Talk:Melchizedek priesthoods

In the Roman Catholic tradition, Christ is referred to as a prophet, priest, and king. The gospels portray him in the role of prophet, and there are a few references to him as king of the Jews. I don't believe he ever refers to himself as a priest, however, nor does anyone refer to him as a priest in the gospels. To the contrary, Christ is portrayed as an adversary of temple priests. The references to Christ as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek in Hebrews seems rather far-fetched. It is also a stretch, I believe, to suggest that the possible reference to Melchizedek in Psalms refers to Christ.Jim Lacey 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Christ is referred to as a high priest by Paul in the Book of Hebrews. I don't know about Psalms, though. Wrad 21:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of style and theology, the great majority of scholars have rejected the notion that Paul wrote Hebrews. A very early commentator remarked that only God knows who wrote Hebrews! Jim Lacey 16:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, somebody should ask him. That should solve it. :) Wrad 17:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Latter (?)ay Saints
Are we sure we want to go with the non-hyphen spelling in the heading of the LDS section, since it covers only the largest of that group of churches, and mentions it by name in the section? What is the rationale? I could see changing it if it expressed a broader restorationist view, but that section seems to only reflect the views of that one church. Wrad 00:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would go with "Latter-day" unless there is some indication that other denominatios are represented. -SESmith 04:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for speedy deletion
Why is this nominated for speedy deletion rather than redirecting to the new title?

--Richard 17:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It should not have been, and I was about to change to a redirect, but I am also not convinced the article is properly merged; I thought of completing it myself, but it is not straightforward, and for the time being I am restoring the premerged version by Charles Matthew, and asking his opinion as an expert. My question is whether the material on different christian interpretations is adequately represented. My personal opinion, as an interested but non-expert party, is that if some of the duplicative material here were to be removed, the subject could well be divided between two articles--this  seems central enough to the Christian tradition for a separate article.
 * I'm not acting as an admin, merge and redirect decisions do not require an admin. DGG 18:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)