Is there evidence of the Apostasy?

[juliann]

From reading those texts, and other snippits of very early reporting, I have come

away with the impression that the very earliest "Christian" religion was probably far

less Pauline than what most students of the Bible might expect -- also, that there may

have been a kind of messianic Judaism which Pauline/Petrine Christianity has almost

completely obscured (and anathematized as "Ebionism").

I think that the NT has to reconstructed. The texts were written for insiders and much was assumed. I doubt that we have the real Paul...we certainly do not have the complete Paul. Paul's life of works was his theology and Paul has been turned into a bumper sticker for cheap grace. I don't find these dueling apostle discussions useful. There were obviously communities and each community had its own take on things...thus, the differences in the gospels.

Probably there is a scholarbable term for my sort of restorationist inquiry -- but I find

very few kindred souls within Latter Day Saintism, as the focus here seems to be

entirely upon the post-Pentecost "church," without reference to what went on before

that, in the various Jesus-follower groups.

Uncle, you really, really have to read Barker. That is exactly what she is doing and she is right in sync with LDS scholarship...which surprised her as much as anyone else. She is zoning right in on what she calls "temple theology" and this is a perfect fit for the idea that the apostasy was the rejection of covenant.

[Hyrum Page]

Not only that...there is no "theology" in the NT or the OT.  All one can do is try to reconstruct...and then you have to decide what your criteria for picking out a religion is going to be.  Everybody can tag on and read their religion back into one century or another.  The reason Mormonism is not given recognition is because the Apostolic Fathers were considered to be unsophisticated and thus...ignored as being a part of a primitive and unformed religion.  The dominant Protestant scholarship saw the elegant philosophies and treatises as identifying true and meaningful religion.  That did not begin until the 3rd century or so.

So just finding your theology in ancient writings is rather meaningless in and of itself.

For what it is worth, I agree with you completely. I am driven to distraction by "Christians" who argue, as though it were demonstrable fact, that creedal Christianity is implicit in the NT canonand other early Christian literature. It makes absolutely no sense to me that one should assume that those who were further from the first formation of the Christian Church were more correct in their understanding of it because they had greater facility with NeoPlatonism and Demosthenes/Cicero.

Certainly if one assumes that Protestant and Catholic belief systems are the only acceptable forms of Christianity, then Mormonism is not Christian. What makes the assumption correct? Nothing that I can see.

[juliann]

Certainly if one assumes that Protestant and Catholic belief systems are the only acceptable forms of Christianity, then Mormonism is not Christian. What makes the assumption correct? Nothing that I can see.

What is happening at an accelerated pace is that biblical priority is being thrown out. That means that the gnostics and all of the other "out" groups are being let back on the playing field. This is not good for conventional Christianity. The thing that bugs the heck out of me is reading older books from even liberal scholars that have chapter headings like "The Triumph of Christianity"...as if it was a given that their customary way of eliminating everything else meant they had found the legitimate "Christianity" that had valiantly forged its own path. It was created.

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle, you really, really have to read Barker. That is exactly what she is doing and she is right in sync with LDS scholarship...which surprised her as much as anyone else. She is zoning right in on what she calls "temple theology" and this is a perfect fit for the idea that the apostasy was the rejection of covenant.

Just as long as I can read her without having to dust off my Koine word-book.

My line is inquiry is primarily low Christology, with Jesus "acting out" messianic

expecations -- not so much to "fulfill all righteouness," as to catch the eyes and ears

of those around him, for a specific Gospel purpose.

However, by "low Christology," I do not mean so much to dwell upon Jesus' humanity

as I do to transfer messiahship to the covenant community -- as parallelling the usual

Jewish interptations of the suffering servant of Isaiah and the son of man of Daniel,

being representative of the entire "congregation/ecclesia."

Other than the Pauline "body of Christ," I'm not aware of sort of joint-messiahship

existing among the early Jesus followers --- though I expect I might find it in the

"Q" community, if nowhere else.

Your study suggestions are very much welcome.

Uncle Dale

[BCSpace]

Perhaps you meant verse 15? They were killed. Saints all dead. Overcome. By your own logic...Apostasy. 

Apostasy isn't being dead or overcome. It is rebellion.

True enough.

I certainly wasn't agreeing with his assessment of the verse, I was however simply pointing out that it's the same effect (no Church) according to his logic. In that sense (the effect of no Church) Apostasy and his definitions were the exactly same.

[juliann]

From Barker's Temple Theology: An Introduction,

Jesus was presented as the high priest from the first temple; Melchizedek returned to his people.  The restoration of the first temple was the hope of the first Christians, and to set them, their writings and their presentation of Jesus anywhere else than in the temple setting distorts  what they were preaching and misrepresents the original gospel.  (p 1)

Jesus is seen as the high priest of the first temple. His atonement is the blood offering of the first atonement...and so on. Barker has even reconstructed the 1st temple ritual to be one of the story of creation. hmmm On pg 39,

The priestly covenant manifests itself as the laws and the statutes, and when these are broken, the earth withers away and the creation collapses. 

She is talking of the OT but it would be no different in the NT...thus, the "apostasy" was the breaking and loss of "statutes"...the same as in OT times. Conventional Christianity has been so successful in eliminating temple that I doubt most people are aware of how much time the apostles spent in the temple after Christ's death. Even the corrupted temple had meaning to them for some reason.

So all of this is in Barker's books....she has a lot of them. Most are quick and easy reads and they tend to repeat themselves. I think you will be astonished at what you see from an English woman who has used noncanonical texts to reconstruct a theology that actually explains Mormon theology.

[Abulafia]

Ever read the pseudo-Clementine texts?

Yes. I've probably read about every non-canonical text that is published. The "apostasy" was in full swing while the bible texts were being written....that is obvious, to me at least. Corinthians and Galatians have the psuedo-apostle references which no one has been able to figure out. Paul's last letter makes it clear he has lost and feels alone. "Apostasy" is a very fuzzy term that I do not find to be very helpful.

From reading those texts, and other snippits of very early reporting, I have come

away with the impression that the very earliest "Christian" religion was probably far

less Pauline than what most students of the Bible might expect -- also, that there may

have been a kind of messianic Judaism which Pauline/Petrine Christianity has almost

completely obscured (and anathematized as "Ebionism").

When I hear the term "restoration" bantered about, I am less interested in attempts to

"restore" apostolic Christianity, than I am in exploring what the Gospel message was

before Paul came along and wrote his influential letters.

Probably there is a scholarbable term for my sort of restorationist inquiry -- but I find

very few kindred souls within Latter Day Saintism, as the focus here seems to be

entirely upon the post-Pentecost "church," without reference to what went on before

that, in the various Jesus-follower groups.

I wonder, if seated at the feet of James the Just, say, in about 45 CE, whether I would

have heard the theology evident in the Pauline epistles ---- or, perhaps something else?

Uncle Dale

Yes! Yes!

This is my impression also Uncle Dale.

Abulafia

[Abulafia]

Interesting thread.

[Kevin Christensen]

From Barker's The Gate of Heaven, p 101.

"With a knowledge of the traditions and beliefs about the temple and Eden which survived only in other sources, however, it is possible to begin to appreciate some of the insights of the earliest Christian teachers who wrote within the original Jewish heritage of Christianity. So much of this faded when Christianity passed into a non-Jewish setting and took on Greek ways of thinking. Theology then became more a matter of words, and less of pictures. Definition replaced vision."

Plain and precious things being lost, and then restored via recent document finds, just as in 1 Nephi 13.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[johndoe]

SteubieU, there is an online debate between Steve Clifford (Catholic) and Barry Bickmore (LDS) that goes over this question though its main premise is a bit different. You might want to read through it.

Who Holds the Keys? Pope or Prophet

[Smith]

If one reads about the history of Chritianity and compares what the "church" is now to what it used to be I cannot see how an apostacy cannot be observed. The mere fact that there are thousands of "denominations" to me lends huge weight to that premise.

My next thought is that, if God(Christ) established the church then surely it ought to remain as he established it. Man surely has no right to make changes as he sees fit. Even a democratic majority has no say compared to Gods will. So the next question in my mind is, have the changes that have taken place over the millenia been under God's direction? I dont see much evidence for that. If they have been then why is there so much confusion? So if these changes have not been instructed by God clearly there is an apostacy.

My 2c

[Nisfor]

Juliann,

We look at the Bible and earliest records....the sudden silence in the 1st century which ends with competing theologians squabbling and trying to set up the right doctrine.

Look at the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, and the Doctrine and Covenants. The suddent silence (i.e. - lack of "revelations" (other than "Adam/God" and other stuff labelled "just opinion" today) and "translations" of new scripture). Look at the "competing theologians squabbling and trying to set up the right doctrine" after Joseph Smith. Brigham Young, Jesse Strang, Sidney Rigdon, William Law, William Bickner, etc. all founded their own "sects" of Mormonism.

Couldn't Jesus set up a religion that would not turn into a completely different creature the minute he was gone? 

The modern LDS church isn't the same as the early LDS church.

Most of all...where was the head of the church when the theologians were writing their treatises trying to convince everyone of the "right" theology?  Nobody was home...obviously.  If there was anybody there with any authority he would have settled the arguments. 

It's your assumption that Christianity requires any "one true church" "laying on of hands" "head of the church" type "authority".

Thus,  the church fractured into competing sects and was not brought back together until those in power aligned with political leaders and used force.  This is not how Christ operated.

It's how the LDS church operated.

Smith,

If one reads about the history of Chritianity and compares what the "church" is now to what it used to be I cannot see how an apostacy cannot be observed. The mere fact that there are thousands of "denominations" to me lends huge weight to that premise.

Again, same with the LDS church. There are multiple "denominations" of "Mormons", just as their are of "mainstream Christians". The current LDS church is different from the early LDS church.

My next thought is that, if God(Christ) established the church then surely it ought to remain as he established it.

Has the LDS church remained as "God established it"?

Man surely has no right to make changes as he sees fit. Even a democratic majority has no say compared to Gods will. So the next question in my mind is, have the changes that have taken place over the millenia been under God's direction? I dont see much evidence for that.  If they have been then why is there so much confusion?

So what's up with the LDS doctrine of "common consent"? And how can you be sure that all the changes to the LDS church have been "under God's direction"? Why is there so much "confusion" in the LDS church if it's "under God's direction"? (i.e. look at all the "questioning" (oops - I mean "anti") people here...)

So if these changes have not been instructed by God clearly there is an apostacy.

Juliann, Smith,

If you're going to assume "apostacy" in the early church based on these things - how can you not assume "apostacy" in these "Latter-Days"?

(edited to fix quote blocks...)

[Smith]

Smith,

If one reads about the history of Chritianity and compares what the "church" is now to what it used to be I cannot see how an apostacy cannot be observed. The mere fact that there are thousands of "denominations" to me lends huge weight to that premise.

Again, same with the LDS church. There are multiple "denominations" of "Mormons", just as their are of "mainstream Christians". The current LDS church is different from the early LDS church.

Yes the LDS church isnt exactly the same as it was when established but how can a 6 member startup be the same as a 12 million result? We however have continuing revelation whereas the earlier fellows claimed the heavens were closed. Now if the heavens were closed who said it was OK to baptise babies? as an example. But if the heavens are open and they instruct changes then we'd better see to them. If they give us further knowledge or instruction we had better follow it.

So what's up with the LDS doctrine of "common consent"?  And how can you be sure that all the changes to the LDS church have been "under God's direction"?  Why is there so much "confusion" in the LDS church if it's "under God's direction"? (i.e. look at all the "questioning" (oops - I mean "anti") people here...)

You are entitled to personal revelation and you have to pay the price to get it and if you are not willing to do so, as I see many arent, then you arent going to get it.

Juliann, Smith,

If you're going to assume "apostacy" in the early church based on these things - how can you not assume "apostacy" in these "Latter-Days"?

If you are saying that there has been apostacy in our time too then I would be in full agreement with you, if that not what you are saying then please illucidate.

[SteubieU]

Just by way of making sure that everyone is on the same page, we have three different groups here. I will try to enunciate the differences so that we are all on the same page.

Mormons and Catholic agree that there is and was a hierarchical structure to the Church with a particular person called to lead the early Church, with a "quorum" or group who has a secondary though extremely important leadership role: the successors of the apostles as it were. This succession was passed down by the laying on of hands. We agree that there is supposed to be one institutional church that is to be unified in body.

Catholic and Protesants agree (or at least are much closer in agreement) on all of the mainstream Christian ideas about the nature of God and Jesus Christ.

The only thing the Mormons and Protestants agree on is that the Catholics are wrong.

[rhinomelon]

As far as a biblical basis for the apostasy, this was a recent topic of study for me. I was quite surprised to find a great deal of biblical testimony regarding a quite healthy and growing church, not the struggling and apostasizing church the LDS describe.

And I do agree with SteubieU's opening assertion. Without the Great Apostasy, the LDS church has no foundation to stand on. This was an issue that bugged me for a long time, but after finally addressing it, I am quite amazed at the overall picture of the early church that emerges. And it does not line up with the rather pessimistic picture the LDS must have in order to make their church necessary.

And I am also confused as to the "1st century silence" someone mentioned earlier. Given that there isn't much of a gap at all between the dates of the New Testament books and the first writings of the apostolic fathers we have, what gap could we possibly be referring to that would hide such a huge turnaround in the faithfulness of the church? We have writings from the direct disciples of the apostles, so where is there enough time to lose true Christianity?

More later. Take care, everyone

EDIT:

The only thing the Mormons and Protestants agree on is that the Catholics are wrong.

And even there I think Protestants are now much more sympathetic (in general, as there are always holdouts) to Catholicism. I certainly gain a great deal from Catholic writings and teachings.

[Bsix]

The idea of an apostacy was evident to me before I ever heard of the LDS Church. Hence, I don't think of the apostacy as Mormon concept. When I learned of the LDS notion of an apostacy, I thought to myself: "They have it right."

It is not my intent to tear down other relgions, but if you were to ask me what I thought (before ever hearing of the Mormons) a list of evidences are for an apostacy, I would have said:

1. The doctrine of the Trinity. A heresy, pure and simple.

2. Closed scripture. Why did God stop talking?

3. No more prophets. This is very similar to the closed scripture issue.

4. Faith-only salvation. This is a heresy taught by many Protestants.

5. Salvation offered only to those who are lucky enough to hear of Jesus Christ in this life.

6. Schisms. You can't swing a dead cat in the Christian world without hitting a denomination of one flavor or antother.

7. The ecclesiastical caste. I'm not talking about supporting a few leading leaders etc. ...but the development of an entire professional ministerial caste -- which is unbiblical and unChristian.)

8. Secular corruptions. This refers to the general state of Christianity as it relates to how the Church connects to the regular world -- wars, indulgences, inquisitions, child-sex scandals, TV Ministry fakery, commercialization, etc. etc. etc.

9. The Catholic Church. Apologies up front, but Catholicism claims to be the direct heir and owner of Christianity -- and from my point of view does not look anything like Biblical Christianity. I just don't see it's system of a celebate ministry, ministerial class, praying to Saints, Mary veneration, and various other issues.

10. Protestantism. This is related to schisms...but this is the mother of all schisms. If Christianity were not broken and lost...why would there be a need for a Protestant Church.

Now, with those criticisms made...I want to say that Traditional Christians are wonderful sincere people. I rarely if ever attempt to debunk or list arguments against their religion. While I think that there was an apostacy, I think the people in the Churches are very sincere.

Regards,

Six

[Smith]

Without the Great Apostasy, the LDS church has no foundation to stand on.

It should continue to bug you because without continuing prophetic revelation "the church" has no leg to stand on! There are way to many changes introduced by men without Gods approval for anything else to be the case.

[SteubieU]

Now, with those criticisms made...I want to say that Traditional Christians are wonderful sincere people. I rarely if ever attempt to debunk or list arguments against their religion. While I think that there was an apostacy, I think the people in the Churches are very sincere.

Thank you very much for acknolwedging that, and I would certainly acknowledge the same about the LDS. The only two reasons I am so interested in LDS and in debating with LDS is because

#1 The idea of a great apostasy so directly contradicts the understanding of the Catholic Church about the foundations of the Church in the first centuries after the apostles.

#2 Many converts to LDS are from Catholicism.

[rhinomelon]

It should continue to bug you because without continuing prophetic revelation "the church" has no leg to stand on! There are way to many changes introduced by men without Gods approval for anything else to be the case.

I think it is one of the limitations of the LDS view that apparently God is only speaking if He is writing new authoritative scripture. How limiting...

[SteubieU]

It should continue to bug you because without continuing prophetic revelation "the church" has no leg to stand on! There are way to many changes introduced by men without Gods approval for anything else to be the case.

See, this is something that I don't understand. I understand why it could be seen as a plus if continuing revelation was part of the Church, but I don't understand the assertion that the Church cannot stand without it.

If we believe that God revealed everything in Jesus Christ, yet, as John says that if everything about Jesus could not be contained in an entire library, than it would stand to reason that what is left for the Church, besides proclaiming the gospel, is unpacking that revelation.

And that is what we find: a development of doctrine.

This may not be the thread for this discussion, but I don't see how development of doctrine is a problem. All it means is that there are certain revealed truths that the Church is given, and as more and more people come along and internalize these truths, the fuller meaning of them is unpacked. It also means that when more and more people are explaining these truths, it is inevitable that some people will make honest, though dangerous mistakes. Since we believe in an authority structure that is protected by God from making mistakes in doctrine, there is a solution to this problem: this authority structure clarifies what is true doctrine and what contradicts that fundamental revelation that we have been given.

Though I can see why you don't like the solution and why you disagree with it, I don't see how it is contradictory or nonsense.

[SteubieU]

All it means is that there are certain revealed truths that the Church is given, and as more and more people come along and internalize these truths, the fuller meaning of them is unpacked.

Let me give an example of this so that people can see what I mean.

The Bible reveals that Adam and Eve ate the fruit and that, as a result, a lot of bad consequences (even if they eventually led to a lot of good ones) happened. The Bible says that a woman was tempted by a serpent, she transgressed and then in some way caused her husband to transgress. (Later revelation clarifies that this serpent is the devil: see Rev. 12).

In the redemption, Mary was approached by an angel, and her "yes" in some way allowed for the Christ to be born, by whom all of humanity was saved.

Paul writes of Jesus as the "last Adam" in Romans 5.

Now, a writer of the second century, reflecting on these pieces of revelation, wrote:

"[Eve], having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve

[Uncle Dale]

I wonder, if seated at the feet of James the Just, say, in about 45 CE, whether I would

have heard the theology evident in the Pauline epistles ---- or, perhaps something else?

Uncle Dale

Yes! Yes!

This is my impression also Uncle Dale.

Abulafia

My impression is that Jesus rejected the kingly messiahship -- that he "acted out"

certain aspects of popular exepctations in that regard, but not with the purpose of

fulfilling biblical prophecy, as the Gospel according to Matthew would have us believe.

My impression is also that Jesus role-modeled a priestly messiahship, in which his

position was something rather like that of the head of Paul's "body of Christ." After

his death, his brother, James the Just, also filled this high priestly role and perhaps

even served as the "opposition" high priest in the Jeruslaem Temple for a period.

The question naturally rises -- how could have Jesus and James served as Zadokite

high priests, when they did not have the proper lineage for such a position? But I

think that the example had already been set by the Hasmonean priest-kings of a

previous century, who justified their non-Zadokite high priestly office by recourse to

the 110th psalm, which names Melchizedek as a sort of ultimate high priest, over and

above the neo-Zadokites of Herodian times.

If we think of Jesus as promoting the priestly messiahship and rejecting the kingly

messiahship, we are left with a metaphorical continuity of the "messiah" high priests

of the Persian and Seleucid occupations -- in which the non-Jewish civil authority was

tolerated, under expectations and hopes for a coming "restoration" of Davidic rule.

Only, as I said, I believe that Jesus rejected that Davidic political rule and pointed

instead, to the Kingship of YHWH, "Our Father in Heaven."

Jesus would have been seen as a rival to the Jerusalem Temple establishment, in

much the same way as the Qumranim were rivals -- but in his paradeigm the temple

in Jerusalem was ultimately unneccesary -- as he and his disciples ("Messiah")

brought the temple to the people (righteous and "sinners" alike) in person.

Possibly some of this will overlap Barker enough to draw Juliann's nod of the head.

Uncle Dale

[juliann]

Possibly some of this will overlap Barker enough to draw Juliann's nod of the head.

Not at all. The support for this is sparse...even the guy who pushed it (forget his name right now) is backing off. It never went anywhere in the scholarly world...and that is unusual because they are always looking for new stuff. There is another Australian scholar who went even further with it but that went unnoticed (except by TV). Not one Dead Sea Scrolls scholar that I am aware of tries to put the NT into Qumran.

[juliann]

This is an example of the development of doctrine. It is not a "new" doctrine in the sense that it came out of nowhere; instead, it is the result of an "unpacking" as it were of already accepted revelation. This is how doctrine develops. When a person's reflections are incorrect, they are told so by the Church.

And that is my point, Stuebie....there was no "church" setting them straight. That is simply undeniable...that is why Nicaea was necessary with an Emperor playing the apostle role. And even that did not stop the infighting. All I am asking is...where was the leader of "the church"? In order to maintain the idea that there was no black hole before Origen, et.al., arrived to argue over doctrine you have to be able to produce a living head. The Catholics are quite aware of this...thus, they create a lineage. This is the great flaw of Protestant theology...it springs from nowhere, it claims nothing except "reformation" of a corruption without grounding itself. The Reformation is an acting out of an "apostasy" all of its own. That is why the LDS version is troublesome...it puts Protestants between a rock and hard place because they have to say there was no apostasy on one hand...while they are a living demonstration of acting on apostasy on the other.

[rhinomelon]

Jesus would have been seen as a rival to the Jerusalem Temple establishment, in

much the same way as the Qumranim were rivals -- but in his paradeigm the temple

in Jerusalem was ultimately unneccesary -- as he and his disciples ("Messiah")

brought the temple to the people (righteous and "sinners" alike) in person.

This sounds similar in some ways to N.T. Wright's work on looking at Jesus in light of 1st century Judaism. Wright contends that many focal points of Jewish religion and practice (most notably the temple) were given new meaning in the ministry of Christ.

Take care, everyone