualizing the word "belief" is a grave error that is eating away at today's church. It encompasses obedience and love for God.

JM:
No it doesn't. A person who believes has a belief. Obedience is a separate issue. One can believe God exists yet disobey His commandments. "Belief" is an English word, not a Greek word. If you want to know the meaning then you should look it up in an English dictionary, not a Greek or Hebrew dictionary.

BTC:
My point is made. You just decontextualized the word used. The NT was not written in English.

JOHN MORMON:
I know that. If the English word "belief" is not an appropriate translation of the Greek word Strong's 4100: pisteuo then another word should be used. If there is no equivalent idea in English then a NEW English word called "pisteuo" should be introduced into our language. However, Bill, given that the devils "pisteuo" but don't obey that would seem to "break the whole argument in two" as you say.

JM:
But, Bill, don't you believe Jesus is God? Are you saying that God had to wait until His Jesus person was 30 years old for God to get the true priesthood? God is the SOURCE of the priesthood. Perhaps you think the Father had the priesthood, but the Son didn't, huh?

BTC:
The Father needs no priesthood. The Son holds the only priesthood that is necessary. There is a distinction there, but it's one of function, not person. Priesthood was only necessary to intercede to God for the people. Which brings up a question I've always wondered. For LDS, did Jesus hold the Aaronic Priesthood?

JOHN MORMON:
Well, about the Father that's debatable. If the priesthood is DELEGATED authority then Jesus needs it from the Father, but the Father does not need it from Himself. However, if the priesthood is God's power, then the Father needs it too.

JM:
Not that I know of. If you have the Melchizedek Priesthood then you have authority to officiate in the Aaronic Priesthood functions.

BTC:
I thought you just said earlier that the Aaronic Priesthood was a part of the Melchizedek Priesthood...

JOHN MORMON:
It is. Melchizedek priesthood holders have authority to do everything that Aaronic priesthood holders have authority to do and more.

Here's an analogy. The FBI is a federal agency, not a state agency, but it has authority to operate in the states, even across states. State troopers, however, don't have authority to operate outside of their state.

JM:
The Aaronic Priesthood is just a part of the Melchizedek priesthood. It's all from God, Bill.

BTC:
So I ask again. Did Jesus have the Aaronic Priesthood?

JOHN MORMON:
I don't think God laid His hands on Jesus's head and conferred the Aaronic priesthood. I think God conferred the Melchizedek priesthood which includes the authority of the Aaronic priesthood. I don't think Jesus was ever set apart as a deacon, teacher or priest in the Aaronic priesthood nor as an elder or seventy in the Melchizedek priesthood, but as a high priest in the Melchizedek priesthood.

Let me turn it back at you: do you think the Aaronic priests had authority or power that Jesus did NOT have?

JM:
God is the SOURCE of the priesthood. God's power is His priesthood. When God authorizes others to serve as His priests then He's delegating some of His authority to them.

BTC:
God's power is His Word, not the Priesthood. The priesthood is to offer sacrifice and intercession for others and yourself. That's it. It has absolutely zip to do with power.

JOHN MORMON:
It has a lot to do with power.

JM:
If you're worthy you can pass through the veil by properly responding to the representative of Jesus at the veil, and then pass into the Celestial Room.

BTC:
What veil? Jesus' death ripped the veil once and for all. I need no other to intercede for me. No "representative." He is my mediator. It is not a chain gang.

JOHN MORMON:
Just because the veil in the Jerusalem temple was ripped does not mean "the veil was ripped once and for all." The material veil represents the spiritual veil between Earth and heaven. That has not been ripped. We still need to learn the things necessary so that after we die we can pass through to the celestial kingdom.

JM:
It's so obvious, Bill. If it's not God's power then it's man's power and God has no responsibility to accept any of it. God instructed Moses to instruct Aaron. God is in charge. It's God's authority. Aaron did not have the priesthood merely because Aaron wanted to. It was because God gave Aaron the authority.

BTC:
God has a responsibility to accept it because He said He would accept it. It was the covenant promise of the OT (#2 on the Covenant list from the ISBE)

JOHN MORMON:
He would accept it if done in the right way by those who were properly authorized.

JM:
Are you saying that the Levitical and Aaronic priests were exercising their own power when they officiated in the Temple?

BTC:
No, I'm saying that they were not operating in any power. It was a service to the Lord they were performing.

JM:
Who authorized them to do that for the Lord? Did they authorize or empower themselves or did God or God's representatives "authorize" or "empower" them?

JM:
Are you suggesting that Moses and Aaron were NOT worshipping in Spirit and truth because they had animal sacrifices?

BTC:
No, I am suggesting that their worship had to be done in a specific place. Jesus was announcing the changing of all that. B.W. Johnson says:

The time is at hand, says the Lord, when a worship of forms, or at holy places, will not meet the demands of the Father. He must be worshiped with the heart, in spirit and in truth. Spiritual worship can be offered in any land, wherever the soul can humble itself before God.

POWELL:
That's a misunderstanding of what Jesus said. Jesus did not say there would no longer be a worship of forms, such as the making of certain prayers or the performing of certain actions in prescribed ways, but that there would come a time when the specific temple in Jerusalem would not be a place of proper worship.

JM:
You think that means men in the Americas should also be traveling to Jerusalem to worship, huh? You think men on one of God's other inhabited planets are supposed to travel across interstellar space to worship in Jerusalem, huh?

BTC:
The Bible is silent on these matters. There is no Biblical support for anything like what you are proposing. The Bible does not say that there are other inhabited planets. This rests on the entire presupposition that God ordered some Jews to go to America, which there is no biblical support for.

JOHN MORMON:
The Bible is rather silent about "other worlds" isn't it? Maybe that's something that ignorant priests deleted because it didn't make sense to them.

There is Biblical support for Israelites in the Americas. Two are the stick of Joseph and the "other sheep."

JM:
I didn't ask if you KNOW, Bill, but if you BELIEVE. What do you believe about this "other worlds" idea?

BTC:
I believe we are alone. It's a personal belief, not one I can back up with hard data, but I believe it nonetheless.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, that's honest.

God would seem to be rather inefficient to waste all that space and matter to make only one inhabited planet. He could have made a tiny universe smaller than even a galaxy if that's all He needed.

JM:
You don't know that, Bill. That may only apply to everyone on Earth. Jesus did not die for the Father, so Jesus did not die for "all." Maybe God has other "only begotten Sons" that are supposed to be the Saviors to other worlds.

BTC:
That is ridiculous and not a Mormon idea at all. God only has one begotten son. The word monogenes is implicit of uniqueness. If there were another begotten son, then it Jesus would logically not be the "only" begotten.

JOHN MORMON:
It's not Mormon doctrine, but it's an idea some liberal Mormons have considered. Maybe all it means is Jesus is the only begotten Son for this planet. On the other hand, maybe it does mean only begotten Son at all and God is only the God of this little part of the universe, while His siblings and relatives are Gods of other galaxies.

JM:
ONE of the needs of the temple, namely animal sacrifices. People still needed other things that could be provided for by the temple.

BTC:
We seem to be going around in circles. There is no need for a temple to do any of the things Mormons say that are necessarily accomplished in a temple.

JOHN MORMON:
There is a need if God says there's a need.

JM:
No they weren't, otherwise for John to baptize Jesus would be unacceptable. Why would Jesus be an example on how to be baptized, but do it the wrong way, huh?

BTC:
There is scriptural evidence that John's baptism was not the same:

Acts 19
3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, " Into John's baptism."

4 Paul said, " John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps they were unsure if their first baptism would be acceptable to God because their baptizers did not properly instruct them so, to be sure, they were rebaptized. Better safe than sorry.

BTC:
Such as? Name 5 things that are even remotely similar to the OT Jewish practices and I'll show you how they are absolutely not even close.

JM:
These were Mormon practices done to follow, to some extent, O.T. practices.

BTC:
Thanks for the list. I'll take them one by one:

JM:
1. Prophets.

BTC:
That don't pass the prophet's test http://www.tektonics.org/josproph.html and http://www.irr.org/mit/jsfalpro.html

JOHN MORMON:
Yes they do. If there's something in those quotes particularly relevant that you're willing to defend then post it.

Did Jonah pass the prophet's test, Bill? Jonah prophesied that the city of Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days. Was it?

JM:
2. Temples.

BTC:
Which bear no resemblance to either of the temples of the OT physically or functionally

JOHN MORMON:
They're similar but different.

JM:
3. Patriarchal blessings.

BTC:
once again, bears no resemblance to Biblical patriarchal blessings http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/...-blessings.html

JOHN MORMON:
They're similar but different. Fathers can give prophetic blessings to their children like Jacob and others gave prophetic blessings to their children. Official "Patriarchal Blessings" in the LDS church are given by persons who aren't necessarily your ancestor sort of like the angel Jacob wrestled with blessed Jacob, but was not necessarily an ancestor.

JM:
4. Polygamy (discontinued).

BTC:
Which was practiced against Biblical restrictions prohibiting marrying sisters (Lev 18:18) Also it was merely tolerated, not approved.

JOHN MORMON:
Sure, Bill. Didn't Jacob marry sisters?

Some people think Jesus married the sisters Mary and Martha.

JM:
5. The killing of sinners, such as religious enemies (discontinued).

BTC:
Yeah, I may have to give you that one, however unjust I may see the Mountain Meadows Massacre or the "I would throw a javelin through my adulterous wife's heart" comment made by Brigham Young.

Now, give me 5 examples of New Testament practices that are similar to LDS practices...

JOHN MORMON:
Demanding now, aren't we?

How about these?

1. Mainstream Christian practices like Sunday worship, baptism by immersion, sacrament, hymn singing, fasting and prayer, offerings, etc.

2. Unusual (to mainstream Christian) religious practices like baptisms for the dead (expanded to include the gift of the holy ghost, endowment, priesthood to the men, sealings).

3. Prophets who reveal new scriptures.

4. Similar organization with 3 men at the top, 12 apostles, bishops, etc.

5. United order = "all things in common." (discontinued).

POWELL:
I've come to realize, Bill, that Mormonism was an attempt at resolving a problem with Christianity. The problem is the Christian God seems to be different from the Jewish God. It looks like God did one thing with the Jews and then changed His mind. Mormons tried to merge the two Gods and two religious practices together as well as might be done. They argue that God had a Gospel that was in operation since the days of Adam, that Adam was baptized for example, but the Israelites under Moses were not able to keep the higher law, so God made a special stricter law for them.

John Powell

Bill the Cat

April 12th 2004, 06:46 PM

You don't seem to understand what a holy place is, Bill. You seem to think the temple is the only holy place there can be. It's not called "the Holy Land" just because the temple used to be there. The Mount of Transfiguration was not called the "holy mount" because the Jerusalem temple was built there (2 Pet 1:18). The Christians were so interested in having holy places that they tried to BE traveling temples themselves.

Precisely the point. There is no need for holy places. The Christians WERE traveling temples. Thanks for making my point. :thumb:

Sure, Bill. If Adam had partaken of the tree of life would he have lived 'olam
= "forever" or only 'olam = "until the end of the age," say until about the days
of Noah? Gen 3:22 uses Strong's Hebrew 05769: 'olam.

How does Jaltus put it? "If it's Strong's, it's probably wrong" :lol:
Mormon Apologist Kevin Graham used the exact argument I am using to prove that God the Father had a beginning in the Mormonism thread.
The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says:

"That neither the Hebrew nor the Greek word in itself contains the idea of endlessness is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past, and also by the fact that sometimes it is thought desirable to repeat the word, not merely saying "forever," but "forever and ever." Both the Greek and the Hebrew word came to be used to refer to a long age or period, not necessarily perpetuity."

There are other examples of olam not meaning perpetuity: Exodus 21:6; Isaiah 32:14-15; Numbers 25:13.

Of course. The command did not mean he would be a slave after he was dead.
Likewise, if all the Israelites were dead then the Aaronic priesthood would cease. However, since there are still Israelites (especially adopted) the Aaronic priesthood still exists.
First, it is a fact that Levites still exist, true. Therefore they are of the Levitical Priesthood. However, no proselyte could be one of them. "If someone wants to be a priest or a Levite, one cannot because one's father was not." from http://www.myjewishlearning.com/lifecycle/Conversion/AboutConversion/NumbersRabbah8.htm

Second, the Levitical Priesthood was the proctor of the Old Covenant with Israel. Jesus is the proctor of the New Testament. We no longer need the Old Covenant because the new is better (see Hebrews)

JOHN MORMON:
Ridiculous, Bill. Then anyone could do it. No one had special "authority" from
God.

God set apart the Levites to do it. No one else could do it. No convert or non-Levite. There was no "power of God" possessed by the Levites. It was simply a duty they were covenanted to perform.

So, what priesthood did this Ephrathite Samuel have if he wasn't a Levite? The Melchizedek, of course.

He had no priesthood. He was a prophet. I'd love to see some OT evidence for your assertation that he had any priesthood at all. He also was not a priest-king, as Melchizedek and Jesus were; and if you must, David was as well.

Also, what priesthood did David have that authorized him to do the priestly things he did if he was not a Levite? Surely you're not going to suggest David was a Levite too are you?

Such as? Leviticus 1 shows how David offered a sin offering. Any Jew could offer a burnt offering. An example of this was:
1 Chr 29
20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.
21 And they sacrificed sacrifices unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings unto the LORD, on the morrow after that day, even a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel:

So was the entire "congregation" Melchizedek Priesthood holders? I think not.

What priesthood did Adam and his posterity (like Melchizedek) have that weren't Levites? The Melchizedek, of course. In those earlier days before Melchizedek
they called it something like "The Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of
God."

Quoting the D&C (A 19th and 20th century document) isn't going to work. There is no non-Mormon evidence that anyone other than Jesus ever had a priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek"

There was much I agreed with in your quotes, but I don't see the necessity for
the termination of the Aaronic priesthood, just the termination of certain
things that used to be associated with the Aaronic priesthood.

If the function of a priest is no longer necessary, then that priesthood is no longer necessary. What do you suggest Aaronic priesthood holders do? Please compare how the Levitical Priesthood and their functions compare to LDS Aaronic Priesthood holders, and not in vague generalities please.

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe there were more references but they were lost from the Bible. What remains, however, is still indicative.

There is no proof that it was lost. The Midrashes are silent on it, the apocryphal books are silent on it, the sages are silent on it, the historians are silent on it. It was not recorded anywhere, canonical or otherwise.

Who do you think are the "other sheep" Jesus referred to in John 10:16 if not
Israelites in other parts of the world?

It refers to the Gentiles. B.W. Johnson says:

Not Jews, of whom his followers then were, but Gentiles who would soon be called to him. These would hear his voice, enter through the door, into the same fold as the Jewish Christians, so that there would be "one fold and one shepherd." There is only one Church and one door into it, and one Shepherd over it.

And McGarvey and Pendleton's Fourfold Gospel Commentary says:

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold.: Jesus was speaking to the Jews, who had been frequently spoken of in Scripture as God's flock. The other sheep were Gentiles.

Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.: They are spoken of as scattered sheep, and not as flocks, because with them there was no unity. Here, as everywhere, the truth breaks through, revealing Christ as the world's Redeemer, who would break down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, and cause all true worshipers to have a common relationship to one Master.

What do you think is the "stick of Joseph" in Ezek 37 if the "stick of Judah" is the Bible of the Jews?

By using two literal sticks, Ezekiel was illustratively predicting the coming together of two nations, Judah and Israel, which had been separated since the time of King Rehoboam. God's interpretation of this object lesson is seen in Ezekiel 37:22. It tells us the then-divided nation of Israel would be reunited again in the land under one king. Note the same "nicknames" for the two divisions of Israel (Judah, Ephraim) in Hosea 5:3-14 and 6:4.

You're supposed to make "choice vows" in the temple.

Untrue. "Choice vows can be made anywhere now. The only "choice vow" listed in scripture was the Nazarite vow.

The sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit could be one of those choice vows.
That's a sacrifice, not a vow

The endowment consists of sacred instructions and promises available to those who are worthy.
It's a film and bunches of hokey-jokey hand symbols and has absolutely no equivalent in the OT Temple practices.

These secret activities of the temple are not mentioned in the existing Bible, but an adulterated form was preserved by the masons of Solomon's temple and restored in its proper form by Joseph Smith.

Kind of convenient that Joseph didn't come up with this special tidbit until he had learned it as a mason. He pirated the Masonic rites and added LDS elements.

Sealings are pretty special things, so they should be done in the temple.

And have no correlation to what happened in the OT Temples. There were no sealings done in the OT Temple.

In that case, Bill, you don't need Jesus anymore either since Jesus did His
thing. Jesus could cease to exist or move on to another plane of existence and
it wouldn't matter to you in terms of being "saved." All you need is someone
like the Father to keep things going in heaven.

Untrue, because He still makes intercession for us to the Father. He is the High Priest. I am saved and I will be saved because of what He did (died and resurrected) and what He is going to do (my resurrection or rapture) Authority and dominion are His.

We Mormons believe we need a lot more than just Jesus. We need our relatives and they need us. We're God's huge spiritual family.

And that's unscriptural. Please list a few verses where we need our relatives in order to be saved. Show me where I need wives to reach the Father. Show me where my children need me to be sealed to them in order to get to heaven. A few verses are all I ask.

JOHN MORMON:
And obeys Him. Don't forget that sinners don't go to heaven, Bill. Belief alone is not enough. The devils believe, but don't go to heaven.

Sinners do go to heaven. Romans 3:23. Unbelief is what condemns humans, not sinning. The Devils are not the other party in the eternal life covenant.

JOHN MORMON:
If Jesus was not baptized then He would not have fulfilled all righteousness.
Jesus did not say that the thief would be in heaven, but in paradise. That's a
pre-judgment situation. Until someone was vicariously baptized for the thief, he would not qualify for heaven.

Paradise was Abraham's Bosom. It was paradise, but the gates of Heaven were not opened until Jesus opened them Himself. He set the captives free. Once the thief reached Paradise, he was there until Jesus proclaimed His victory in Hades and took those in Abraham's Bosom to heaven to dwell forever with Him.

JOHN MORMON:
Marriages yes, but sealings should be done in the temple.

Adam and Eve were sealed in the Garden, perhaps by God Himself.

Scripture verse please?

JOHN MORMON:
The issue is whether those words related to Jesus alone or if they ALSO related to David.

This verse is not related to David. You didn't read the verses I quoted, did you? Jesus Himself shows that it does not.
Matt 22
42 "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to Him, " The son of David."
43 He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying,
44
' THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
"SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET"'?
45 "If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?"

and the writer of Hebrews shows that it was specifically about the Messiah:
Hebrews 7
14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.
15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek,
16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.
17 For it is attested of Him,
" YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK."
18 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.
20 And inasmuch as it was not without an oath
21 (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
" THE LORD HAS SWORN
AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND,
'YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER'");
22 so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

It is strictly about Jesus, not David.

JOHN MORMON:
Then do you think Isa 7:14-16 is referring to the Messiah alone and not also to
the child born during Isaiah's day who was to learn to distinguish good from
evil before those two kings were to be removed?

In full, it refers to the Messiah alone. A "behold" is prefixed to it, as a note of admiration; and what else could be this sign or wonder? Not surely that a young married woman, either Ahaz's or Isaiah's wife, should be with child, which is nothing surprising, and of which there are repeated instances every day. How would Isaiah's son be the miraculous sign prophesied? Birth between married couples was commonplace.

JOHN MORMON:
Whoopie doo! A lot of characters in the Bible died without their end being
recorded! The point is that the priesthood which Melchizedek and Jesus and
others held was without beginning of days or end of years and without mother or
father for it was the power of God Himself given to His representatives.

Melchizedek was a priest-king. Jesus is a priest-king. No other is said to hold it.

JOHN MORMON:
You're right that Levi did not hold the Levitical priesthood since that was not
active until much later. Perhaps he held the Melchizedek priesthood.

Verse please?

JOHN MORMON:
In a sense God has them both since they are both based on His authority. Prior
to Moses and Aaron, there was no need for the lesser or Aaronic priesthood.
When the Israelites proved they weren't ready for the full Gospel, God gave them
a lesser covenant and a lesser priesthood to officiate.

So who does God offer sacrifices to, seeing as how He holds the priesthoods?

JOHN MORMON:
In order to be God's representative you need God's authority. That's what the
priesthood is.

Is not. It is a job. It's a function that men serve. It has nothing to do with authority or power. It is a mediator between God and men.

JOHN MORMON:
I know that. If the English word "belief" is not an appropriate translation of
the Greek word Strong's 4100: pisteuo then another word should be used. If
there is no equivalent idea in English then a NEW English word called "pisteuo"
should be introduced into our language. However, Bill, given that the devils
"pisteuo" but don't obey that would seem to "break the whole argument in two" as
you say.

That's why we have lexicons.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, about the Father that's debatable. If the priesthood is DELEGATED
authority then Jesus needs it from the Father, but the Father does not need it
from Himself. However, if the priesthood is God's power, then the Father needs
it too.
It's delegated. Jesus had to be anointed before He could offer Himself and act as our High Priest.

JOHN MORMON:
It is. Melchizedek priesthood holders have authority to do everything that
Aaronic priesthood holders have authority to do and more.

Way untrue. They could not touch nor carry the Ark of the Covenant. That's why David had the Levites carry it. They could not enter the Holy of Holies (naos). Even Jesus never entered it. There are absolutely zero listings of qualifications for anyone other than Jesus to hold the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

Let me turn it back at you: do you think the Aaronic priests had authority or
power that Jesus did NOT have?

By LAW, Jesus could not enter the Naos. By LAW, Jesus could not slaughter the sacrifice. By LAW, Jesus could not get a portion of the nation's tithe. Need more?

JOHN MORMON:
Just because the veil in the Jerusalem temple was ripped does not mean "the veil was ripped once and for all."

It absolutely does. Jamieson, Faussett and Brown in their commentary say of this veil rending:

This was the thick and gorgeously wrought veil which was hung between the "holy place" and the "holiest of all," shutting out all access to the presence of God as manifested "from above the mercy seat and from between the cherubim"--"the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest" (Heb 9:8). Into this holiest of all none might enter, not even the high priest, save once a year, on the great day of atonement, and then only with the blood of atonement in his hands, which he sprinkled "upon and before the mercy seat seven times" (Le 16:14) --to signify that access for sinners to a holy God is only through atoning blood. But as they had only the blood of bulls and of goats, which could not take away sins (Heb 10:4), during all the long ages that preceded the death of Christ the thick veil remained; the blood of bulls and of goats continued to be shed and sprinkled; and once a year access to God through an atoning sacrifice was vouchsafed--in a picture, or rather, was dramatically represented, in those symbolical actions--nothing more. But now, the one atoning Sacrifice being provided in the precious blood of Christ, access to this holy God could no longer be denied; and so the moment the Victim expired on the altar, that thick veil which for so many ages had been the dread symbol of separation between God and guilty men was, without a hand touching it, mysteriously "rent in twain from top to bottom"--"the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was NOW made manifest!" How emphatic the statement, from top to bottom; as if to say, Come boldly now to the Throne of Grace; the veil is clean gone; the mercy seat stands open to the gaze of sinners, and the way to it is sprinkled with the blood of Him--"who through the eternal Spirit hath offered Himself without spot to God!" Before, it was death to go in, now it is death to stay out.

The material veil represents the spiritual veil between Earth and heaven.

Obviously you do not understand the veil and it's significance. It represented the separation of God and man because of sin.

That has not been ripped. We still need to learn the things necessary so that after we die we can pass through to the celestial kingdom.

By putting the veil back in place, Mormons effectively deny Christ's permanent atoning work and His right to be eternal High Priest.

Who authorized them to do that for the Lord? Did they authorize or empower
themselves or did God or God's representatives "authorize" or "empower" them?

They were bound by the covenant. God dictated that they would be the ones responsible to perform the rituals of the temple. There was still no "power" involved. Service is denial of power.

POWELL:
That's a misunderstanding of what Jesus said. Jesus did not say there would no longer be a worship of forms, such as the making of certain prayers or the performing of certain actions in prescribed ways, but that there would come a time when the specific temple in Jerusalem would not be a place of proper
worship.

The only temple Jesus was interested in was the Jerusalem Temple. He never made reference to any other temple other than His body. There was no need for a temple after Jesus' death and resurrection. The functions were complete.

There is Biblical support for Israelites in the Americas. Two are the stick of
Joseph and the "other sheep."

Neither hold water.

JOHN MORMON:
Yes they do. If there's something in those quotes particularly relevant that
you're willing to defend then post it.

Too little space :bawl:

Did Jonah pass the prophet's test, Bill? Jonah prophesied that the city of
Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days. Was it?

When Jonah finally proclaimed that the Assyrians would be doomed within 40 days, "the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them" including the king of Nineveh. The Ninevites changed their ways hoping to have God "turn away from his fierce anger" (3:4-5,9).
Although God fully intended to inflict destruction upon the city of Nineveh, He relented based upon their God-fearing response. Jonah 3:10 says, "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
The righteous nature of God allows for pardon on the condition of repentance. Jeremiah 18:8 states: "If that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them."
There is little doubt that Nineveh would have been destroyed if its inhabitants had not responded to Jonah's message. Even Jonah himself understood that there was a possibility the destruction of Nineveh might not come to pass when he told God, "I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou are a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil" (4:2).
There are numerous statements from LDS leaders which concur with the thought that Jonah was a prophet sent by God to deliver a conditional message.
Speaking of the Ninevites, former LDS Apostle Orson Pratt taught that "...they all turned and repented of their sins, and the Lord had compassion and did not execute the judgment on them because of their repentance" (Journal of Discourses 14:260-1).
Third LDS Prophet John Taylor said in an 1884 sermon: "Jonah was sent to the city of Nineveh, to tell the people to repent and that if they did not repent they would all be destroyed. But they listened to the voice of the Prophet ...The Lord forgave them" (Journal of Discourses 23:36).
Meanwhile, former LDS Apostle John Widtsoe wrote that "there are prophecies which in reality are statements of cause and effect. If certain things are done, certain results will flow therefrom" (Evidences and Reconciliations, pg. 92).
The problem with equating Joseph with Jonah is that many of Smith's prophecies did not come to pass even after all the proper conditions were met.
JOHN MORMON:
They're similar but different.

JOHN MORMON:
They're similar but different.

My point exactly. It's a surface level similarity.

Official "Patriarchal Blessings" in the LDS church are given by persons who aren't necessarily your ancestor sort of like the angel Jacob wrestled with blessed Jacob, but was not necessarily an ancestor.

They are not Patriarchal Blessings then. The Angel was not giving Jacob a Patriarchal Blessing.

JOHN MORMON:
Sure, Bill. Didn't Jacob marry sisters?

Before the Law was given, sure. It was tolerated, but not commanded.

Some people think Jesus married the sisters Mary and Martha.

They are morons...

JOHN MORMON:
Demanding now, aren't we?
:yes:

How about these?

1. Mainstream Christian practices like Sunday worship, baptism by immersion,
sacrament, hymn singing, fasting and prayer, offerings, etc.

Never been to a service, so I don't know. But LDS have to look Christian now, don't they...

2. Unusual (to mainstream Christian) religious practices like baptisms for the
dead (expanded to include the gift of the holy ghost, endowment, priesthood to
the men, sealings)

Unorthodox heresies.

3. Prophets who reveal new scriptures.

At times contradicting each other.

4. Similar organization with 3 men at the top, 12 apostles, bishops, etc.

Not similar at all. The "top 3" were not in charge for long. The council of Jerusalem was at the time of the later chapters of Acts.

5. United order = "all things in common." (discontinued).

Never heard of it...

John Powell

April 17th 2004, 12:38 AM

JOHN MORMON:
You don't seem to understand what a holy place is, Bill. You seem to think the temple is the only holy place there can be. It's not called "the Holy Land" just because the temple used to be there. The Mount of Transfiguration was not called the "holy mount" because the Jerusalem temple was built there (2 Pet 1:18). The Christians were so interested in having holy places that they tried to BE traveling temples themselves.

BILL THE CAT:
Precisely the point. There is no need for holy places. The Christians WERE traveling temples. Thanks for making my point.

JOHN MORMON:
People didn't START becoming temples after the Jerusalem temple was destroyed, Bill. Their bodies had been temples from the days of Adam.

Besides, given that Jesus was a traveling temple to a superlative degree, does that suggest the physical temple was unnecessary during the lifetime of Jesus? Apparently not, so your reasoning appears to be flawed.

JOHN MORMON:
Sure, Bill. If Adam had partaken of the tree of life would he have lived 'olam = "forever" or only 'olam = "until the end of the age," say until about the days of Noah? Gen 3:22 uses Strong's Hebrew 05769: 'olam.

BILL THE CAT:
How does Jaltus put it? "If it's Strong's, it's probably wrong"

JOHN MORMON:
What Greek Online resources do you use, Bill?

BILL THE CAT:
Mormon Apologist Kevin Graham used the exact argument I am using to prove that God the Father had a beginning in the Mormonism thread.

JOHN MORMON:
I doubt that since, according to Mormonism, Elohim as an intelligence is eternal, uncreated, as are we all. Kevin may have used it to argue that Elohim was not always God.

BILL THE CAT:
The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says:

"That neither the Hebrew nor the Greek word in itself contains the idea of endlessness is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past, and also by the fact that sometimes it is thought desirable to repeat the word, not merely saying "forever," but "forever and ever." Both the Greek and the Hebrew word came to be used to refer to a long age or period, not necessarily perpetuity."

There are other examples of olam not meaning perpetuity: Exodus 21:6; Isaiah 32:14-15; Numbers 25:13.

JOHN MORMON:
You're making some good points, Bill, since very little about reality is endless, things change. However your points seem to end up weakening your position. According to your claims about "olam," even if Jesus had said temple worship would cease being important olam / forever then that would still allow for a time in a future age (such as about 2000 years later) for temple worship to be important again.

JOHN MORMON:
Of course. The command did not mean he would be a slave after he was dead. Likewise, if all the Israelites were dead then the Aaronic priesthood would cease. However, since there are still Israelites (especially adopted) the Aaronic priesthood still exists.

BILL THE CAT:
First, it is a fact that Levites still exist, true. Therefore they are of the Levitical Priesthood. However, no proselyte could be one of them. "If someone wants to be a priest or a Levite, one cannot because one's father was not." from http://www.myjewishlearning.com/lif...bersRabbah8.htm

Second, the Levitical Priesthood was the proctor of the Old Covenant with Israel. Jesus is the proctor of the New Testament. We no longer need the Old Covenant because the new is better (see Hebrews)

JOHN MORMON:
So Bill, since Jesus is better than Moses does that mean we no longer need the words of Moses? Your reasoning still fails. The fact that the Aaronic priesthood is associated with the temple does not NECESSARILY mean that if the temple were to cease to be important then the Aaronic priesthood would cease to be important. Its importance might diminish or increase for other reasons.

Cavalry have been associated with military reconnaisance. Just because cavalry are now obsolete does not necessarily mean that reconnaisance is obsolete or less important than it was in the past.

You need to show that the Christians had no need of any priesthood. The fact that Christians continued to rely on religious leaders to do many of the other things Hebrew priests did besides kill animals, suggests they thought those leaders had some kind of authority from God to do so. To a Mormon, "priesthood" is not strictly about making living sacrifices of animals or oneself (Jesus), but it's authority from God. When the sacrifices became obsolete that did not necessarily mean the need for divine authority became obsolete.

You don't send the cavarymen home when horses become obsolete. You put them in jeeps or humvees. Likewise, you don't dismantle the priesthood when animal sacrifices become obsolete. You assign them new jobs. The ancient Hebrew priests blessed and distributed the sacrifice. Modern Mormon priests bless and distribute the sacrament.

JOHN MORMON:
Ridiculous, Bill. Then anyone could do it. No one had special "authority" from God.

BILL THE CAT:
God set apart the Levites to do it. No one else could do it. No convert or non-Levite. There was no "power of God" possessed by the Levites. It was simply a duty they were covenanted to perform.

JOHN MORMON:
God AUTHORIZED the Levites to do His will. That was their "priesthood" power. Likewise, Mormons argue that God AUTHORIZES their priesthood holders to do His will.

JOHN MORMON:
So, what priesthood did this Ephrathite Samuel have if he wasn't a Levite? The Melchizedek, of course.

BILL THE CAT:
He had no priesthood. He was a prophet. I'd love to see some OT evidence for your assertation that he had any priesthood at all.

JOHN MORMON:
If Samuel didn't have the priesthood, why was he doing priestly things like blessing sacrifices (1 Sam 9)? Saul thought he could justifiably do a sacrifice, but he was reproved (1 Sam 13) because Samuel, apparently, was supposed to do it. Does the Bible have to say "Samuel, the priest" for you to believe he held any priesthood? Was Moses called "Moses, the priest" or "Moses, the prophet"? Surely, you agree that Moses was both a priest and a prophet, right?

BILL THE CAT:
He also was not a priest-king, as Melchizedek and Jesus were; and if you must, David was as well.

JOHN MORMON:
Good. Saul, apparently, was NOT a priest-king, but David was.

JOHN MORMON:
Also, what priesthood did David have that authorized him to do the priestly things he did if he was not a Levite? Surely you're not going to suggest David was a Levite too are you?

BILL THE CAT:
Such as?

POWELL:
Such as using the ephod to get answers (1 Sam 23, 1 Sam 30) and wearing the linen ephod (2 Sam 6:14).

BILL THE CAT:
Leviticus 1 shows how David offered a sin offering. Any Jew could offer a burnt offering. An example of this was:

1 Chr 29

20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.

21 And they sacrificed sacrifices unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings unto the LORD, on the morrow after that day, even a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel:

BILL THE CAT:
So was the entire "congregation" Melchizedek Priesthood holders? I think not.

JOHN MORMON:
Likewise.

JOHN MORMON:
What priesthood did Adam and his posterity (like Melchizedek) have that weren't Levites? The Melchizedek, of course. In those earlier days before Melchizedek they called it something like "The Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God."

BILL THE CAT:
Quoting the D&C (A 19th and 20th century document) isn't going to work. There is no non-Mormon evidence that anyone other than Jesus ever had a priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek"

JOHN MORMON:
Well then what do you think they called this authority they had from God to do things like sacrifice BEFORE Melchizedek was born?

JOHN MORMON:
There was much I agreed with in your quotes, but I don't see the necessity for the termination of the Aaronic priesthood, just the termination of certain things that used to be associated with the Aaronic priesthood.

BILL THE CAT:
If the function of a priest is no longer necessary, then that priesthood is no longer necessary.

JOHN MORMON:
Fine. But is the ONLY function of a priest to perform sacrifices in the temple? If it's other things that are still important after Jesus, like teaching and leading the people then maybe the priesthood is still necessary.

BILL THE CAT:
What do you suggest Aaronic priesthood holders do? Please compare how the Levitical Priesthood and their functions compare to LDS Aaronic Priesthood holders, and not in vague generalities please.

JOHN MORMON:
Whatever God tells them to do. What should cavarlymen do when told their horses are obsolete? Go AWOL?

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe there were more references but they were lost from the Bible. What remains, however, is still indicative.

BILL THE CAT:
There is no proof that it was lost.

JOHN MORMON:
There's "proof" that some things were lost, don't you agree?

BILL THE CAT:
The Midrashes are silent on it, the apocryphal books are silent on it, the sages are silent on it, the historians are silent on it. It was not recorded anywhere, canonical or otherwise.

JOHN MORMON:
So maybe it was important for God to reveal the truth in our day.

JOHN MORMON:
Who do you think are the "other sheep" Jesus referred to in John 10:16 if not Israelites in other parts of the world?

BILL THE CAT:
It refers to the Gentiles. B.W. Johnson says:

Not Jews, of whom his followers then were, but Gentiles who would soon be called to him. These would hear his voice, enter through the door, into the same fold as the Jewish Christians, so that there would be "one fold and one shepherd." There is only one Church and one door into it, and one Shepherd over it.

And McGarvey and Pendleton's Fourfold Gospel Commentary says:

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold.: Jesus was speaking to the Jews, who had been frequently spoken of in Scripture as God's flock. The other sheep were Gentiles.

Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.: They are spoken of as scattered sheep, and not as flocks, because with them there was no unity. Here, as everywhere, the truth breaks through, revealing Christ as the world's Redeemer, who would break down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, and cause all true worshipers to have a common relationship to one Master.

JOHN MORMON:
Given that Jesus was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel, that explanation seems mistaken.

JOHN MORMON:
What do you think is the "stick of Joseph" in Ezek 37 if the "stick of Judah" is the Bible of the Jews?

BILL THE CAT:
By using two literal sticks, Ezekiel was illustratively predicting the coming together of two nations, Judah and Israel, which had been separated since the time of King Rehoboam. God's interpretation of this object lesson is seen in Ezekiel 37:22. It tells us the then-divided nation of Israel would be reunited again in the land under one king. Note the same "nicknames" for the two divisions of Israel (Judah, Ephraim) in Hosea 5:3-14 and 6:4.

JOHN MORMON:
What was the "writing" on the sticks if not divine wisdom of some sort? Do you have God's words that were supposed to be written on the stick of Joseph? We Mormons think we do. We think it's the Book of Mormon.

JOHN MORMON:
You're supposed to make "choice vows" in the temple.

BILL THE CAT:
Untrue. "Choice vows can be made anywhere now. The only "choice vow" listed in scripture was the Nazarite vow.

JOHN MORMON:
Not if God says otherwise.

JOHN MORMON:
The sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit could be one of those choice vows.

BILL THE CAT:
That's a sacrifice, not a vow

JOHN MORMON:
It could sort of be both. You could give the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit and vow to be obedient.

JOHN MORMON:
The endowment consists of sacred instructions and promises available to those who are worthy.

BILL THE CAT:
It's a film and bunches of hokey-jokey hand symbols and has absolutely no equivalent in the OT Temple practices.

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps none of the practices recorded in the Bible, but maybe they were doing these things and didn't record them.

JOHN MORMON:
These secret activities of the temple are not mentioned in the existing Bible, but an adulterated form was preserved by the masons of Solomon's temple and restored in its proper form by Joseph Smith.

BILL THE CAT:
Kind of convenient that Joseph didn't come up with this special tidbit until he had learned it as a mason. He pirated the Masonic rites and added LDS elements.

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe he didn't have reason to ASK God about it until then and, in this case, God waited until He was asked about it.

JOHN MORMON:
Sealings are pretty special things, so they should be done in the temple.

BILL THE CAT:
And have no correlation to what happened in the OT Temples. There were no sealings done in the OT Temple.

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently none that are indicated in our Bibles. Maybe someone deleted them.

JOHN MORMON:
In that case, Bill, you don't need Jesus anymore either since Jesus did His thing. Jesus could cease to exist or move on to another plane of existence and it wouldn't matter to you in terms of being "saved." All you need is someone like the Father to keep things going in heaven.

BILL THE CAT:
Untrue, because He still makes intercession for us to the Father. He is the High Priest. I am saved and I will be saved because of what He did (died and resurrected) and what He is going to do (my resurrection or rapture) Authority and dominion are His.

JOHN MORMON:
God is fully capable of rapturing you without Jesus, I'm sure. Jesus has already done His big thing for all of us. It's now up to us. If Jesus were to split the universe to take another job in another universe that would not invalidate His atonement would it?

JOHN MORMON:
We Mormons believe we need a lot more than just Jesus. We need our relatives and they need us. We're God's huge spiritual family.

BILL THE CAT:
And that's unscriptural. Please list a few verses where we need our relatives in order to be saved. Show me where I need wives to reach the Father. Show me where my children need me to be sealed to them in order to get to heaven. A few verses are all I ask.

JOHN MORMON:
It was pretty important to the children of Israel what their ancestors had done. Without the faithfullness of Abraham, the children of Israel would never have obtained the promised land.

Mal. 4: 6
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

JOHN MORMON:
If God thinks we should have our hearts turned towards our ancestors or He'll smite the earth with a curse, that would seem to be pretty important. If our ancestors don't turn their hearts towards us and we don't turn our hearts towards them then that would be bad.

JOHN MORMON:
And obeys Him. Don't forget that sinners don't go to heaven, Bill. Belief alone is not enough. The devils believe, but don't go to heaven.

BILL THE CAT:
Sinners do go to heaven. Romans 3:23. Unbelief is what condemns humans, not sinning. The Devils are not the other party in the eternal life covenant.

JOHN MORMON:
People who sinned go to heaven, but people whose sins are not forgiven go to hell.

But, Bill, you're joining belief + obedience = BELIEF. Consequently, unBELIEF at least should be a sin, although unbelief maybe isn't.

Sinning is disobeying God's commandments. God commanded us to believe. If we don't believe (and we have sufficient evidence) then we're sinning.

JOHN MORMON:
If Jesus was not baptized then He would not have fulfilled all righteousness. Jesus did not say that the thief would be in heaven, but in paradise. That's a pre-judgment situation. Until someone was vicariously baptized for the thief, he would not qualify for heaven.

BILL THE CAT:
Paradise was Abraham's Bosom.

JOHN MORMON:
Abraham in the afterlife is that big? Unless you think Abraham is like God who can enjoy hugging everyone who dies, it would be seem to be more like hell than heaven for Abraham to have to let every Jew who died hug him as long as they liked. Perhaps I should use this idea as an argument for man's potential to become Gods.

BILL THE CAT:
It was paradise, but the gates of Heaven were not opened until Jesus opened them Himself. He set the captives free. Once the thief reached Paradise, he was there until Jesus proclaimed His victory in Hades and took those in Abraham's Bosom to heaven to dwell forever with Him.

JOHN MORMON:
They still needed vicarious baptism. Unless one is born of the water and of the spirit they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven (John 3).

JOHN MORMON:
Marriages yes, but sealings should be done in the temple.

Adam and Eve were sealed in the Garden, perhaps by God Himself.

BILL THE CAT:
Scripture verse please?

JOHN MORMON:
Now Bill, surely you aren't suggesting that Adam and Eve were FORNICATORS are you? Someone must have properly married them. Let's see, who could that be? If it wasn't God Himself then it should have been an angel.

JOHN MORMON:
The issue is whether those words related to Jesus alone or if they ALSO related to David.

BILL THE CAT:
This verse is not related to David. You didn't read the verses I quoted, did you? Jesus Himself shows that it does not.

Matt 22
42 "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to Him, " The son of David."

43 He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying,

44 ' THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET"'?

45 "If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?"

JOHN MORMON:
Which "Lord" was Jesus referring to, the one speaking or the one listening?

BILL THE CAT:
and the writer of Hebrews shows that it was specifically about the Messiah:

Hebrews 7
14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek,

16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.

17 For it is attested of Him, " YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK."

18 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.

20 And inasmuch as it was not without an oath

21 (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him, " THE LORD HAS SWORN AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND, 'YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER'");

22 so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

BILL THE CAT:
It is strictly about Jesus, not David.

POWELL:
Just because this scripture refers to Jesus does not mean it can't also refer to David.

JOHN MORMON:
Then do you think Isa 7:14-16 is referring to the Messiah alone and not also to the child born during Isaiah's day who was to learn to distinguish good from evil before those two kings were to be removed?

BILL THE CAT:
In full, it refers to the Messiah alone. A "behold" is prefixed to it, as a note of admiration; and what else could be this sign or wonder? Not surely that a young married woman, either Ahaz's or Isaiah's wife, should be with child, which is nothing surprising, and of which there are repeated instances every day. How would Isaiah's son be the miraculous sign prophesied? Birth between married couples was commonplace.

JOHN MORMON:
Relevant to Jesus, the wonderful thing was the Virgin birth. Relevant to Ahaz's time, the wonderful thing was that before the boy would know the difference between good and evil, the two kings bothering Ahaz would be gone.

JOHN MORMON:
Whoopie doo! A lot of characters in the Bible died without their end being recorded! The point is that the priesthood which Melchizedek and Jesus and others held was without beginning of days or end of years and without mother or father for it was the power of God Himself given to His representatives.

BILL THE CAT:
Melchizedek was a priest-king. Jesus is a priest-king. No other is said to hold it.

POWELL:
Adam, Enoch, Noah (after the flood), and Abraham were apparently also priest-kings to some extent.

JOHN MORMON:
You're right that Levi did not hold the Levitical priesthood since that was not active until much later. Perhaps he held the Melchizedek priesthood.

BILL THE CAT:
Verse please?

JOHN MORMON:
By saying "maybe" that suggests I don't have such a verse.

JOHN MORMON:
In a sense God has them both since they are both based on His authority. Prior to Moses and Aaron, there was no need for the lesser or Aaronic priesthood. When the Israelites proved they weren't ready for the full Gospel, God gave them a lesser covenant and a lesser priesthood to officiate.

BILL THE CAT:
So who does God offer sacrifices to, seeing as how He holds the priesthoods?

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe to Himself if you believe in the trinity. God (Jesus) offered Himself as a sacrifice to God, yes?

JOHN MORMON:
In order to be God's representative you need God's authority. That's what the priesthood is.

BILL THE CAT:
Is not. It is a job. It's a function that men serve. It has nothing to do with authority or power. It is a mediator between God and men.

JOHN MORMON:
Being authorized by God is a kind of power. If you aren't authorized then your efforts need not be accepted by God. If the person performing a sacrifice or a baptism does not have the proper authority, the proper priesthood, then the sacrifice or baptism is to naught.

JOHN MORMON:
I know that. If the English word "belief" is not an appropriate translation of the Greek word Strong's 4100: pisteuo then another word should be used. If there is no equivalent idea in English then a NEW English word called "pisteuo" should be introduced into our language. However, Bill, given that the devils "pisteuo" but don't obey that would seem to "break the whole argument in two" as you say.

BILL THE CAT:
That's why we have lexicons.

JOHN MORMON:
So, Bill, what does your favorite lexicon say about "pisteo" in relation to the devils? They had it, right, but still weren't allowed into heaven? Apparently, "pisteo" alone is not enough. You need to obey.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, about the Father that's debatable. If the priesthood is DELEGATED authority then Jesus needs it from the Father, but the Father does not need it from Himself. However, if the priesthood is God's power, then the Father needs it too.

BILL THE CAT:
It's delegated. Jesus had to be anointed before He could offer Himself and act as our High Priest.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, maybe the Father was anointed by His Father before Jesus's Granddaddy retired and maybe moved onto some other plane of existence. Remember, Bill, the Bible is silent about these "other worlds" and "other universes" idea. What the Bible tells us about is the Godhead which governs Earth and the surrounding area.

JOHN MORMON:
It is. Melchizedek priesthood holders have authority to do everything that Aaronic priesthood holders have authority to do and more.

BILL THE CAT:
Way untrue. They could not touch nor carry the Ark of the Covenant. That's why David had the Levites carry it. They could not enter the Holy of Holies (naos). Even Jesus never entered it. There are absolutely zero listings of qualifications for anyone other than Jesus to hold the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

JOHN MORMON:
So, Bill, if Jesus had tried to carry the Ark of the Covenant do you think God would strike Him dead?

If God AUTHORIZES others to carry the Ark then they have the "power" to do so.

JOHN MORMON:
Let me turn it back at you: do you think the Aaronic priests had authority or power that Jesus did NOT have?

BILL THE CAT:
By LAW, Jesus could not enter the Naos. By LAW, Jesus could not slaughter the sacrifice. By LAW, Jesus could not get a portion of the nation's tithe. Need more?

JOHN MORMON:
By law Jesus's disciples could not work on the Sabbath as they did, but Jesus claimed to be Lord over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). Jesus is God, Bill. Jesus is the one who anciently appeared in the Holy of Holies, so of course he could enter there.

JOHN MORMON:
Just because the veil in the Jerusalem temple was ripped does not mean "the veil was ripped once and for all."

BILL THE CAT:
It absolutely does. Jamieson, Faussett and Brown in their commentary say of this veil rending:

This was the thick and gorgeously wrought veil which was hung between the "holy place" and the "holiest of all," shutting out all access to the presence of God as manifested "from above the mercy seat and from between the cherubim"--"the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest" (Heb 9:8). Into this holiest of all none might enter, not even the high priest, save once a year, on the great day of atonement, and then only with the blood of atonement in his hands, which he sprinkled "upon and before the mercy seat seven times" (Le 16:14) --to signify that access for sinners to a holy God is only through atoning blood. But as they had only the blood of bulls and of goats, which could not take away sins (Heb 10:4), during all the long ages that preceded the death of Christ the thick veil remained; the blood of bulls and of goats continued to be shed and sprinkled; and once a year access to God through an atoning sacrifice was vouchsafed--in a picture, or rather, was dramatically represented, in those symbolical actions--nothing more. But now, the one atoning Sacrifice being provided in the precious blood of Christ, access to this holy God could no longer be denied; and so the moment the Victim expired on the altar, that thick veil which for so many ages had been the dread symbol of separation between God and guilty men was, without a hand touching it, mysteriously "rent in twain from top to bottom"--"the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was NOW made manifest!" How emphatic the statement, from top to bottom; as if to say, Come boldly now to the Throne of Grace; the veil is clean gone; the mercy seat stands open to the gaze of sinners, and the way to it is sprinkled with the blood of Him--"who through the eternal Spirit hath offered Himself without spot to God!" Before, it was death to go in, now it is death to stay out.

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe there's something to this symbolism, but I don't think it goes as far as they suggest. For example, the veil of Solomon's temple may have been rent when it was destroyed, but that did not mean that the veil was rent forever. They're reading into the text. All the Bible says is the veil was rent. It does not explain why. We try to figure that out.

JOHN MORMON:
The material veil represents the spiritual veil between Earth and heaven.

BILL THE CAT:
Obviously you do not understand the veil and it's significance. It represented the separation of God and man because of sin.

JOHN MORMON:
That's related to what I said.

JOHN MORMON:
That has not been ripped. We still need to learn the things necessary so that after we die we can pass through to the celestial kingdom.

BILL THE CAT:
By putting the veil back in place, Mormons effectively deny Christ's permanent atoning work and His right to be eternal High Priest.

JOHN MORMON:
I don't think so. What we do is emphasize that, while on Earth, we are separated from our divine home. Through the atonement we can sometimes see through the veil into what lies in the afterlife.

JOHN MORMON:
Who authorized them to do that for the Lord? Did they authorize or empower themselves or did God or God's representatives "authorize" or "empower" them?

BILL THE CAT:
They were bound by the covenant. God dictated that they would be the ones responsible to perform the rituals of the temple. There was still no "power" involved. Service is denial of power.

JOHN MORMON:
Sure, Bill. Since Jesus did us a great service that means we are the masters and He is the slave, huh?

JOHN MORMON:
That's a misunderstanding of what Jesus said. Jesus did not say there would no longer be a worship of forms, such as the making of certain prayers or the performing of certain actions in prescribed ways, but that there would come a time when the specific temple in Jerusalem would not be a place of proper worship.

BILL THE CAT:
The only temple Jesus was interested in was the Jerusalem Temple. He never made reference to any other temple other than His body. There was no need for a temple after Jesus' death and resurrection. The functions were complete.

JOHN MORMON:
What if God tells us we need to build temples, Bill? Should we listen to you or to God? That's a rhetorical question.

JOHN MORMON:
There is Biblical support for Israelites in the Americas. Two are the stick of Joseph and the "other sheep."

BILL THE CAT:
Neither hold water.

JOHN MORMON:
We'll see.

JOHN MORMON:
Yes they do. If there's something in those quotes particularly relevant that you're willing to defend then post it.

BILL THE CAT:
Too little space

JOHN MORMON:
Did Jonah pass the prophet's test, Bill? Jonah prophesied that the city of Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days. Was it?

BILL THE CAT:
When Jonah finally proclaimed that the Assyrians would be doomed within 40 days, "the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them" including the king of Nineveh. The Ninevites changed their ways hoping to have God "turn away from his fierce anger" (3:4-5,9).

Although God fully intended to inflict destruction upon the city of Nineveh, He relented based upon their God-fearing response. Jonah 3:10 says, "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." The righteous nature of God allows for pardon on the condition of repentance. Jeremiah 18:8 states: "If that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them."

There is little doubt that Nineveh would have been destroyed if its inhabitants had not responded to Jonah's message. Even Jonah himself understood that there was a possibility the destruction of Nineveh might not come to pass when he told God, "I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou are a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil" (4:2).

There are numerous statements from LDS leaders which concur with the thought that Jonah was a prophet sent by God to deliver a conditional message.

Speaking of the Ninevites, former LDS Apostle Orson Pratt taught that "...they all turned and repented of their sins, and the Lord had compassion and did not execute the judgment on them because of their repentance" (Journal of Discourses 14:260-1).

Third LDS Prophet John Taylor said in an 1884 sermon: "Jonah was sent to the city of Nineveh, to tell the people to repent and that if they did not repent they would all be destroyed. But they listened to the voice of the Prophet ...The Lord forgave them" (Journal of Discourses 23:36).
Meanwhile, former LDS Apostle John Widtsoe wrote that "there are prophecies which in reality are statements of cause and effect. If certain things are done, certain results will flow therefrom" (Evidences and Reconciliations, pg. 92).

The problem with equating Joseph with Jonah is that many of Smith's prophecies did not come to pass even after all the proper conditions were met.

JOHN MORMON:
My point is NOT to argue that Jonah was NOT a prophet. I think he was. The point is that if you disqualify Joseph for being a prophet because it looks to you like a prophecy he made was not fulfilled as stated then you should also disqualify Jonah. For Jonah's prophecy, the proper condition apparently was 40 days. That condition was met, but the Ninevites weren't destroyed. Apparently, there was an implied condition in Jonah's prophecy. Maybe that's the case with Joseph's prophecies too.

JOHN MORMON:
They're similar but different.

JOHN MORMON:
They're similar but different.

BILL THE CAT:
My point exactly. It's a surface level similarity.

JOHN MORMON:
If that's all it is, maybe it's still enough.

JOHN MORMON:
Official "Patriarchal Blessings" in the LDS church are given by persons who aren't necessarily your ancestor sort of like the angel Jacob wrestled with blessed Jacob, but was not necessarily an ancestor.

BILL THE CAT:
They are not Patriarchal Blessings then. The Angel was not giving Jacob a Patriarchal Blessing.

JOHN MORMON:
You don't know that, Bill. Maybe it was Adam or Noah coming back as an angel.

JOHN MORMON:
Sure, Bill. Didn't Jacob marry sisters?

BILL THE CAT:
Before the Law was given, sure. It was tolerated, but not commanded.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, then perhaps you should tolerate Mormon polygamists today.

The problem, Bill, is that if Mormonism was a restoration of the ancient Gospel and polygamy was part of what they did back then that was approved by God then it's possible that God would expect it to be practiced at least for a while in our day.

JOHN MORMON:
Some people think Jesus married the sisters Mary and Martha.

BILL THE CAT:
They are morons...

JOHN MORMON:
Hey, quit calling my family bad names!

JOHN MORMON:
Demanding now, aren't we?

How about these?

1. Mainstream Christian practices like Sunday worship, baptism by immersion, sacrament, hymn singing, fasting and prayer, offerings, etc.

BILL THE CAT:
Never been to a service, so I don't know. But LDS have to look Christian now, don't they...

JOHN MORMON:
2. Unusual (to mainstream Christian) religious practices like baptisms for the dead (expanded to include the gift of the holy ghost, endowment, priesthood to the men, sealings)

BILL THE CAT:
Unorthodox heresies.

JOHN MORMON:
The Jews might have said something like that about Christianity.

JOHN MORMON:
3. Prophets who reveal new scriptures.

BILL THE CAT:
At times contradicting each other.

JOHN MORMON:
Give me your best example and I will try to harmonize it.

JOHN MORMON:
4. Similar organization with 3 men at the top, 12 apostles, bishops, etc.

BILL THE CAT:
Not similar at all. The "top 3" were not in charge for long. The council of Jerusalem was at the time of the later chapters of Acts.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, you had "Peter, James, and John" as some sort of triumvirate even while Jesus was alive as if they were being trained to be the leaders.

JOHN MORMON:
5. United order = "all things in common." (discontinued).

BILL THE CAT:
Never heard of it...

JOHN MORMON:
I sometimes wonder about you, Bill.

Acts 4: 32
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

JOHN MORMON:
If you had read the Book of Mormon, you would have seen that after Jesus visited the Americas the people lived this "united order" as we call it in Mormonism.

3 Ne. 26: 19
19 And they taught, and did minister one to another; and they had all things common among them, every man dealing justly, one with another.

John Powell

Bill the Cat

April 20th 2004, 07:00 PM

John,

While I have really enjoyed our discussion, life has just slammed me hard and I will not be able to respond for quite some time. Thank you so far and I will try to get back to this at some point.

Bill

John Powell

April 20th 2004, 07:43 PM

Bill the Cat

April 29th 2004, 07:26 PM

JOHN MORMON:
People didn't START becoming temples after the Jerusalem temple was destroyed, Bill. Their bodies had been temples from the days of Adam.

People were never described as temples until after the resurrection. We are the "temples of the Holy Spirit." God's Spirit dwells in us (Rom 8; 1 Cor 2-3, 12; 2 Cor 3; Gal 5; Eph 2-3) Notice all NT references. The temple was and is the place where God’s Spirit dwells. It dwelled in the Temple and now dwells in us. Before the Temple, there was no national sacrifice, so no temple was necessary.

Besides, given that Jesus was a traveling temple to a superlative degree, does that suggest the physical temple was unnecessary during the lifetime of Jesus? Apparently not, so your reasoning appears to be flawed.

No, it was not unnecessary. It was a central gathering place for Jews, the ones Jesus came for to be their Messiah primarily. It was also necessary to offer the yearly sacrifice until the final sacrifice was made.

JOHN MORMON:
What Greek Online resources do you use, Bill?

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/

You need to show that the Christians had no need of any priesthood.

I never said that Christians had no need of a priesthood. I said that a specific priesthood “class” was unnecessary.

The fact that Christians continued to rely on religious leaders to do many of the other things Hebrew priests did besides kill animals, suggests they thought those leaders had some kind of authority from God to do so.

It was good management of resources. There are gifts distributed about the body that are useful for management purposes, but none saw themselves any higher than another.

You don't send the cavalrymen home when horses become obsolete. You put them in jeeps or humvees.

If all transportation becomes obsolete, you do. Also if war becomes obsolete, you send them home. The Levitical Priesthood was obsolete when the better Priesthood of Christ was enacted. Like war becoming obsolete, the sacrifices and tending the types of Christ are obsolete, so if the Levites accepted Christ, they were free to go home and do something else.

JOHN MORMON:
God AUTHORIZED the Levites to do His will. That was their "priesthood" power. Likewise, Mormons argue that God AUTHORIZES their priesthood holders to do His will.

We are all called as Christians to do God’s will, so by your own admission, God authorizing us to do His will makes all Christians Priests.

BILL THE CAT:
He had no priesthood. He was a prophet. I'd love to see some OT evidence for your assertation that he had any priesthood at all.

JOHN MORMON:
If Samuel didn't have the priesthood, why was he doing priestly things like blessing sacrifices (1 Sam 9)? Saul thought he could justifiably do a sacrifice, but he was reproved (1 Sam 13) because Samuel, apparently, was supposed to do it. Does the Bible have to say "Samuel, the priest" for you to believe he held any priesthood?

Samuel was promised before birth to serve God in the temple doing temple things, which he did until Eli died. Samuel was given to Eli to use in service of the temple, but was not given a priesthood. That’s why he didn’t serve in the temple his whole life, like Levites did.

Was Moses called "Moses, the priest" or "Moses, the prophet"? Surely, you agree that Moses was both a priest and a prophet, right?

Um…Moses was a Levite, so he automatically qualified as a priest by birthright.

JOHN MORMON:
Good. Saul, apparently, was NOT a priest-king, but David was.

But David had no priesthood, especially no Aaronic Priesthood. Can a Mormon get the Melchizedek Priesthood without first receiving the Aaronic? If David could, why can’t you?

POWELL:
Such as using the ephod to get answers (1 Sam 23, 1 Sam 30) and wearing the linen ephod (2 Sam 6:14).

(1 Sam 23) to inquire of the Lord what was his mind and will in this matter: how and by what means he inquired it is not said, very probably it was by the prophet Gad, who was with him, 1 Samuel 22:5; for as for Abiathar, he was not yet come with the ephod, the Urim and Thummim, to inquire by them, 1 Samuel 23:6;
John Gill

(1 Sam 30:7) I pray thee, bring me hither the ephod; not to put it on himself, but that the high priest might put it on, and inquire by it before him of the Lord:

and Abiathar brought thither the ephod to David; for the sake of David, that inquiry might be made before him of the Lord by Urim and Thummim.

(1 Sam 30:8) And David inquired of the Lord,.... That is, by Abiathar, who reported his questions to the Lord in his name:
John Gill

(2 Sam 6:14) and David [was] girded with a linen ephod; which others, besides priests, sometimes wore,
John Gill

JOHN MORMON:
Well then what do you think they called this authority they had from God to do things like sacrifice BEFORE Melchizedek was born?

Obedience.

JOHN MORMON:
Fine. But is the ONLY function of a priest to perform sacrifices in the temple? If it's other things that are still important after Jesus, like teaching and leading the people then maybe the priesthood is still necessary.

The Levitical Priests in the NT did not teach nor lead the Christians. They were unbelievers, and targets of the Apostles’ proselytizing.

JOHN MORMON:
There's "proof" that some things were lost, don't you agree?

No. Not anything of such great substance like the things unique to the LDS church.

JOHN MORMON:
So maybe it was important for God to reveal the truth in our day.

And maybe it didn’t happen.

JOHN MORMON:
Given that Jesus was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel, that explanation seems mistaken.

It does not. It fulfills OT prophecy of the grafting in of the Gentiles. (Eze 34 and 37)

JOHN MORMON:
What was the "writing" on the sticks if not divine wisdom of some sort? Do you have God's words that were supposed to be written on the stick of Joseph? We Mormons think we do. We think it's the Book of Mormon.

Nothing was written on the sticks except “For Judah” and “For Ephriam” Also the Mormons think Levi was of the tribe of Manasseh, not Ephriam, so the Book of Mormon fails on that account too.

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps none of the practices recorded in the Bible, but maybe they were doing these things and didn't record them.

Then they were completely unknown by the best Jewish historians available like Josephus and Jaarchi. I seriously doubt that the ancient Jews would have taken the time to record intricate details like exactly how to beat the gold for the cover of the Ark and not record a solitary word about the endowment ceremony.

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe he didn't have reason to ASK God about it until then and, in this case, God waited until He was asked about it.

And coincidentally, it just happened to be the same? That’s beyond convenient. More likely Joseph liked the ceremony and adopted it for his new religion.

JOHN MORMON:
God is fully capable of rapturing you without Jesus, I'm sure. Jesus has already done His big thing for all of us. It's now up to us. If Jesus were to split the universe to take another job in another universe that would not invalidate His atonement would it?

Jesus is the one who raptures us.

JOHN MORMON:
Abraham in the afterlife is that big? Unless you think Abraham is like God who can enjoy hugging everyone who dies, it would be seem to be more like hell than heaven for Abraham to have to let every Jew who died hug him as long as they liked. Perhaps I should use this idea as an argument for man's potential to become Gods.

It was a term of endearment, not literally Abraham’s chest.

refers to the custom of reclining on couches at table, which was prevalent among the Jews, an arrangement which brought the head of one person almost into the bosom of the one who sat or reclined above him. To "be in Abraham's bosom" thus meant to enjoy happiness and rest (Matthew 8:11; Luke 16:23) at the banquet in Paradise.
Easton’s Bible Dictionary

JOHN MORMON:
They still needed vicarious baptism. Unless one is born of the water and of the spirit they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven (John 3).

I already explained this one in context.

JOHN MORMON:
The issue is whether those words related to Jesus alone or if they ALSO related to David.

JOHN MORMON:
Which "Lord" was Jesus referring to, the one speaking or the one listening?

If it were about David, and David wrote it, it would have said, “The Lord sayeth unto to me”

JOHN MORMON:
Being authorized by God is a kind of power. If you aren't authorized then your efforts need not be accepted by God. If the person performing a sacrifice or a baptism does not have the proper authority, the proper priesthood, then the sacrifice or baptism is to naught.

So God will not accept a person’s contrite repentance sacrifice at salvation because they are not priesthood holders? See how it breaks down? If we are called to offer ourselves as a living sacrifice, but don’t have the priesthood to offer ourselves, we can never get saved and never get to be worthy enough to obtain the priesthood because it takes a person with priesthood authority to offer a sacrifice.

JOHN MORMON:
So, Bill, what does your favorite lexicon say about "pisteo" in relation to the devils? They had it, right, but still weren't allowed into heaven? Apparently, "pisteo" alone is not enough. You need to obey.

1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
a. relating to God
1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
b. relating to Christ
1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
c. the religious beliefs of Christians
d. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2. fidelity, faithfulness
a. the character of one who can be relied on

Once again, if the Devils were made a part of the New Covenant, then their pistis qould be sufficient, but the offer was never made to them.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, maybe the Father was anointed by His Father before Jesus's Granddaddy retired and maybe moved onto some other plane of existence. Remember, Bill, the Bible is silent about these "other worlds" and "other universes" idea. What the Bible tells us about is the Godhead which governs Earth and the surrounding area.

However, the early church fathers that were intimate with the apostles were quite clear that God is eternal and God made it clear in Isaiah that He had no other god formed before nor after Him. He had no father.

JOHN MORMON:
So, Bill, if Jesus had tried to carry the Ark of the Covenant do you think God would strike Him dead?

If Jesus had touched the Ark, he would have sinned against the Law, which would have stained Him and made Him unfit to sacrifice once for all.

If God AUTHORIZES others to carry the Ark then they have the "power" to do so.

Just as God authorizes all Christians to offer ourselves as living sacrifices. SO we all are priests. Thanks again for making my point. :digup:

JOHN MORMON:
By law Jesus's disciples could not work on the Sabbath as they did, but Jesus claimed to be Lord over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28).

They could do good deeds on the Sabbath, such as saving a mule (or a soul) but did they fish on Sundays?

Jesus is God, Bill.

No, according to you, Jesus is A god, not God.

Jesus is the one who anciently appeared in the Holy of Holies, so of course he could enter there.

The presence of God entered. The holiness and shekinah glory appeared. Jesus was that glory masked in flesh. By Law, He was of Judah and could not enter the Naos. Are you suggesting Jesus could break specific commandments and get away with it? The Sabbath command was to remember it and keep it holy, which preaching salvation does.

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe there's something to this symbolism, but I don't think it goes as far as they suggest. For example, the veil of Solomon's temple may have been rent when it was destroyed, but that did not mean that the veil was rent forever. They're reading into the text. All the Bible says is the veil was rent. It does not explain why. We try to figure that out.

Solomon’s veil, if rent, would have been done by men, not God. Who rent the veil at the crucifixion? Why was the veil in place? Who could enter the veil and when? There is no reading into the text the purpose of the veil. That purpose was fulfilled and now the veil is unnecessary.
JOHN MORMON:
I don't think so. What we do is emphasize that, while on Earth, we are separated from our divine home. Through the atonement we can sometimes see through the veil into what lies in the afterlife.

But when we become Christians, we are seated in the heavenlies (Eph 2:6) so the veil is gone for Christians

JOHN MORMON:
What if God tells us we need to build temples, Bill? Should we listen to you or to God? That's a rhetorical question.

What if God told Mormons to start sacrificing animals again? Should you listen? Or would you question the source of this order because the final sacrifice was made? We can what-if all day.

JOHN MORMON:
My point is NOT to argue that Jonah was NOT a prophet. I think he was. The point is that if you disqualify Joseph for being a prophet because it looks to you like a prophecy he made was not fulfilled as stated then you should also disqualify Jonah. For Jonah's prophecy, the proper condition apparently was 40 days. That condition was met, but the Ninevites weren't destroyed. Apparently, there was an implied condition in Jonah's prophecy. Maybe that's the case with Joseph's prophecies too.

Like what? Like the going to sell the copyright to the BOM in Canada? The messengers did exactly as Joseph told them. Joseph’s “prophecy” and Jonah’s preaching are completely different types of messages.

JOHN MORMON:
If that's all it is, maybe it's still enough.

It is not enough. The Pharisees had surface level similarities to the actual Law, but we see what God thought of them.

JOHN MORMON:
You don't know that, Bill. Maybe it was Adam or Noah coming back as an angel.

Jacob knew exactly who it was,
Gen 32
30 So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, " I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved."

He wrestled with the pre-incarnate Christ.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, then perhaps you should tolerate Mormon polygamists today.

I tolerate them fine. They can do what they want if it is fine with the wives. Just don’t tell me God commanded it. Then I get feisty.

JOHN MORMON:
Give me your best example and I will try to harmonize it.

How’z about these 3:

1) Does God know all things--that is, is he omniscient, thus fully comprehending every speck of truth in the universe? Or will he continue to learn new verities as long as eternity endures? As Bergera so ably brought to our attention recently, the Prophet Brigham Young adamantly held that the omniscience of God "was a fals doctrin & not true that there never will be a time to all eternity when all the God[s] of Eternity will seace advancing in power knowledge. . .for if this was the case eternity would seace to be..." (Dialogue, Vol. XIII, 2, pp. 12-13; original spelling and punctuation). Another source finds Young declaring that he never expected to see the time when he would stop learning, then adding, "Now do not lariat the God that I serve and say that he can not [sic] learn any more; I do not believe in such a character" (Deseret News, June 18, 1873, p. 309; italics added. See also ID 1:349-353; 3:202-203, etc.).

Some 100 years later in 1971, however, another prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith, testified to exactly the opposite: "...I know...that God is omnipotent and omniscient; that he has all power and wisdom; and that his perfections consist in the possession of all knowledge, faith or power. . .and for that matter, the fullness of all godly attributes" (cited in J.M. Heslop and Dell R. Van Orden, Joseph Fielding Smith: A Prophet Among the People, p. 68; italics added. See also pages 59 and 69).

Both men were speaking in their capacities as president of the Church and yet, their doctrines were diametrically opposed.

2) How was Adam created? Brigham Young rigidly affirmed that God "created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven or on earth" (JD 11:122). Similarly, he made it clear that Adam "was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle" (JD 3:319; see also (JD 6:31; 9:283; and 4:218). In the Deseret News, December 27, 1913, section 3, page 7, President Joseph F. Smith is quoted as saying that "Adam...was. . .born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus, and you and I."

Today's prophet, however, apparently does not agree, for he says: "The Creators breathed into their [Adam and Eve] nostrils the breath of life and man and woman became living souls. We don't know exactly how their coming into this world happened, and when we're able to understand it the Lord will tell us" (Spencer W. Kimball cited in the Ensign, March, 1976, p. 72 italics added). The qualifier exactly could be tricky, but the implications are clear, nevertheless.

Again, we have another face-off. Brigham Young says that Adam was born of woman into this world, and in fact, announces that he himself is a descendant of God in "both spirit and body" (JD 6:31; italics added). President Kimball, the living prophet, says we don't know. Through whom is the Lord speaking, anyway?

3) Is Adam our God and the Father of our spirits? Brigham Young, as many Dialogue readers are well aware, championed the affirmative. In a June 8, 1873, sermon, printed twice--once in the Deseret News on June 14, 1873, and again in the weekly edition four days later--he boldly asserted that Adam is our God, the father of our spirits, was an exalted being before coming to this earth--and that God revealed all of this to him! Brigham Young taught the Adam-God doctrine for over twenty years (see JD 1:50-51; General Conference address, October 8, 1854, Church Archives).

But today's prophet declares exactly the opposite: "We denounce that theory [the Adam-God theory] and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this. ..false doctrine" (Church News, October 9, 1976). An interesting sidelight is Bruce R. McConkie's remarks at BYU on June 1, 1980, regarding the seven deadly heresies of Mormonism. Though not the president of the Church, he was nevertheless quick to clarify the fact that the Adam-God doctrine was a heresy kept alive by the devil, and that anyone who believes it, in light of the temple endowment and the Book of Moses, “does not deserve to be saved" ("The Seven Deadly Heresies." BYU, June 1, 1980, taped account).

The list does not stop here, by any means. We have Brigham Young declaring that the penalty for a white of the "chosen seed" marrying and "mixing his blood" with a black person "under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so" (JD 10:110; italics added). Yet, today, the law of God, which Brigham said could never be changed, definitely has been altered (Provo, Utah Daily Herald, August 23, 1981). For that matter, Brigham Young testified that blacks could "never" hold the priesthood "until the last ones of the residue of Adam's posterity are brought up to that favourable position" (JD 7:291). He made it clear that this would be after the resurrection (JD 2:143).

It’s going to be a while before I can get to responding again, but I’ll do what I can.