Hebrews identifies Jesus as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 5:6; Hebrews 6:20; Hebrews 7:17
Disputed: No — regarding what Hebrews explicitly states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Public record
Claim Ledger
Each entry states what a text says or what a tradition holds, what is disputed, and how the finding was derived. Open a claim for its witnesses, editions, confidence axes, revisions and provenance.
74 claims in the record · record version f79c70d2ef22dde1 · JSON
Jeremiah announces a new covenant that is not like the covenant made at Sinai.
Jeremiah 31:31-34
Disputed: No — regarding what Jeremiah explicitly states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Psalm 110 addresses a figure who is declared a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
Psalm 110:1; Psalm 110:4
Disputed: No — regarding the text itself · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Genesis presents an unconditional promise to Abraham of descendants, land and blessing to the nations.
Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 15:18; Genesis 17:7
Disputed: Partly — whether the promise is “unconditional” is an inference; see the evidence notes. · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Sinai covenant establishes a hereditary Levitical priesthood tied to sacrificial service.
Exodus 28:1; Leviticus 8; Numbers 18:1-7
Disputed: No · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Hebrews reads the silence of Genesis 14 about Melchizedek's genealogy as significant: "without father or mother… resembling the Son of God."
Hebrews 7:3; Genesis 14:18–20
Disputed: Partly · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Hebrews argues that a change of priesthood necessarily entails a change of law.
Hebrews 7:11–12; Hebrews 7:18–19
Disputed: No · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Melchizedekian priesthood of Christ supersedes the Levitical priesthood and its sacrificial order.
Hebrews 7–10; Psalm 110:4; Jeremiah 31:31–34
Disputed: Yes · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Hebrews says that in speaking of a new covenant God has made the first one old, and that what is growing old is ready to vanish.
Hebrews 8:13
Disputed: No — regarding what Hebrews states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Hebrews contrasts the many Levitical priests, prevented by death from continuing in office, with Jesus, who holds his priesthood permanently because he continues forever.
Hebrews 7:23–24
Disputed: No — regarding what Hebrews states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The adjective ἀπαράβατος in Hebrews 7:24 is glossed by the standard lexica as “permanent, unchangeable”; the sense “not passing to another” is argued from the contrast with succession in 7:23.
Hebrews 7:24
Disputed: Partly · Review: Awaiting editorial review
In the Masoretic Text, Jeremiah 33:17–18 promises that the Levitical priests will never lack a man to offer sacrifices; the passage (33:14–26) is absent from the Septuagint.
Jeremiah 33:17–18
Disputed: No — regarding the two textual forms · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Numbers grants Phinehas and his descendants “a covenant of perpetual priesthood”.
Numbers 25:13
Disputed: No · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Levitical priesthood is suspended by the loss of the Temple, not superseded: no later priesthood abrogates the Torah’s priestly order.
Numbers 25:13; Exodus 29:9; Jeremiah 33:17–18
Disputed: Yes · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Lumen Gentium 10 teaches that the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood differ in essence and not only in degree, while each in its own way shares in the one priesthood of Christ.
Lumen Gentium 10
Disputed: No — regarding what the document teaches · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The ministerial priesthood of bishops and priests participates in the one priesthood of Christ and is conferred by sacramental ordination.
Lumen Gentium 10; Council of Trent Session 23
Disputed: Yes · Review: Awaiting editorial review
1 Peter and Revelation call the community of believers a priesthood: “a royal priesthood” and “priests to God”.
1 Peter 2:9; 1 Peter 2:5; Revelation 1:6
Disputed: No — regarding what the texts state · Review: Awaiting editorial review
In To the Christian Nobility (1520), Luther argues that all baptized Christians belong to the spiritual estate and are consecrated priests.
Luther, To the Christian Nobility
Disputed: No — regarding what Luther argues · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Christ alone holds the Melchizedekian priesthood, permanently; all believers share a common priesthood, and no sacrificing priesthood is transmitted to ministers.
Hebrews 7:23–24; 1 Peter 2:9
Disputed: Yes · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Council of Trent (Session 23, 1563) teaches that the New Testament has a visible and external priesthood, instituted by Christ and conferred in the sacrament of order.
Council of Trent Session 23
Disputed: No — regarding what the council teaches · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Deuteronomy commands that nothing be added to, or taken away from, the commandments it gives.
Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 13:1
Disputed: No — regarding what Deuteronomy states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Several Pentateuchal commandments are designated “a statute forever” (ḥuqqat ʿôlām), among them Passover, the Day of Atonement and the Aaronide priesthood.
Exodus 12:14; Leviticus 16:29–34; Exodus 29:9
Disputed: No — regarding the designation · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Deuteronomy says the commandment “is not in heaven”: it is near, in the mouth and the heart, to be done.
Deuteronomy 30:11–14
Disputed: No · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Babylonian Talmud (Bava Metzia 59b) applies “it is not in heaven” to rule that a heavenly voice cannot decide a question of law: the decision rests with the sages, by majority.
b. Bava Metzia 59b
Disputed: No — regarding what the passage narrates · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Talmud reads “These are the commandments” (Leviticus 27:34) to teach that from then on no prophet may introduce anything new.
b. Shabbat 104a; b. Megillah 2b
Disputed: No — regarding what the Talmud teaches · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Maimonides rules that the Torah’s commandments stand forever, so that a prophet who claims to add or abrogate a commandment is a false prophet; he counts the Torah’s immutability among the thirteen principles of faith.
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Yesodei HaTorah 9:1; Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1
Disputed: No — regarding what Maimonides rules · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Rabbinic law allows a recognised prophet to suspend a commandment temporarily, for the need of the hour (horāʾat shāʿāh), citing Elijah’s sacrifice on Mount Carmel; it does not allow permanent abrogation.
b. Yevamot 90b; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Yesodei HaTorah 9:3
Disputed: No — regarding what the sources rule · Review: Awaiting editorial review
A Talmudic dictum holds that “the commandments will be annulled in the time to come.”
b. Niddah 61b
Disputed: No — regarding what the dictum says · Review: Awaiting editorial review
In ḥuqqat ʿôlām the noun ʿôlām denotes perpetuity; its range also covers “a long, indefinite time”, and rabbinic exegesis itself reads it as limited in at least one case.
Exodus 12:14; Exodus 21:6
Disputed: Partly · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The commandments given at Sinai are permanent: no later prophet or revelation may abrogate them, and the authority to interpret and safeguard them operates within the Torah.
Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 13:1; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Yesodei HaTorah 9:1
Disputed: Yes — between traditions · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Paul calls the law a guardian (paidagōgos) until Christ, and says that after faith has come believers are no longer under it.
Galatians 3:24–25
Disputed: No — regarding what Paul writes · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Sinai covenant is fulfilled in Christ: its moral law endures, but its ceremonial provisions no longer bind those in the new covenant.
Hebrews 8:13; Galatians 3:24–25; Romans 10:4
Disputed: Yes · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Qurʾān has ʿĪsā say that he comes confirming the Torah before him and making lawful some of what had been forbidden.
Q 3:50
Disputed: No — regarding what the Qurʾān states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Qurʾān describes the unlettered prophet as one who makes lawful the good things, forbids the foul, and lifts the burdens and shackles that were upon those who follow him.
Q 7:157
Disputed: No — regarding what the Qurʾān states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Qurʾān says that to each community God has appointed a law and a way (shirʿa wa-minhāj).
Q 5:48
Disputed: No · Review: Awaiting editorial review
God gives each community a law; later revelation may lift or modify earlier precepts, and Muslims are bound by the law revealed to Muhammad.
Q 5:48; Q 3:50; Q 7:157
Disputed: Yes — between traditions · Review: Awaiting editorial review
In the Book of Mormon, the risen Jesus tells the people that the law given to Moses is fulfilled in him and therefore has an end.
3 Nephi 15:4–5
Disputed: No — regarding what the text states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ and its performances ended, while the covenant God made with Israel continues through the restored gospel.
3 Nephi 15:4–5
Disputed: Yes — between traditions · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Paul’s statement that Christ is the τέλος of the law (Romans 10:4) can be read as its end (termination) or its goal (fulfilment); both senses are attested for the word.
Romans 10:4
Disputed: Yes · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Qurʾān says Ibrāhīm was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but a ḥanīf, a muslim (one who submits), and not one of the polytheists.
Q 3:67
Disputed: No — regarding what the Qurʾān states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Qurʾān presents Ibrāhīm and Ismāʿīl raising the foundations of the House and praying that a messenger be sent from among their descendants.
Q 2:127–129
Disputed: No — regarding what the Qurʾān states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Qurʾān instructs the Prophet to follow the religion (milla) of Ibrāhīm, the ḥanīf, who was not of the polytheists.
Q 16:123; Q 2:135
Disputed: No — regarding what the Qurʾān states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Qurʾān says the people with the best claim to Ibrāhīm are those who followed him, this Prophet, and those who believe.
Q 3:68
Disputed: No — regarding what the Qurʾān states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Qurʾān says God made Ibrāhīm a leader (imām) for humankind and, when he asked about his descendants, answered that the covenant does not extend to wrongdoers.
Q 2:124
Disputed: No — regarding what the Qurʾān states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Qurʾān places the revelation to Muhammad in one line with revelation to Nūḥ, Ibrāhīm, Ismāʿīl, Isḥāq, Yaʿqūb, the Tribes, ʿĪsā and others, and says believers make no distinction between any of them.
Q 4:163; Q 2:136
Disputed: No · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Qurʾān describes itself as confirming the scripture before it and as muhaymin over it.
Q 5:48
Disputed: No — regarding the wording · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Classical exegetes gloss muhaymin variously as “witness”, “trustee” and “guardian” over earlier scripture; the stronger sense of an authority that judges it is the basis of the Qurʾān’s precedence in Islamic teaching.
Q 5:48
Disputed: Partly · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Qurʾān calls Muhammad “the Messenger of God and the seal of the prophets” (khātam al-nabiyyīn).
Q 33:40
Disputed: No — regarding the wording · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Qurʾān speaks of some among the People of the Book distorting words from their places (yuḥarrifūna al-kalim).
Q 4:46; Q 5:13; Q 2:75
Disputed: No — regarding the wording · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Muslim scholars distinguish distortion of meaning (taḥrīf al-maʿnā) from alteration of the wording (taḥrīf al-lafẓ); Ibn Ḥazm (d. 1064) is the best-known classical proponent of extensive textual alteration of the Torah and the Gospels.
Ibn Ḥazm, al-Fiṣal
Disputed: No — regarding the history of the debate · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Qurʾān’s account of Ibrāhīm’s sacrifice does not name the son; Isḥāq’s birth is announced after it. Early authorities were divided on whether the son was Ismāʿīl or Isḥāq — al-Ṭabarī favoured Isḥāq — and later Sunni exegesis, notably Ibn Kathīr, settled on Ismāʿīl.
Q 37:100–113
Disputed: Partly · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Genesis says God will establish his covenant with Isaac, while Ishmael is blessed and will become a great nation.
Genesis 17:19–21; Genesis 21:12
Disputed: No — regarding what Genesis states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
In Genesis, God tells Abraham to offer “your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac”.
Genesis 22:2
Disputed: No · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Paul writes that those who are of faith are the children of Abraham, and that those who belong to Christ are Abraham’s offspring.
Galatians 3:7; Galatians 3:29; Romans 4:16
Disputed: No — regarding what Paul writes · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Rabbinic law allows a convert to call Abraham “our father”, since Abraham is “the father of a multitude of nations”; Maimonides rules the same in his letter to Obadiah the Proselyte.
y. Bikkurim 1:4; Maimonides, Letter to Obadiah the Proselyte
Disputed: No — regarding the rulings · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The heirs of Ibrāhīm are those who follow his religion, and the message given to Muhammad restores the religion of Ibrāhīm (millat Ibrāhīm), confirming and safeguarding earlier revelation.
Q 3:67; Q 3:68; Q 16:123; Q 2:124
Disputed: Yes — between traditions · Review: Awaiting editorial review
God’s covenant with Abraham passes through Isaac and Jacob to Israel; those who join Israel become children of Abraham, but the covenant line itself is not defined by belief alone.
Genesis 17:19–21; Genesis 21:12; y. Bikkurim 1:4
Disputed: Yes — between traditions · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Abraham’s heirs are those who share his faith, whatever their descent; the promise is fulfilled in Christ.
Galatians 3:7; Galatians 3:29; Romans 4:16
Disputed: Yes — between traditions · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Muhammad is the last of the prophets: prophethood ends with him, and no revelation after the Qurʾān is binding.
Q 33:40
Disputed: Yes — within and between traditions · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Doctrine and Covenants 13 presents John the Baptist conferring the Priesthood of Aaron on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.
D&C 13:1
Disputed: No — regarding what the text states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Doctrine and Covenants 27 says Peter, James and John ordained Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery apostles; section 128 recalls their voice declaring the keys of the kingdom.
D&C 27:12; D&C 128:20
Disputed: No — regarding what the current text states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The passage of Doctrine and Covenants 27 that names Peter, James and John is absent from the revelation as printed in the 1833 Book of Commandments and first appears in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.
Book of Commandments (1833) ch. 28; Doctrine and Covenants (1835) sec. 50
Disputed: No — regarding the printed texts · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The earliest narrative accounts of priesthood restoration date from the 1830s: Joseph Smith’s history of about 1832 refers to the ministering of angels and the reception of the high priesthood, and Oliver Cowdery’s 1834 letter describes the angel’s ordination in detail.
Joseph Smith, History (c. 1832); Messenger and Advocate 1, no. 1 (October 1834)
Disputed: Partly · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Doctrine and Covenants 107 names two priesthoods, the Melchizedek and the Aaronic, and explains that the higher is called after Melchizedek to avoid too frequent repetition of the name of the Supreme Being.
D&C 107:1–4
Disputed: No — regarding what the text states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Doctrine and Covenants 84 traces a priesthood lineage in which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek.
D&C 84:6–17
Disputed: No — regarding what the text states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Book of Mormon presents Melchizedek as a high priest and king of Salem, and speaks of high priests ordained “after the order of his Son”.
Alma 13:14–19; Alma 13:16
Disputed: No — regarding what the text states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
The Book of Abraham promises that Abraham’s seed will bear the priesthood and the gospel to all nations, and that all who receive the gospel will be counted as his seed.
Abraham 2:9–11
Disputed: No — regarding what the text states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Latter-day Saint scripture records Joseph Smith being told that the churches of his day were all wrong, and declares that people had strayed from God’s ordinances and broken his everlasting covenant.
Joseph Smith—History 1:19; D&C 1:15
Disputed: No — regarding what the texts state · Review: Awaiting editorial review
After the deaths of the apostles, priesthood authority was lost from the earth (the Great Apostasy), so that it had to be restored.
Joseph Smith—History 1:19; D&C 1:15
Disputed: Yes · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Priesthood authority was restored by angelic conferral — the Aaronic by John the Baptist, the Melchizedek by Peter, James and John — and is transmitted by ordination from that restoration.
D&C 13:1; D&C 27:12; D&C 107:1–4
Disputed: Yes · Review: Awaiting editorial review
In Matthew, Jesus says he will build his church on “this rock” and that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:18
Disputed: No — regarding what the text states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
1 Clement says the apostles appointed bishops and deacons and gave instructions that, when these died, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.
1 Clement 42–44
Disputed: No — regarding what the letter states · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Irenaeus appeals to the succession of bishops in the churches founded by apostles, listing the bishops of Rome, as the guarantee of apostolic teaching.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.1–3
Disputed: No — regarding what Irenaeus argues · Review: Awaiting editorial review
Apostolic authority has continued without interruption through the succession of bishops; no general loss of authority occurred, so none needed restoring.
1 Clement 42–44; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.1–3; Lumen Gentium 20
Disputed: Yes · Review: Awaiting editorial review