1St Century Christian

[CASteinman]

Without reference to modern revelation:

It is exactly this lack of reference to modern revelation where you go astray.

I feel inclined to end this discussion because you are going pretty far afield of the topic of this thread and also of the original item I objected to and constantly bringing up things that do not matter and at the same time, when they do matter, ignoring the modern revelations.

I see no point in continuing.

[Ron Beron]

It is exactly this lack of reference to modern revelation where you go astray.

I feel inclined to end this discussion because you are going pretty far afield of the topic of this thread and also of the original item I objected to and constantly bringing up things that do not matter and at the same time, when they do matter, ignoring the modern revelations.

I see no point in continuing.

It would not go astray if you took ancient prophecy as a fact in and of itself separate from modern revelation which has different paradigms. BTW, the topic and thread were mine and the consistency is evident since the question was in what ways are LDS like 1st century Christians. Unless you are willing and able to see the world through the eyes and mind of a 1st century Jewish Christian then all you have left is the understanding of a 21st century Mormon. Nothing wrong with that, but then you have a half finished jigsaw puzzle.

Thank you not continuing.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Ron Beron

[CASteinman]

It would not go astray if you took ancient prophecy as a fact in and of itself separate from modern revelation which has different paradigms. BTW, the topic and thread were mine and the consistency is evident since the question was in what ways are LDS like 1st century Christians. Unless you are willing and able to see the world through the eyes and mind of a 1st century Jewish Christian then all you have left is the understanding of a 21st century Mormon. Nothing wrong with that, but then you have a half finished jigsaw puzzle.

Thank you not continuing.

Not one of the people on this board, and not one of the people whose words you study is able to see through the eyes and mind of a first century Jew better than Joseph Smith when it was revealed to him by God. You reject this light and truth. I don't know why. But we are at an impasse.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Not one of the people on this board, and not one of the people whose words you study is able to see through the eyes and mind of a first century Jew better than Joseph Smith when it was revealed to him by God. You reject this light and truth. I don't know why. But we are at an impasse.

That is pure heresay........we have no idea how well Joseph Smith knew the first century Jewish mind........ it is all assumed he knew more.

[Ron Beron]

Not one of the people on this board, and not one of the people whose words you study is able to see through the eyes and mind of a first century Jew better than Joseph Smith when it was revealed to him by God. You reject this light and truth. I don't know why. But we are at an impasse.

Really?! And your evidence for this is...? While JS was a great prophet he didn't receive revelation for the 1st century saints, which was for James, but for the 19th century saints. Likewise Pres. Monson receives the light for the saints today.

[CASteinman]

That is pure heresay........we have no idea how well Joseph Smith knew the first century Jewish mind........ it is all assumed he knew more.

You can only say that by rejecting the power of God.

Edited July 3, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Really?! And your evidence for this is...?

I would say the evidence for it is things like this:

1900 years have transpired. It is hard for people in our own day to understand one another. And to imagine that we have any idea what it was like to live 1900 years ago and to think you can enter their minds from a few teeny writings is pure speculative fantasy.

But, God has created the earth, has taken up cities, has taught men to speak in tongues, has raised the dead, has restored the Book of Mormon to the earth, has sent Angels to visit Joseph Smith and teach him and has miraculously saved us all. He can definitely do something as relatively minor as this. And apparently gave him greater wisdom than all the world's scholars when it came to the scriptures you quote.

However you reject his inspired words. Its a choice.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

You can only say that by rejecting the power of God.

Not true. I reject being told WHAT is......I will find out for myself instead of simply believe simply because someone says this or that. We have absolutely NO proof that Joseph Smith knew the early Christian Jewish mindset better than anyone. Without evidence it is pure heresay. I am not required by any law that I am aware of to simply believe in everything that is ever claimed about and for or against Joseph Smith, Jr.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[CASteinman]

Not true.

Yes true. I said that this would happen by the power of God and you said "Hearsay".

[volgadon]

You can only say that by rejecting the power of God.

No. God illumined Joseph's mind in relation to the truths and interpretations he was to share with this dispensation. That doesn't mean that the power of God taught Joseph the intricacies and nuances of 1st c. Judaisms. Let us take a "secular" example, Joseph's study of Hebrew. It wasn't brilliant, Joseph made some very basic mistakes, but God used them as vehicles for opening Joseph's mind to further revelation.

[CASteinman]

No.

You can only say "No" as an act of Faith (or lack of it) not as a fact.

[volgadon]

You can only say "No" as an act of Faith (or lack of it) not as a fact.

It is a fact that there is more than one way to approach the issue and that such a conclusion can only be reached by rejecting the power ofGod.

[CASteinman]

It is a fact that there is more than one way to approach the issue and that such a conclusion can only be reached by rejecting the power ofGod.

There are always multiple ways to approach issues. I would never deny it.

I am, however, denying that all those ways are equally legitimate and valid.

[CASteinman]

Lots of vanity and pride found the gaining and the worship of the wisdom and learning of men.

[zerinus]

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?

I think what she was trying to say was that she was "pre-Apostasy" Christian rather than a "post-Apostasy" Christian. It was her way of pre-empting those who would want to attack her faith by saying that she was not a Christian. It was her way of saying that her version of Christianity was more genuine than that of her (potential) attackers.

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.

Assuming that my understanding of her motives are correct, then the above classification becomes superficial and redundant. The classification would be between pre-Apostasy vs. post-Apostasy Christianity, not early first century vs. late first century Christianity. The distinction would be in terns of Apostolic authority and priesthood keys, and a Church led by revelation vs. one that was not, rather than what you have listed above.

[Calm]

I am not required by any law that I am aware of to simply believe in everything that is ever claimed about and for or against Joseph Smith, Jr.

Definitely not by Joseph himself.

[Calm]

Lots of vanity and pride found the gaining and the worship of the wisdom and learning of men.

And it is not vanity to publicly denounce others as rejecting the Lord as if you speak for God?

[Calm]

It was her way of pre-empting those who would want to attack her faith by saying that she was not a Christian.

Or even more specifically, that she was not a "historic" or "traditional" or "Biblical" Christian. Edited July 3, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

No it doesn't. No one's prophetic nature trumps academia without evidence.

Utterly false. Prophecy always trumps academia where the two disagree--provided that the prophecy is genuine and comes from God. The only "evidence" that is required in such a case is the witness of the Spirit that the prophecy is genuine and of God. If your presumption is valid, the the Book of Abraham is not genuine, because according to all the "academic" evidence it is not. But the witness of the Spirit tells me that it is, and that is what I go by.

The only sure way in this life we can actually come to KNOW is through reasoning, analysis and evidence, otherwise we fall back to faith which is not knowedge.

Utterly false again. The only sure way of "knowing" the truth of anything that belongs to the realm of faith and religion is by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. And faith very much is knowledge, or can be the source of knowledge; see below.

ALL things are to be PROVEN........ not merely accepted because it's labeled with assumptions operating the show. I want reasoned truth, not something simply that wins automatically because of a tradition of reverence or impression

Yes, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (Thessalonians 5:21), says the Apostle Paul. By "proof" he did not mean academic proof. That may be part of the package, but the primary part would be the witness of the Spirit, which is the ultimate proof in spiritual matters.

D&C 46:

7 But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils.

Here are some additional scriptures which you seem to have overlooked.

D&C 88:

118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

D&C 109:

7 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith;

Faith is a vital and integral element of the acquisition of knowledge, especially of the spiritual kind. Here are some more:

2 Nephi 9:

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

There is nothing wrong with Book learning as such, provided it is kept in proper perspective; but "trumping" faith and revelation from God? no way!

Moroni 7:

20 And now, my brethren, how is it possible that ye can lay hold upon every good thing?

21 And now I come to that faith, of which I said I would speak; and I will tell you the way whereby ye may lay hold on every good thing.

Assuming that truth (especially divine truth) is a "good" thing, then faith appears to be the best way of obtaining it. Here is another:

Ether 3:

25 And when the Lord had said these words, he showed unto the brother of Jared all the inhabitants of the earth which had been, and also all that would be; and he withheld them not from his sight, even unto the ends of the earth.

26 For he had said unto him in times before, that if he would believe in him that he could show unto him all things—it should be shown unto him; therefore the Lord could not withhold anything from him, for he knew that the Lord could show him all things.

I think it was Joseph Smith who said once that when he had a question, unlike other people who go to books, he preferred to go the the source of all truth, which was revelation from the Lord. I can't find the reference right now. I like his methodology better!

Edited July 3, 2012 by zerinus

[Gervin]

I think what she was trying to say was that she was "pre-Apostasy" Christian rather than a "post-Apostasy" Christian. It was her way of pre-empting those who would want to attack her faith by saying that she was not a Christian. It was her way of saying that her version of Christianity was more genuine than that of her (potential) attackers.

I wonder if there is a tendency for phlebotomists, or medical workers in general, to be attacked resulting in this type of pre-emptive declaration?

Assuming that my understanding of her motives are correct, then the above classification becomes superficial and redundant. The classification would be between pre-Apostasy vs. post-Apostasy Christianity, not early first century vs. late first century Christianity. The distinction would be in terns of Apostolic authority and priesthood keys, and a Church led by revelation vs. one that was not, rather than what you have listed above.

The picture painted by Biblical scholars is one of early church diversity and disunity with regard to those things claimed by the LDS Church to be the hallmarks of the pre-Apostate Church.

[zerinus]

I wonder if there is a tendency for phlebotomists, or medical workers in general, to be attacked resulting in this type of pre-emptive declaration?

I think you got that backwards. There is a tendency among the Evangelicals to attack other people's faiths (especially Catholics and Mormons), resulting in the need for one to defend one's faith against their attacks.

The picture painted by Biblical scholars is one of early church diversity and disunity with regard to those things claimed by the LDS Church to be the hallmarks of the pre-Apostate Church.

The picture painted by the Bible is a Church initially led by revelation by the Apostles of Jesus (i.e. before the Apostasy); and one that was later led by the wisdom of men, resulting in discord and division (i.e. following the Apostasy).

[CASteinman]

And it is not vanity to publicly denounce others as rejecting the Lord as if you speak for God?

Yes, that would be. However, there is no one here doing that.

It can be interpreted that way so tread cautiously please.

[Gervin]

I think you got that backwards. There is a tendency among the Evangelicals to attack other people's faiths (especially Catholics and Mormons), resulting in the need for one to defend one's faith against their attacks.

I think you got it wrong. Ron Beron, LDS, has a brief conversation with a professional and her default reaction is to assume she's being attacked?

While there certainly are EVs (and others) who attack different faiths I disagree that there is a tendency to do so. I think you would be hard-pressed to provide any kind of data to support the notion that this is a generally accepted or majority tendency.

The picture painted by the Bible is a Church initially led by revelation by the Apostles of Jesus (i.e. before the Apostasy); and one that was later led by the wisdom of men, resulting in discord and division (i.e. following the Apostasy).

So, you believe there was a unity of teaching among the apostles and unity of practice and belief by the members of the pre-apostate church?

[Ron Beron]

I would say the evidence for it is things like this:

1900 years have transpired. It is hard for people in our own day to understand one another. And to imagine that we have any idea what it was like to live 1900 years ago and to think you can enter their minds from a few teeny writings is pure speculative fantasy.

But, God has created the earth, has taken up cities, has taught men to speak in tongues, has raised the dead, has restored the Book of Mormon to the earth, has sent Angels to visit Joseph Smith and teach him and has miraculously saved us all. He can definitely do something as relatively minor as this. And apparently gave him greater wisdom than all the world's scholars when it came to the scriptures you quote.

However you reject his inspired words. Its a choice.

Again, with the assumptions. No where have I rejected JS. I have, however rejected your interpretation of his words, though. Fortunately, we do have an inkling of what occurred 2000 years ago which has been left in the archaeological, literary and scriptural evidences. The role of the academic is to sift through it and come up with the best educated guess. It is the role of the prophet to give us the word of God. While there might be conflict it is simply one of understanding a seeming conflict of zeal/knowledge.

[Ron Beron]

I think what she was trying to say was that she was "pre-Apostasy" Christian rather than a "post-Apostasy" Christian. It was her way of pre-empting those who would want to attack her faith by saying that she was not a Christian. It was her way of saying that her version of Christianity was more genuine than that of her (potential) attackers.

Assuming that my understanding of her motives are correct, then the above classification becomes superficial and redundant. The classification would be between pre-Apostasy vs. post-Apostasy Christianity, not early first century vs. late first century Christianity. The distinction would be in terns of Apostolic authority and priesthood keys, and a Church led by revelation vs. one that was not, rather than what you have listed above.

The apostasy, as we know it probably did occur shortly after the death of apostles so I gather her comment was meant to include the original gospel of Jesus without the adulteration of succeeding beliefs including Paul, Maricon (yes!...Marcion), and other patricians and heretics.