1St Century Christian

[CASteinman]

I edited my above a bit and I realize that my views run counter to that of the vast majority of the church, but facts are what they are.

There were no facts in your review of ideas. You had, merely, apostate beliefs.

Do not question a poster's faith if you want to stay in the thread.

[CASteinman]

While Paul certainly revolutionized the teachings of Christianity he also marginalized the teachings of Jesus and the other Apostles.

You have been fooled. Marcion is your trickster joined by modern scholars, also fooled.

Edited July 4, 2012 by CASteinman

[zerinus]

I am more than happy going with knowledge......

And yet, you require faith to obtain knowledge. You need faith in yourself and in your teachers to obtain secular knowledge; and you need faith in God to obtain divine knowledge--the kind of knowledge that saves.

[zerinus]

As I recall, Ron's views on Paul have been strongly influenced by Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker, Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus, and Barrie Wilson's How Jesus Became Christian. I consider that a foundation of sand, but to each their own.

Thank you. I have to admit that I am not acquainted with the above mentioned literature. I am a more down-to-earth kind of a guy, and more interested in what God has said about not being deceived:

D&C 43:

6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

D&C 45:

57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.

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.

8 Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given;

9 For verily I say unto you, they are given for the benefit of those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do; that all may be benefited that seek or that ask of me, that ask and not for a sign that they may consume it upon their lusts.

D&C 50:

2 Behold, verily I say unto you, that there are many spirits which are false spirits, which have gone forth in the earth, deceiving the world.

D&C 52:

14 And again, I will give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived; for Satan is abroad in the land, and he goeth forth deceiving the nations—

[Ron Beron]

I have sympathy for you but not for your views. You have obviously been led far astray, no idea by whom or how. But what you are saying is not correct. And if you can get something like this so badly wrong, I wonder who or what will be next.

Another comment like this and you will be out of the thread.

Show me where I'm wrong. I can change if you present valid evidence.

[Ron Beron]

And yet, I note, you did not quote a source that says otherwise.

Look again.

[Ron Beron]

As I recall, Ron's views on Paul have been strongly influenced by Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker, Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus, and Barrie Wilson's How Jesus Became Christian. I consider that a foundation of sand, but to each their own.

What do you consider bedrock, i.e., something everyone can agree on? BTW, have you read either book? Edited July 4, 2012 by Ron Beron

[CASteinman]

Look again.

Read it three times. Again.. I note you do not quote a source that says otherwise. I suspect you believe the tense of the verb would matter. It does not.

[Ron Beron]

Thank you. I have to admit that I am not acquainted with the above mentioned literature. I am a more down-to-earth kind of a guy, and more interested in what God has said about not being deceived:

D&C 43:

6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

D&C 45:

57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.

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.

8 Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given;

9 For verily I say unto you, they are given for the benefit of those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do; that all may be benefited that seek or that ask of me, that ask and not for a sign that they may consume it upon their lusts.

D&C 50:

2 Behold, verily I say unto you, that there are many spirits which are false spirits, which have gone forth in the earth, deceiving the world.

D&C 52:

14 And again, I will give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived; for Satan is abroad in the land, and he goeth forth deceiving the nations—

It is fine to accept sola scriptura, but that ultimately will give us some problems. Eventually, when perfection becomes imperfection things cannot remain the same or as Yeats wrote...

TURNING and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Beware of using scripture as a curse upon someone. It can backfire.

[Ron Beron]

Read it three times. Again.. I note you do not quote a source that says otherwise. I suspect you believe the tense of the verb would matter. It does not.

Then explain it for me. Tell me what it means to you.

[Ron Beron]

Read it three times. Again.. I note you do not quote a source that says otherwise. I suspect you believe the tense of the verb would matter. It does not.

H. Hibley wrote in his watershed work, When the Lights Went Out,

The failure of the apostles to leave behind them written instructions for the future guidance of the church has often been noted and sadly regretted. It is hard to conceive of such a colossal oversight if the founders had actually envisaged a long future for the church. The awkwardness of the situation is apparent from Robert M. Grant's explanation of it, namely, that the apostles "did not live to see the Church fully organized and at work."⁶⁵ As if they should wait until the work was completed before giving instructions for completing it!⁶⁶ Actually the most tragic disorganization and confusion followed hard upon the passing of the apostles, according to Hegesippus, and as a direct result of it. Plainly the early leaders made no careful provision for the future, even as they "failed to compose anything that could properly be described as 'church-history'" in spite of their great interest in times, seasons, and dispensations and the imperative need and accepted use of sacred history in the economy of religious organizations.⁶⁷

(20) Then there is the total neglect of education in the early church, which Gustave Bardy would justify with desperate logic, arguing that education for the young was neglected because the church got its membership from converts among the adult population—fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani.⁶⁸ And were all those converts childless, and were there no children in the church for those three long centuries during which it was without schools? In view of the great emphasis placed on education by the church in the fourth century, its total neglect in the preceding centuries can only have been deliberate. Well might Eugéne de Faye find it strange that Jesus "ne songe nullement î former une école de jeunes hommes qui . . . seraient les hérétiers de sa doctrine" (does not think to form a school of young men who would be the heirs of his teaching), for if there were to be heirs of the teaching such a provision was indispensable.⁶⁹ Why no education, then? Actually the apostolic fathers were greatly concerned about education, warning their people against the bad education of the world and chiding them for their neglect of the only education that counted—that which prepared the young for the next life.⁷⁰

(21) Neglect of standard education was matched by an equally disturbing indifference to the social and political problems which would necessarily be of vital concern to any enduring social institution. For years liberal scholars sought to discover a social gospel where none was to be found, and it is indeed hard to believe that a religion of brotherly love could so persistently ignore the crying social ills of the day.⁷¹ But the Christians excused themselves with the explanation that more urgent business had priority—they had no time for such things.⁷² Why not, if the church was to continue? (22) And why should a permanent and growing church refuse to invest in lands and buildings? For a long time eminent churchmen endorsed the old Christian prejudice against the construction of sorely needed church buildings.⁷³ But what could have been the original objection to anything as innocent and salutary as the building of a church? The early Christians tell us: the church cannot own real estate (they explain) because it is only here temporarily, and it must never be allowed to forget that fact.⁷⁴ (23) Hans Lietzmann has shown that when "the Church sojourning at Rome" or elsewhere writes to "the Church sojourning at Corinth" or elsewhere it means that both churches are thought of only as temporary visitors in their cities; collectively and individually the church was here only on a brief pilgrimage. They were das wandernde Gottesvolk, strangers and pilgrims all, destined for but a short time upon the earth.⁷⁵

[zerinus]

Show me where I'm wrong. I can change if you present valid evidence.

I need first to know why you believe as you do. The evidence must first come from you, before I can present my counter evidence. You must have reasons for believing as you do. You haven't told us what those reasons are yet. When you have given us your reasons, then I can tell you why I disagree.

[CASteinman]

Then explain it for me. Tell me what it means to you.

It means that the Apostles are not in favor of and do not support in any way, any teachings that would disturb people about the second coming of the Lord being underway or occurring or having had occurred or going to occur any time before the apostasy would dominate.

It means that teachings like those you imagine to be official were heard of, but were rejected by the apostles.

Of course you don't believe this anyway. You believe, despite the words of Joseph Smith that Paul was a false apostle and would lie about it.

Since you think he would lie so readily, why do you bother seeking to defend some trivial point about his words? They would not matter anyway.

[Ron Beron]

I need first to know why you believe as you do. The evidence must first come from you, before I can present my counter evidence. You must have reasons for believing as you do. You haven't told us what those reasons are yet. When you have given us your reasons, then I can tell you why I disagree.

My loquaciousness on this has been ample. Simply, I accept the Mormon concept in general and supplement it with well-thinking and peer-reviewed scholars. More specifically, the early church went through various changes due to the influences of the Hellenistic culture. The response of the church was to teach a millennial time, i.e., a parousia or second coming. To support this members of the Jesus Movement organized themselves for that moment:

• No religious education among the young
  
• No building programs
  
• A sharing of goods
  
• A feeling of gloom, destruction and inevitably, death.
  

The rise of Pauline Christianity allowed the church to move among the world view of the cosmopolitan gentiles. Like it or not the apostasy probably saved the basic elements of Christianity for its ultimate restoration.

[zerinus]

It is fine to accept sola scriptura, but that ultimately will give us some problems. Eventually, when perfection becomes imperfection things cannot remain the same or as Yeats wrote...

Is "sola scriptura" your excuse for not heeding the scriptures?

Beware of using scripture as a curse upon someone. It can backfire.

I use the scriptures as a sword, not as a curse.

[CASteinman]

H. Hibley wrote in his watershed work, When the Lights Went Out,

Once more a quote that does not contradict what I said.

You seem to be seriously on a kick of one quote after another that supports the view that they thought that the coming was soon is the same thing as teaching that they should be irresponsible in their dealings.

Its like a kind of blindness.

None of your quoted sources say that and even the ones you do quote are rather unauthoritative -- they are the mere speculations of unenlightened men. But even to the degree that they discuss something, they do not discuss what you have claimed -- that the apostles taught people to be irresponsible in their lives and dealings with each other and with non-Christians.

[Ron Beron]

'CASteinman'

It means that the Apostles are not in favor of and do not support in any way, any teachings that would disturb people about the second coming of the Lord being underway or occurring or having had occurred or going to occur any time before the apostasy would dominate.

Are you saying the apostles did not accept a Second Coming of Jesus in their lifetimes or that they were in dread of what the world would bring in its coming? If so, then you are ignoring the evidence and specifically the meaning of II Thess. 2.

It means that teachings like those you imagine to be official were heard of, but were rejected by the apostles.

No where did the apostle reject a Second Coming with all the problems incumbent with it. Please read Nibley's paper on this. I cited the source above.

Of course you don't believe this anyway. You believe, despite the words of Joseph Smith that Paul was a false apostle and would lie about it.

I don't believe he was a liar. I think he actually believed what he was saying; that message of God to the Israelites needed to expand to the gentiles. In the process, though, many essential teachings were ripped away. For that he was not an "original intent" apostle, but a secondary messenger to the gentiles.

[Ron Beron]

'zerinus'

Is "sola scriptura" your excuse for not heeding the scriptures?

If JS had accepted the scriptures literally we would have the LDS church. Questioning is part of growing.

I use the scriptures as a sword, not as a curse.

This says a lot. Remember "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52)" The scriptures should not be used as a weapon. They are to edify.

[Ron Beron]

My original intent on this thread was to discuss how 1st century Christians were different than succeeding generations of Christian. We have seemed to stray from that premise. Rather than argue petty points can we get back to the original intent? Thanks.

[CASteinman]

Are you saying the apostles did not accept a Second Coming of Jesus in their lifetimes or that they were in dread of what the world would bring in its coming?

There is no doubt that some of them could not have accepted a Second Coming of Jesus in their lifetimes.

The Bishops who followed after the Apostles were indeed in dread. But not so much about the second coming but rather because of the imminent coming of the "end times". A different matter.

If so, then you are ignoring the evidence and specifically the meaning of II Thess. 2.

I have not even ignored your false, apostate beliefs about it. I definitely am not ignoring the actual real meaning of the verse.

No where did the apostle reject a Second Coming with all the problems incumbent with it. Please read Nibley's paper on this. I cited the source above.

I do not know how many times or how many ways I have to say this to make it more plain: This is irrelevant. What do you want from me? Do I need to engrave it in granite and mount a monument in your yard? The fact that they believed the Lord would return "soon" is IRRELEVANT to my point. Why do you keep bringing it up?

I don't believe he was a liar.

Sophistry. You believe he was a false apostle. Which necessarily requires false -- lying teachings. Whether you want to say he was earnest or not, the result in the same... his words would not matter. Why defend them so hard?

[Ron Beron]

CASteinman'

There is no doubt that some of them could not have accepted a Second Coming of Jesus in their lifetimes.

What with the double negatives? It obfuscates your response. Yet, IIThess speaks of the falling away and the "man of rebellion". James talks about how we should prepare for death. Of course, they understand a Parousia was in the offing.

Sophistry. You believe he was a false apostle. Which necessarily requires false -- lying teachings. Whether you want to say he was earnest or not, the result in the same... his words would not matter. Why defend them so hard?

Don't get ad hominem on me. That leads to problems. We will simply agree to disagree after this. I don't want you taking this to the point where you lose your composure.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Ron Beron

[CASteinman]

What with the double negatives?

I was responding directly to your question which was stated as a negative. Negated the negative. This may be obfuscation to you, but to me it is a specific direct response to your question. In particular, I found it easier to write correctly than a positive statement which would have to be couched in qualitative terms and with doubt as to the true condition of things. But I could speak emphatically and clearly on the negation.

Hope that helps.

Yet, IIThess speaks of the falling away and the "man of rebellion".

Right. So why do you think that supports your position?

Of course, they understand a Parousia was in the offing.

So do I. This is irrelevant. Once again.

Don't get ad hominem on me.

Now you are off on some tangent. I never made you part of any positive argument. I was asking you an actual real question. Why do you bother to defend the words of a deceiving "apostate" as you would style him? That is not an argument. Its a question.

I don't want you taking this to the point where you lose your composure.

It is an imaginary concern.

[CASteinman]

My original intent on this thread was to discuss how 1st century Christians were different than succeeding generations of Christian. We have seemed to stray from that premise. Rather than argue petty points can we get back to the original intent? Thanks.

I don't see it as off topic actually. Here is your clarification of the intent of this thread:

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
  

You specifically put out the teachings of Paul as being non-first Century Christian.

Which is silly. Unless by "Teachings of Paul" you mean "teachings of Marcion possibly ascribed to Paul".

Edited July 4, 2012 by CASteinman

[zerinus]

My loquaciousness on this has been ample. Simply, I accept the Mormon concept in general and supplement it with well-thinking and peer-reviewed scholars. More specifically, the early church went through various changes due to the influences of the Hellenistic culture. The response of the church was to teach a millennial time, i.e., a parousia or second coming. To support this members of the Jesus Movement organized themselves for that moment:

• No religious education among the young
  
• No building programs
  
• A sharing of goods
  
• A feeling of gloom, destruction and inevitably, death.
  

The rise of Pauline Christianity allowed the church to move among the world view of the cosmopolitan gentiles. Like it or not the apostasy probably saved the basic elements of Christianity for its ultimate restoration.

All that we know about Paul (that matters) is in the New Testament. I don't know where you get the above information from, and I am not sure that agree; but in either case, how does that demonstrate that Paul was a false Apostles?

[zerinus]

If JS had accepted the scriptures literally we would have the LDS church. Questioning is part of growing.

Questioning and doubting are not the same. Some like to dwell in a permanent state of doubt about what God has revealed. There is no merit in that.

This says a lot. Remember "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52)" The scriptures should not be used as a weapon. They are to edify.

One of the edifying features of scripture is that it acts like sword: "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12). I like to use it that way.