Galatians 1:6-9

[jkfrost]

I always thought that it was kinda weird that Paul would say that, when in fact that is the way Paul received his "gospel" (assuming divine investiture...)

I also always thought it weird that many of the critics here attack us because Joseph received his "gospel" the same way Paul did.

Didn't Paul know that visions were not a reliable way to receive revelation? A little bit of "do as I say but not as I do?"

Now wait a min - that is what I tell my kids!

do as I say but not as I do...

Divine investiture - good observation,

Paul in Gal 1 tells us "...the gospel which was preached

of me is not after man. "( and yet Paul and Joseph was a man )

"For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it,

but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

( perhaps they were mad )

It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was

that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was

doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should

be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great

ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit

of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was

often the cause of great sorrow to myself. However, it was nevertheless a fact that I

had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made

his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when

he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him;

some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and

reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he

knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise;

and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to

the last breath, that he had both seen a light, and heard a voice speaking unto him,

and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise. So it was with me.

I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two personages, and

they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying

that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling

me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say

in my heart, Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision,

and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me

deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that

God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it, at least I knew that by so

doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.

http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1

[Hoops22]

I always thought that it was kinda weird that Paul would say that, when in fact that is the way Paul received his "gospel" (assuming divine investiture...)

I also always thought it weird that many of the critics here attack us because Joseph received his "gospel" the same way Paul did.

Didn't Paul know that visions were not a reliable way to receive revelation? A little bit of "do as I say but not as I do?"

\

Because the church age is the last dispensation. How do we know? Jesus Christ. Therefor, where any prophecy differs from what has already been given, it is wrong.

[Ron Beron]

'Cold Steel' writes,

I'm not sure what you mean that Paul did not believe in works. By "works," there are two types:

By works I am referring specifically to the Mosaic Law.

Does that mean obedience is unnecessary? No. Jesus clearly said baptism was a required ordinance for gaining the kingdom of heaven. At the same time, one does not find salvation in baptism alone, but (as Joseph Smith said) in gaining the Spirit of God and dedicating one's self to Christ and then enduring to the end. It's only through the grace of Christ.

I would agree, but only for the sake of semantics. Grace grants us eternal lives. Salvation and reward within that life is granted by our obedience to the gospel.

The church came to the conclusion that the laborious requirements of the law were no longer necessary, only they did emphasize, as did Christ, that a man could not mutter God's blessings on the hungry, yet not feed them, nor could they say they had found Christ, yet not offer the helping hand to those in need. Joseph Smith repeatedly said that to gain the kingdom of heaven, one must be willing to lay down one's life and endure the slings and arrows of the Adversary.

By church what do you mean? Are you referring to the Jesus Movement in Jerusalem which stated the Mosaic Law was still in effect or the Christ Movement which was Pauline in origin and practice and denied any adherence to the Mosaic Law? If the latter then you are correct. If the former then I believe you are in error. As you well know this does include the modern restored church under JS.

[mfbukowski]

\

Because the church age is the last dispensation. How do we know? Jesus Christ. Therefor, where any prophecy differs from what has already been given, it is wrong.

And what evidence do you have for this? Where did Jesus say this?

[Cold Steel]

Because the church age is the last dispensation. How do we know? Jesus Christ. Therefore, where any prophecy differs from what has already been given, it is wrong.

And what evidence do you have for this? Where did Jesus say this?

Hoops, you've fallen in the old quagmire now. You see, there is no "church age." It's a figment of your imagination. On another thread I challenged you to show me any indication of such an age in scripture and it went unanswered. In short, you only answer at all when it won't take you but one or two lines of text. When you have to defend your pontifications, you just sort of...what's the word? Ah...vanish.

I would love any Protestant to show me where such a church age was supposed to exist. But what is the "church age" as you use it?

An age is not a dispensation because a dispensation supposes there is a dispensation from God, or revelation. An age is an era where there is no dispensation of revelation, and the term "church" indicates a vast, uneven group of manmade churches with no oversight by God. In other words, it's a sterile, clinical era of finely pressed vestments and throngs of people who go to church as they'd go to a movie. Pastors and priests rule their dominions, giving sermons each week without the benefit of inspiration and guidance from on High. And, of course, there's nothing in the Bible describing such an era at all. If so, where is it?

[Hoops22]

And what evidence do you have for this? Where did Jesus say this?

I think it's roundabout mt 18. That's a good place to start anyway.

[Hoops22]

Hoops, you've fallen in the old quagmire now. You see, there is no "church age." It's a figment of your imagination.

False.

On another thread I challenged you to show me any indication of such an age in scripture and it went unanswered. In short, you only answer at all when it won't take you but one or two lines of text. When you have to defend your pontifications, you just sort of...what's the word? Ah...vanish.

Sorry, I missed that, but I'll try and work more on your timetable then. Let's move on. Where is "church" even mentioned in the Bible. Only after Israel denied Jesus' Messiahship. That instituted a new program. The church age/age of Grace. Can you point ONE instance where the kingdom and church are used interchangably? They are not, because they are not the same thing.

I would love any Protestant to show me where such a church age was supposed to exist. But what is the "church age" as you use it?

From about mt 18 forward, when Jesus FIRST mentions church. Before that, there was not church, no redemption by teh blood of Christ, no way to draw in gentiles save by imputed righteousness. Paul was sent to gentiles to preach the church.

An age is not a dispensation because a dispensation supposes there is a dispensation from God, or revelation.

I'd not heard that. Can you give me a reference?

and the term "church" indicates a vast, uneven group of manmade churches with no oversight by God. In other words, it's a sterile, clinical era of finely pressed vestments and throngs of people who go to church as they'd go to a movie.

Any biblical support for this outlandish view? I'd love to see it.

Pastors and priests rule their dominions, giving sermons each week without the benefit of inspiration and guidance from on High. And, of course, there's nothing in the Bible describing such an era at all. If so, where is it?

That is nutty. What is it lds like to parrot? Something about never attacking other churches?

Just read anything by Paul.

[Ron Beron]

From about mt 18 forward, when Jesus FIRST mentions church. Before that, there was not church, no redemption by teh blood of Christ, no way to draw in gentiles save by imputed righteousness. Paul was sent to gentiles to preach the church.

The NT doesn't use church like moderns would sense the gathering together for worship would have been in a synagogue. The exact term used was ekklesia or simply "a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly". Before its mention in the NT it was used somewhat synonymously with synagogue. In the LXX which was written in Greek the OT records the following verses as meaning ekklesia

1. "Then all the children of Israel went out, and the congregation was gathered together as one man, from Dan even to Beersheba, with the land of Gilead, unto the LORD in Mizpeh." (Judg. 20:1)
   "And the chief of all the people, even of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, four hundred thousand footmen that drew sword." (Judg. 20:2)
2. "And the children of Israel said, Who is there among all the tribes of Israel that came not up with the congregation unto the LORD? For they had made a great oath concerning him that came not up to the LORD to Mizpeh, saying, He shall surely be put to death." (Judg. 21:5)
   "And they said, What one is there of the tribes of Israel that came not up to Mizpeh to the LORD? And, behold, there came none to the camp from Jabeshgilead to the assembly." (Judg. 21:
   "And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children." (Judg. 21:10)
   "And the whole congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon, and to call peaceably unto them." (Judg. 21:13)
   "Then the elders of the congregation said, How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?" (Judg. 21:16)
3. "I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest." (Ps. 40:9)
   "I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation." (Ps. 40:10)
4. "I was almost in all evil in the midst of the congregation and assembly." (Pr. 5:14)

There are about 264 more references to ekklesia used in the OT, but not in Hebrew only in Greek. In each case congregation and assembly is used. In the LXX these words are rendered into ekklesia. Obviously the meanings and usage of church are different than the meanings are today.

[mpschmitt]

I know this is nothing new, but I am honestly perplexed as to why this is not a bigger deal to those who accept the concept of a restoration of the gospel. From what I can see, the entirety of the LDS defense is that the BOM, D&C, POGP, and so on, are in no way beyond what was taught by the Apostles. But that is what blows me away. If, as claimed, precious and plain truths that were lost have been restored in these latter-days publications, then there would have to be teachings included that go beyond what we have in our incomplete Bibles. This is the very thing Paul seems to have been warning us against. Sure, there was more to be written after what Paul stated, but it all harmonized with everything that had been written up to the time of his letter to the Galatians. There was nothing vital to our salvation that was introduced for the first time like what we see in the restored/new gospels.

Hi Kenny,

Actually, when someone brings this scripture up as a demonstration that the LDS teaching is "another gospel", I like to ask them to continue reading to verse 12 and then ask the question, "So what was the Gospel that Paul advocated?" The answer of course being: that Gospel which is received "by the revelation of Jesus Christ", which is, incidentally, the same Gospel advocated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is a living, breathing Gospel, capable of responding to every need because it is given by direct revelation from Heaven from the Father, through the person of Jesus Christ (the Word), and delivered and confirmed upon the saints by the power and witness of the Holy Ghost. Not, I might add, through the councils of PhDs nor by way of the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

I might further add that Peter spoke of a time of the restitution of all things in Acts 3 verse 19-21. If everything were already delivered once and for all to the Saints, what would be the need for a "time of refreshing"?

~Mark

[Hoops22]

The NT doesn't use church like moderns would sense the gathering together for worship would have been in a synagogue. The exact term used was ekklesia or simply "a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly". Before its mention in the NT it was used somewhat synonymously with synagogue. In the LXX which was written in Greek the OT records the following verses as meaning ekklesia

1. "Then all the children of Israel went out, and the congregation was gathered together as one man, from Dan even to Beersheba, with the land of Gilead, unto the LORD in Mizpeh." (Judg. 20:1)
   "And the chief of all the people, even of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, four hundred thousand footmen that drew sword." (Judg. 20:2)
2. "And the children of Israel said, Who is there among all the tribes of Israel that came not up with the congregation unto the LORD? For they had made a great oath concerning him that came not up to the LORD to Mizpeh, saying, He shall surely be put to death." (Judg. 21:5)
   "And they said, What one is there of the tribes of Israel that came not up to Mizpeh to the LORD? And, behold, there came none to the camp from Jabeshgilead to the assembly." (Judg. 21:
   "And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children." (Judg. 21:10)
   "And the whole congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon, and to call peaceably unto them." (Judg. 21:13)
   "Then the elders of the congregation said, How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?" (Judg. 21:16)
3. "I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest." (Ps. 40:9)
   "I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation." (Ps. 40:10)
4. "I was almost in all evil in the midst of the congregation and assembly." (Pr. 5:14)

There are about 264 more references to ekklesia used in the OT, but not in Hebrew only in Greek. In each case congregation and assembly is used. In the LXX these words are rendered into ekklesia. Obviously the meanings and usage of church are different than the meanings are today.

There's no doubt Israel "assembled". But there was no church as instituted by Paul's writings. It was and is a wholely different thing. The reason being that the church became the mechanism by which gentiles would/could be drawn into the tree of life. Different branch, grafted on - as I know you know. It would be unfair to the text to assume that this newly instituted program - the church - would be treated the same Israel's assemblies. This is hinted at by Jesus when He completely changed the direction of His ministry at Mt. 18, from the kingdom to the church.

If the two could be conflated - even discounting the clear delineation the text makes - why did it take Jesus until almost the end of His ministry to begin preaching about it? And why so long to mention His death and resurrection?

[Ron Beron]

There's no doubt Israel "assembled". But there was no church as instituted by Paul's writings. It was and is a wholely different thing. The reason being that the church became the mechanism by which gentiles would/could be drawn into the tree of life. Different branch, grafted on - as I know you know. It would be unfair to the text to assume that this newly instituted program - the church - would be treated the same Israel's assemblies. This is hinted at by Jesus when He completely changed the direction of His ministry at Mt. 18, from the kingdom to the church.

If the two could be conflated - even discounting the clear delineation the text makes - why did it take Jesus until almost the end of His ministry to begin preaching about it? And why so long to mention His death and resurrection?

Interesting points, but I don't think Jesus was the one who brought about the change from kingdom to church. Jesus, to his death, saw the need for a kingdom of God to come. That was the whole point of his ministry. There was no need of a formal church because Jesus would soon be back, therefore, no church only gatherings or ekklesia. The idea of an ekklesia was born in the reality that Jesus was not coming that soon and 'plan B' needed to be instituted. This was where Paul came in. What really made the difference was the destruction of temple worship with the destruction of the temple and the institution of synagogue services which resulted in 'church' services among Christians.

[Hoops22]

Interesting points, but I don't think Jesus was the one who brought about the change from kingdom to church.

\

I probably worded it wrong. So if you are referring to Jesus the man (and I think you are) then I agree. It was Israel's unbelief that caused the change in plan.

Jesus, to his death, saw the need for a kingdom of God to come.That was the whole point of his ministry.

Agreed.

There was no need of a formal church because Jesus would soon be back, therefore, no church only gatherings or ekklesia.

Also agreed.

The idea of an ekklesia was born in the reality that Jesus was not coming that soon and 'plan B' needed to be instituted.

Agreed.

What really made the difference was the destruction of temple worship with the destruction of the temple and the institution of synagogue services which resulted in 'church' services among Christians.

Agreed again. And it's important to remember, in order to draw all of this together, that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple. So it would be fair to say that Jesus had His church in mind at the point he knew of His death and resurrection.

[mfbukowski]

There's no doubt Israel "assembled". But there was no church as instituted by Paul's writings. It was and is a wholely different thing. The reason being that the church became the mechanism by which gentiles would/could be drawn into the tree of life. Different branch, grafted on - as I know you know. It would be unfair to the text to assume that this newly instituted program - the church - would be treated the same Israel's assemblies. This is hinted at by Jesus when He completely changed the direction of His ministry at Mt. 18, from the kingdom to the church.

Even if we grant you that the use of the greek for "assembly" means "church" in a modern sense, which clearly is highly debatable, you are still avoiding and have not answered the original question which was that where in all this is the "age of the church" and most importantly the teaching that there was to be no further revelation?

Where does Jesus say that there will be thousands of years without further revelation and that all which can possibly be revealed has been and there is no further need for revelation?

You keep glossing over the issue, and evading, and waving your hand saying "After Matthew 8" or "Anything Paul writes", and that is not going to make it.

[Hoops22]

Even if we grant you that the use of the greek for "assembly" means "church" in a modern sense, which clearly is highly debatable,

I'd rather you do not. Because they are not the same.

you are still avoiding and have not answered the original question which was that where in all this is the "age of the church" and most importantly the teaching that there was to be no further revelation?

It's reasonable to conclude that when Jesus instituted a new program - the church - that we can call it the church age. It's just a term to describe the change in program

Where does Jesus say that there will be thousands of years without further revelation and that all which can possibly be revealed has been and there is no further need for revelation?

Where does He say there will be?

You keep glossing over the issue, and evading, and waving your hand saying "After Matthew 8" or "Anything Paul writes", and that is not going to make it.

Well, read it then.

[Ron Beron]

Agreed again. And it's important to remember, in order to draw all of this together, that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple. So it would be fair to say that Jesus had His church in mind at the point he knew of His death and resurrection.

Since we are in an agreeable mood I would not be to quick to determine what was in his mind as to the future. Jesus actually advocated an end to animal sacrifice therefore, he probably foresaw the the need for local congregations to meet not in a "Christian" church since that would smack of Greek, but in a synagogue which was becoming in vogue at the time.

[mfbukowski]

I'd rather you do not. Because they are not the same.

One of your strategies seems to be making your posts so short that no one knows what you are saying, so they can't argue with you. In addition, you do simple quotes without citing the source, so no one can follow the argument if they want to. Really cheesy. That preserves your ego, but note that no one agrees with you either, so you are not convincing anyone of your points, because you are actually making no points except in your imagination.

You say here that the modern English term "church" is not the same as the ancient greek term for "assembly", and I agree with this.

It's reasonable to conclude that when Jesus instituted a new program - the church - that we can call it the church age. It's just a term to describe the change in program

But then you turn around and say this! Jesus instituted a new program- the assembly? You jump to the "church age" while acknowledging that the greek term does not mean "church".

Well, read it then.

This was a CFR which you are totally ignoring as usual. You don't give a reference because you can't. You have absolutely nothing here.

[Ron Beron]

It's reasonable to conclude that when Jesus instituted a new program - the church - that we can call it the church age. It's just a term to describe the change in program

I cannot find any evidence at all that there was any kind of change in program. Jesus, from all evidences, saw no need to start a new church simply reform the old one.

[LeSellers]

I cannot find any evidence at all that there was any kind of change in program. Jesus, from all evidences, saw no need to start a new church simply reform the old one.

I find a great deal of evidence that He saw a need to, and actually did, start a new church.

First, He told us He was establishing a new Church (Matt 16:13~19)

He surrounded Himself with followers and denounced the extant regime.

He told people to come unto Him.

He bypassed all of the existing leadership when He chose Peter as the head of His earthly kingdom, and the Apostles as His representatives and witnesses.

He said He came to fulfill the Law and that it was complete in Him. The existing church was all about the Law of Moses.

Not least, He underscored that the existing church was in apostasy from the cleansing of the Temple to the final interview with Caiphas.

Lehi

[Hoops22]

One of your strategies seems to be making your posts so short that no one knows what you are saying, so they can't argue with you.

It's pretty clear to me.

In addition, you do simple quotes without citing the source, so no one can follow the argument if they want to. Really cheesy.

I don't recall ever doing that.

That preserves your ego,

What ego?

but note that no one agrees with you either, so you are not convincing anyone of your points, because you are actually making no points except in your imagination.

Actually, there are lots of people who agree with me. There were quite a few at The Dallas Theological Seminary with whom I agree.

You say here that the modern English term "church" is not the same as the ancient greek term for "assembly", and I agree with this.

It's not just terminology. The church is a unique creation, for the purpose of drawing in gentiles. Thus, Jesus' preaching, much of Peter's preaching (he was preaching to jews) can not be specifically addressed to the gentile church. That does NOT mean that there is not great value in all of these. Of course there is. No one is discarding Jesus' nor Peter's preaching. Rather, their significance is a greater understanding of God's program in relationship to Israel and gentiles. We open the window more. We see Him for who He is. Which, as you may not know, is TRUE repentance.

But then you turn around and say this! Jesus instituted a new program- the assembly? You jump to the "church age" while acknowledging that the greek term does not mean "church".

Jesus sole purpose for coming to earth was to preach The Kingdom to Israel. Can you give me an example where He preached to jew and gentile alike? As if they were the same? Thus, when Israel rejected Jesus' lordship, the church age or age of grace began.

This was a CFR which you are totally ignoring as usual. You don't give a reference because you can't. You have

absolutely nothing here.

I'm sorry. I don't have my bible handy. But you know the verse well. The keys verse. This is the FIRST time the church is mentioned - and from there we see a change in Jesus' focus. That is, as he told the apostles, the focus now becomes preaching His death and resurrection and God's forgiveness to gentiles. That's not to say that Israel was completely forgotten from this point forward. NOt at all. You'll remember that Peter preached the kingdom one more time to Israel in Acts 2. Which they rejected again. Thence, Peter preached to believing Jews and Paul preached to gentiles.

[Ron Beron]

'LeSellers' writes,

First, He told us He was establishing a new Church (Matt 16:13~19)

If you are thinking he was establishing a church like we understand a church then I think you are mistaken. Rather he was establishing a new paradigm (I hate that word) by moving away from temple worship and towards a simpler synagogue gathering. The word church mentioned there does not mean an organized religious movement like we are familiar with but rather a gathering. The idea of "church" as we know it today was unknown then. From the Interpreter's Bible I quote,

The word rendered church (ekklisia) occurs many times in Acts, the epistles, and the book of Revelation. There it denotes the universal fellowship of Christians, or the local congregation, which is thought of as a manifestation of that fellowship. But it is not found in the four Gospels except here and in 18:17. (For a discussion of the evidence, see George Johnston, The Doctrine of the Church in the New Testament [Cambridge: University Press, 1943], pp. 35-45.) Jesus cannot have spoken often of the church, if he did so at all. If this verse reflects any genuine saying of his, he may have thought of "the new, reformed Israel" or his new and true "way" within Judaism.

He surrounded Himself with followers and denounced the extant regime.

He told people to come unto Him.

Agreed.

He bypassed all of the existing leadership when He chose Peter as the head of His earthly kingdom, and the Apostles as His representatives and witnesses.

From later writings we know that the leader was actually James with Peter as co-head.

He said He came to fulfill the Law and that it was complete in Him. The existing church was all about the Law of Moses.

Not at all. Read the entire verse...

5:17 â??Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them.

5:18 I

tell you the truth,

until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter

will pass from the law until everything takes place. 5:19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others

to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law

and the Pharisees,

you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

There is to be no abolishment only that Jesus was to fulfill them. The key word here is fulfill which means not to end but, "to fill to the fullest" or even "to enforce". Jews, in their second-century discords with Christians, quoted it thus: "I, the gospel, am not come to take away the Torah of Moses, but to add to it." Jesus never saw the law as a hindrance only the execution of it.

Not least, He underscored that the existing church was in apostasy from the cleansing of the Temple to the final interview with Caiphas.

See above.

Thanks for the rebuttal, but I have to disagree with your summary of findings.

[Ron Beron]

Actually, there are lots of people who agree with me. There were quite a few at The Dallas Theological Seminary with whom I agree.

You like those guys too. I love their translation of the Bible.

[jadams_4242]

I know this is nothing new, but I am honestly perplexed as to why this is not a bigger deal to those who accept the concept of a restoration of the gospel. From what I can see, the entirety of the LDS defense is that the BOM, D&C, POGP, and so on, are in no way beyond what was taught by the Apostles. But that is what blows me away. If, as claimed, precious and plain truths that were lost have been restored in these latter-days publications, then there would have to be teachings included that go beyond what we have in our incomplete Bibles. This is the very thing Paul seems to have been warning us against. Sure, there was more to be written after what Paul stated, but it all harmonized with everything that had been written up to the time of his letter to the Galatians. There was nothing vital to our salvation that was introduced for the first time like what we see in the restored/new gospels.

Lets go one step further and include galations 1-12...... For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by "the Revealation of Jesus Christ.".

[Cold Steel]

Perhaps I misunderstood. By "church age," I refer to the present time, when the "church" is thought to be merely a body of believers scattered throughout the many denominations. In short, the true perspective is a single church, organized by Christ and whose leaders are chosen and ordained by Him.

The current age, where Christians are deposited in numerous churches with multitudes of self-appointed and self-ordained leaders, is nowhere reflected in scripture. The prophets never foresaw it; the apostles never looked forward to it. And, in short, it's a mess.

The OP (who seems to have vanished) raised the question of whether the gospel restored to Joseph Smith was the gospel of old. The LDS say if it's not the gospel of Christ, then where is the said gospel? Who on Earth has it, and where does it reside?

Those who believe that Mormons are not Christians must take the view that we don't have the gospel; otherwise, people could find salvation in what we teach and in our ordinances. In looking for the church of Jesus and His gospel, I would look for the church that bore the strongest resemblance to the ancient church, and which believed as they did. There is only one church on Earth that credibly fits, in my view, and I've not heard a good argument against looking for such a church.

[LeSellers]

If you are thinking he was establishing a church like we understand a church then I think you are mistaken. Rather he was establishing a new paradigm ... by moving away from temple worship and towards a simpler synagogue gathering. The word church mentioned there does not mean an organized religious movement like we are familiar with but rather a gathering. The idea of "church" as we know it today was unknown then.

I disagree. The idea of a church as we know it was fundamental to the whole Israelite nation from the days of Moses onward. Judah had let herself become paganized and the idea corrupt, but the church was integral to her history and culture.

From the captains of tens and of fifties and of hundreds (home teaching and quorums) to the seventy elders and the twelve princes, the structure of the church is prominent in the Old and New Testaments. It is not a perfect match, but it has strong parallels to the organization of the modern version of His Church.

And, if He was moving away from Temple worship as the central feature of Judaism, and wanted smaller congregations, I submit that we have the same today. The Temple is central to our theology, but we do not make it the only means of worship, and, in fact, the ward house and one's private home, are the most frequent places of devotion among us, even while the Temple is never far from our hearts.

From later writings we know that the leader was actually James with Peter as co-head.

James was the Stake President in Jerusalem. Peter was the head of the Church.

Read the entire verse...

You insult me thus and want me to listen to you? I have read the verse dozens or hundreds of times. It says the same thing I claimed it said: "He said He came to fulfill the Law and that it was complete in Him. The existing church was all about the Law of Moses."

There is to be no abolishment only that Jesus was to fulfill them. The key word here is fulfill which means not to end but, "to fill to the fullest" or even "to enforce". Jews, in their second-century discords with Christians, quoted it thus: "I, the gospel, am not come to take away the Torah of Moses, but to add to it." Jesus never saw the law as a hindrance only the execution of it.

So where, pray tell, did I say the first word that triggered this? I said nothing about abolishing the Law.

When we read the word "fulfill" it is only with great wrestings and twistings that we can see "to enforce" therein.

Thanks for the rebuttal, but I have to disagree with your summary of findings.

As I with yours.

Lehi

[Ron Beron]

duplicate