1St Century Christian

[Ron Beron]

The other day I was having a very brief conversation with my phlebotomist (blood drawer) and found out she is a Mormon. She also stated that she was a 1st century Christian. I understood what she was saying, but I wondered what exactly that term entailed. So, I was wondering what the members of this board would classify those qualities that make up a 1st century Christian in or out of light of being LDS?

[3DOP]

I would be confident she meant that believing what she does today as an LDS, would be familiar to 1st Century Christians.

I would not be able to say it quite that way as a Catholic. My view of the Body of Christ, the Church, is like any other living organism, it is growing unto maturity. We can't always recognize each other from our baby pictures. Our doctrines and practices developed and progressed over the centuries. Today is the feast day of St. Irenaeus in the new calendar, (July 3 in the old), a second century apologist who gave the outline for how we must look to the previous generations and retain their beliefs and practices, adding nothing contrary. I would be hopeful that with some difficulties, the first century saints would be able to connect the dots and be happily amazed with the results.

This is for you Ron Beron who asked about "in or out of light of being LDS". I hope no one else wants to challenge my beliefs because I will not be here to defend them until next week. I just thought it was important to admit that ancient Catholics would have to connect dots. I do not believe that the "latter-day church" (heh.) is supposed to look like the infant church. It would take discernment. I believe they would do best by understanding that modern Rome has maintained the ecclesiastical hierarchy with which they are familiar, and a priestly order that can only be propagated by the laying on of hands of the bishops. They would recognize the sacramental theology that has been maintained for nearly 2,000 years.

Regards,

3DOP

Edited June 28, 2012 by 3DOP

[Damien the Leper]

I think it is a fascinating claim for her to make. I'm not arguing against it but it is interesting.

I'm curious as to whether or not a 1st Century Christian would agree with her theological beliefs.

[rameumptom]

I wouldn't consider us 1st century Christians, as we have continuing revelation, etc. I would call us Latter-day Saints, with many similar beliefs, ordinances, etc., as had the 1st century Church.

[BCSpace]

The apostasy was in full force in the 1st century though the authority could have persisted beyond John the Revelator for another 50-70 years imho. One of the first things to go was baptism by immersion; not that it disappeared but that sprinkling and other forms (like trine) became accepted. But if you take all the LDS-like doctrine that existed between the 1st and 4th centuries, it is no stretch to suppose that, doctrinally at least, the Church was very much like ours is today so as to be difficult to tell the difference. Remember of course that is in the doctrinal sense. The early Church does not seem to have had Boy Scouts, Relief Society, or Jell-O, etc.

[Ron Beron]

Let me offer some clarification, at least as I see it.

First century Christians under James believed in...

• A historical Jesus
  
• Laws based on the Torah
  
• Jesus, resurrected, and to return as the Messiah
  
• Initiation of an epoch of universal peace and the Kingdom of God
  
• A religion of Jesus
  
• Continued temple service
  
• Continued prophecy
  

Late 1st and 2nd century Christianity...

• Belief in the teachings of Paul and his vision of Christ as a cosmic figure
  
• A mystical experience of Jesus as opposed to a historical one.
  
• Salvation through faith
  
• End of prophecy
  
• End of the Law
  
• Religion about Christ not of Him
  

There are probably many more differences, but for brevity I posted just a few.

[Ron Beron]

This is for you Ron Beron who asked about "in or out of light of being LDS". I hope no one else wants to challenge my beliefs because I will not be here to defend them until next week. I just thought it was important to admit that ancient Catholics would have to connect dots. I do not believe that the "latter-day church" (heh.) is supposed to look like the infant church. It would take discernment. I believe they would do best by understanding that modern Rome has maintained the ecclesiastical hierarchy with which they are familiar, and a priestly order that can only be propagated by the laying on of hands of the bishops. They would recognize the sacramental theology that has been maintained for nearly 2,000 years.

Regards,

3DOP

I look forward to discussing this with you when you return. I was Catholic for many years and, in fact, considered entering the priesthood at one time so, while I respect the roots I grew up with, I still have some differences in theology.

[CASteinman]

I think it is a fascinating claim for her to make. I'm not arguing against it but it is interesting.

I'm curious as to whether or not a 1st Century Christian would agree with her theological beliefs.

It is virtually impossible for her to be a 1st Century Christian. She would have to be over 1900 years old. Think of the wrinkles.

[CASteinman]

There are probably many more differences, but for brevity I posted just a few.

I don';t believe your characterizations are correct.

[Darren10]

It is virtually impossible for her to be a 1st Century Christian. She would have to be over 1900 years old. Think of the wrinkles.

She could be one of the Three Nephites in disguise.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

I wouldn't consider us 1st century Christians, as we have continuing revelation, etc. I would call us Latter-day Saints, with many similar beliefs, ordinances, etc., as had the 1st century Church.

She would probably have doctrines such as Jesus (and the Holy Ghost) being in subordination to the Father, The Father and Son being "two gods", the deification of man, and perhaps other "smaller doctrines" such as being married even after death.

[Ron Beron]

I don';t believe your characterizations are correct.

How so? The differences between Jewish Christianity and the later Gentile Christianity are fairly dramatic and significant. Bart Ehrman, Barrie Wilson, Rodney Stark, James Dunn, et al all show a major shift away from the Jewish/Christian teachings of Jesus and the apostles with the subsequent Hellenized teachings of Paul and the patricians.

[CASteinman]

How so? The differences between Jewish Christianity and the later Gentile Christianity are fairly dramatic and significant. Bart Ehrman, Barrie Wilson, Rodney Stark, James Dunn, et al all show a major shift away from the Jewish/Christian teachings of Jesus and the apostles with the subsequent Hellenized teachings of Paul and the patricians.

Ehrman, Wilson, Stark, Dunn, et al have all been deceived -- most notably by Marcion.

[Ron Beron]

Ehrman, Wilson, Stark, Dunn, et al have all been deceived -- most notably by Marcion.

Really? Have you ever read any of them? Ehrman as well as the rest are not big fans of Marcion since Marcion was a big fan of Paul.

“There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." Arthur Conan Doyle.

[Bernard Gui]

"Do your best to meet more often..."

Ignatius to the Ephesians

Article of Faith #14

‘We believe in meetings—all that have been held, all that are now scheduled—

and we believe there will yet be held many great and important meetings.

We have endured many meetings and hope to be able to endure all meetings.

If there is a meeting, we seek after it.’

Boyd Packer to the Mormons

Bernard

[CASteinman]

Really? Have you ever read any of them? Ehrman as well as the rest are not big fans of Marcion since Marcion was a big fan of Paul.

“There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." Arthur Conan Doyle.

You don't have to be a big fan of Marcion to have been deceived by him. In my view *most* modern Marcionites condemn him as apostate while they drink his milk.

[Ron Beron]

You don't have to be a big fan of Marcion to have been deceived by him. In my view *most* modern Marcionites condemn him as apostate while they drink his milk.

True enough, but Maricon was an advocate of Paul and Paul has been diminished in the study of Jewish Christianity by most of those I have mentioned above. Barrie Wilson, author of How Jesus Became Christian, writes that Paul was an adherent of Jesus to the diaspora Jew and gentile and didn't reflect the earthly teachings of Jesus. !st century Christians were more likely to reflect a law-centered approach to the gospel.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Having read most of the aforesaid authors, I see no acceptance of Marcion or any other early Christian view in any of those authors. They can't have been deceived, they take no one particular singular stance from any Christian view, the authors aren't Christians with a dog in the fight, but scholars and historians who are simply explaining the history......

[CASteinman]

True enough, but Maricon was an advocate of Paul and Paul has been diminished in the study of Jewish Christianity by most of those I have mentioned above. Barrie Wilson, author of How Jesus Became Christian, writes that Paul was an adherent of Jesus to the diaspora Jew and gentile and didn't reflect the earthly teachings of Jesus. !st century Christians were more likely to reflect a law-centered approach to the gospel.

Paul was a 1st Century Christian.

Frankly, although I have read such books (and like to read them), I am not especially impressed by such books as you are (and obviously others are as well). I have never considered them to have wonderful insights -- and sometimes they go right off the rail.

Modern revelation is more helpful than they are and some of the specific nonsense that I either reject outright or consider to be a gross distortion of reality but which is bought into lock stock and barrel by the authors of these books and their gullible acolytes include such ideas as:

• Jesus' teachings were not unique to Him -- that they were known before -- so there is nothing special about Him
  
• The Book of John is false
  
• Jesus was just an ordinary Jew
  
• Jesus did not start a Church
  
• Paul was a renegade teaching another (but vastly superior) Gospel
  

And the one thing I never see anyone of these authors explore is:

1. We owe the existence of our canon to Marcion
   
2. The impact (therefore) of Marcion on our perceptions of those times and the value of Paul over Christ.
   

[CASteinman]

I see no acceptance of Marcion or any other early Christian view in any of those authors.

One does not have to accept, acknowledge or even have ever heard of Marcion to be deceived by him.

They can't have been deceived,..

That's hilarious. Now I know you are kidding around.

[Ron Beron]

CASteinman' states....

Paul was a 1st Century Christian.

As I had stated, yet he was not of the Jewish Christians. He assumed a role, whether through call or aspiration we can probably never know with certainty, to bring the gospel to the gentiles, but along the way he robbed the teachings of Jesus from their original meaning and added some along the way.

Jesus' teachings were not unique to Him -- that they were known before -- so there is nothing special about Him

This was not a teaching of the Jewish Christians nor of many of the aforementioned academics

The Book of John is false

I'll go one better. All of the the synoptic gospels were written by people other than the apostles. Does it make them false? No, just forged (quoting Ehrman)

Jesus did not start a Church

A church? No, but a movement. Why establish a church when Jesus was to return within their lifetimes? The idea of a church as a structure and ecclesiastical authority came much later.

Paul was a renegade teaching another (but vastly superior) Gospel

I am not sure about the idea of him being a renegade, but certainly a rogue disciple. One doesn't need scholars to determine that. Just read Acts.

We owe the existence of our canon to Marcion

The impact (therefore) of Marcion on our perceptions of those times and the value of Paul over Christ.

Marcion, while a player had little impact on the final rendering of the canon. With the exception of Pauline Epistles, Marcion delegated the rest of the writings to outbox. Marcion was marginalized by later church leaders as a heretic and while he did promote Paul he was slowly dismissed as real founder of Christian thought...

Unlike other early “heretical” movements such as Gnosticism, the practices of Marcionite churches strongly resembled those in proto-orthodox circles. Marcionite groups performed baptisms and celebrated the Eucharist. Their meetings were organized in an effort to draw adherents from orthodox groups. Some have concluded that in certain places Marcionites outnumbered the orthodox. The very fact that so many early Christian writers (e.g., Justin, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus) felt compelled to refute Marcion’s ideas is a testimony to the sway he held within Christian circles. His influence did not abate immediately after his death, either. The testimony of Epiphanius shows that Marcionite thought was still widespread in the middle of the fourth century. It is not long after this time, though, that its influence wanes.

[CASteinman]

As I had stated, yet he was not of the Jewish Christians.

And yet he says he was. This may seem weird to you, but I think Paul is more of an expert on Paul than you are. And other so-called experts have even insisted that Paul was all Jewish and not "Christian". Pick your doctrinal poison.

This was not a teaching of the Jewish Christians nor of many of the aforementioned academics

It is a teaching or an assumption behind the works of many of these so-called experts and is part of the paradigm that Paul taught the truth while the Jewish Christians (who actually knew Jesus) did not.

I'll go one better. All of the the synoptic gospels were written by people other than the apostles. Does it make them false? No, just forged (quoting Ehrman)

Also a false belief.

A church? No, but a movement. Why establish a church when Jesus was to return within their lifetimes? The idea of a church as a structure and ecclesiastical authority came much later.

And yet Jesus says he started a Church. This may seem odd to you but I consider Jesus more of an authority on this matter than you.

I am not sure about the idea of him being a renegade, but certainly a rogue disciple. One doesn't need scholars to determine that. Just read Acts.

Ahh.. so you go further than saying he is heterodox, non-traditional or even rebellious and move right on into him being a con-man and a liar. Interesting. No wonder you misread acts so easily.

Marcion, while a player had little impact on the final rendering of the canon.

If only that were true. But he who sets the agenda and collects the materials has a great deal of influence on the meeting and its outcome.

[Ron Beron]

'CASteinman' writes...

And yet he says he was. This may seem weird to you, but I think Paul is more of an expert on Paul than you are. And other so-called experts have even insisted that Paul was all Jewish and not "Christian". Pick your doctrinal poison.

He was Jewish by birth and training, but not by his future intent. Any interpretation on your part is simply out of context of the times. We only have Paul's word, but we also have the words of James as reported in Acts. Paul was a distinct outsider to the other apostles. Paul was full of contradictions it is hard to determine what side he was batting for...

• “All who rely on works of the law are under a curse” (Galatians 3:10).

• “No one is justified before God by the law” (Galatians 3:11).

• “For [some manuscripts add ‘in Christ Jesus’] neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation is everything!” (Galatians 6:15).

• “No human being will be justified in his [God’s] sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20).

• “Israel, who pursued righteousness based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law” (Romans 9:31).

• “But their minds were hardened. Indeed, for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil is still there, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day, whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds” (2 Corinthians 3:14–15).

II. Pro-Israel:

• “What is the advantage of the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way” (Romans 3:1).

• “Do we not overthrow the Law by this notion of faith? By no means. On the contrary, we uphold the Law” (Romans 3:31).

• “What shall we say? That the Law is sin? By no means” (Romans 7:7).

• “Thus the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12).

• “To the Israelites belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the Temple, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ” (Romans 9:4).

• “Has God rejected his people? By no means” (Romans 11:1).

• “All Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26).

• “Is the Law then opposed to the promises of God. Certainly not!” (Galatians 3:21).

It is a teaching or an assumption behind the works of many of these so-called experts and is part of the paradigm that Paul taught the truth while the Jewish Christians (who actually knew Jesus) did not.

Some scholars do while others do not. I feel he taught a perversion of the gospel and helped herald in the apostasy.

Also a false belief.

Opinion, but where's the evidence behind your assertion?

And yet Jesus says he started a Church. This may seem odd to you but I consider Jesus more of an authority on this matter than you.

Where did he say this? The word church in the NT is not a building, a structure, or orthodox hierarchy, but a term for the believers.

Ahh.. so you go further than saying he is heterodox, non-traditional or even rebellious and move right on into him being a con-man and a liar. Interesting. No wonder you misread acts so easily.

I wouldn't go so far as to say he was con-man simply an hedonist who believed he was right and everyone else was wrong. How have I misread Acts? Proof?

If only that were true. But he who sets the agenda and collects the materials has a great deal of influence on the meeting and its outcome.

That doesn't change truth only slants it. If the U.S. had not collectively won WWII we would be having a different world view today.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

One does not have to accept, acknowledge or even have ever heard of Marcion to be deceived by him.

That's hilarious. Now I know you are kidding around.

Well hey, I gotta make ya laugh sometimes ya know......

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Paul was NOT a first century CHRISTIAN........ he was purely JEW all his life...... er that is unless he invoked his Roman citizenship...... or became a gentile when it suited his purposes, after all he did say to the Jew he was a Jew, to the Gentile he was a Gentile, etc. You know, the ends justify the means.....

Edited June 30, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts