Gaz Luke 10:1 states that there were other seventy. In other words he is calling another set. Who were the first set?
The text is
38John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40"For he who is not against us is for us.
Mark 9
Note that Jesus did not say that he had already called him. He said “NO ONE who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.” It’s hard to see how you can restrict that the first or second 70.
On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he [GBH] sounded uncertain, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."
Richard Why would the living Prophet not know if the LDS have a teaching, and an important one at that, which you claim is held by ALL LDS?
Gaz I persoanlly would have taken it as a teaching moment, but if Hinkley saw it as expounding on meat to an audience choking on milk, well then he's the prophet and I'm not, so there ya go.
In other words, he lied. He could have said that this was not the time and place to answer such questions, but instead he said that he did not know that the LDS taught it when he knew full well that they did.
JAK In addition, no accounts of Jesus were written until 30 to 110 years after the alleged facts. Hearsay should be regarded with suspicion. Needless to say, decades of story telling are not established as reliable.
You may find of interest an article written by an acquaintance of mine, William Lane Craig:
First, the resurrection appearances. Undoubtedly the major impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. We can try to explain them away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late New Testament critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable.
1. Who found the empty tomb? a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary." b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome." c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others. d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.
2. Who did they find at the tomb? a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9). b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb. c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it. d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.
3. Who did the women tell about the empty tomb? a. According to Mark 16:8, "they said nothing to anyone." b. According to Matthew 28:8, they "ran to report it to His disciples." c. According to Luke 24:9, "they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest." d. According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord.
Such an event would surely have been viewed as extraordinary if true. The fact that even only a few could write and that there was written language, makes it appear as if such an event would have been recorded by someone at the time of occurrence.
What people claimed in writing years after the alleged facts has credibility issues. The time frame and many translations from then to the present also raises problematic contradictions in factual claims.
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
1 Peter 2:9
Believers in Jesus are priests. They have no need for a supposed restoration to give them this authority.
This is an Old Testament scripture. I have wondered how this can be a justification for the priesthood of all believers, when the person who said it originally was under the Mosaic Law. Did the Jews believe in a priesthood of all believer? Quite the contrary, it was a priesthood by lineage. So can you explain to me how this scripture supports a belief in the priesthood of all believers when it originally had a different meaning?
richardMdBorn wrote:
38John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40"For he who is not against us is for us.
Mark 9
Note that it was not necessary to follow the disciples but rather the One in whom the deeds were done.
And then later Christ would say "He who is not for us is against us."
Matt. 12: 30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
richardMdBorn wrote:
24but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
Heb 7
We depend on the priesthood of Jesus, which is permanent, not the priesthood of men.
The priesthood is always of Christ, even the priesthood officiating in the temple held the priesthood of Christ. If there is any priesthood that is not of Christ, it is not the true priesthood.
richardMdBorn wrote:
27And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
Heb 9
One of the purposes of the Old Testament priests was to offer animal sacrifices. I thought that the LDS believed in a restoration of all things. This obviously does not need to be restored since Christ's sacrifice eliminates the need for animal sacrifices.
Yes, Christ's sacrifice on the cross satisfied the law of blood sacrifice. Now the sacrifice is of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
1 Peter 2:9
Richard Believers in Jesus are priests. They have no need for a supposed restoration to give them this authority.
Marvin This is an Old Testament scripture. I have wondered how this can be a justification for the priesthood of all believers, when the person who said it originally was under the Mosaic Law. Did the Jews believe in a priesthood of all believer? Quite the contrary, it was a priesthood by lineage. So can you explain to me how this scripture supports a belief in the priesthood of all believers when it originally had a different meaning?
Richard The church is the new Israel. Note that I Pet 1:1 is addressed “To God’s elect, strangers in the world.” Hebrews points out that we have a better covenant. It is a fulfillment of God’s promise that through him all the world would be blessed (Gen 22:18). Jeremiah 31:31-34 speaks of a new covenant. Besides, the LDS don’t believe in priesthood by lineage. So what’s your point.
38John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40"For he who is not against us is for us.
Mark 9
Richard Note that it was not necessary to follow the disciples but rather the One in whom the deeds were done.
Marvin And then later Christ would say "He who is not for us is against us."
Matt. 12: 30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
Richard These teachings are a type of wisdom literature (Proverbs and the Psalms are other examples). There are times when “he is not against us is for us”. Preaching is an example. There are also times when “he is not for us is against us”. Neutrality with respect to the preaching of the gospel is equivalent to opposition.