Was There An Apostacy In The Early Christian Church?

[Ron Beron]

His ordination was based on his righteousness.

I think the question was more of the mechanical means in which it was conveyed. But for clarity...

As John begins his ministry, we ask, “where did he get his authority?” John had the Priesthood of Aaron through his lineage as a member of the tribe of Levi. Levites did not need to be ordained to the Priesthood but rather received it through their lineage. Hence, John, the high priest’s son, did not need to be ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood. However, he was ordained to be an Elias, or forerunner, by an angelic administration while still an infant; he ‘was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord’ (DC 84:28). The same verse tells us that he was baptized while yet in his childhood. A priest by lineage, an Elias by ordination, his calling and authority were unique, as is his place in history.

http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/NewTestament/Matt3.htm

CK was partially correct on this one.

[3DOP]

The Levitical priesthood continued in the family of Levi. King David reorganized it in what you call 1 Chronicles 24. At that time the family of Abia (Abijah) from whom Zachary and John the Baptist were descended, received the eighth of twenty-four lots that were cast at that time. I do not say it is certain, but it seems arguable that Zachary was high priest at the time of John's conception. Note how he carried incense into the Temple:

And it came to pass, that while he executed the priestly office before God, in the order of his course, According to the custom of the priestly office, it was his lot to offer incense, going into the temple of the Lord; And all the multitude of the people were praying without, at the hour of incense.

---Luke 1:8-10

Now whose job is that? Why the high priest!

After these things are duly celebrated, he shall offer the calf, and praying for himself and for his own house, he shall immolate it: And taking the censer, which he hath filled with the burning coals of the altar, and taking up with his hand the compounded perfume for incense, he shall go in within the veil into the holy place: That when the perfumes are put upon the fire, the cloud and vapour thereof may cover the oracle, which is over the testimony, and he may not die.

---Lev. 16:12, 13

Aaron's boys had just died for offering "strange fire". The instruction in Leviticus is for the high priest who goes alone within the veil where no other worshipper can follow. This is what seems to be going on with Zachary. Note from the Gospel how "the multitude people were praying without". At this time, the Hebrew people had lively faith in large numbers but they could not go in with Zachary. That is because they were not allowed to go in to the Holy of holies (within the veil). And what do we see happen when Zachary performs his "invalid" priestly work? The Angel Gabriel appears to him!

And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing on the right side of the alter of incense.

---Luke 1:11

Does the angel finally reveal to Zachary that his priestly work is in vain and of no effect? Does he warn him about offering "strange fire"? On the contrary. The Angel continues to explain to Zachary that his prayers were heard and miraculously, his barren wife conceived. There is not the slightest hint that anything is amiss in the Temple of God.

I don't have problems with the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham or other distinctively Mormon teachings. I don't criticise your doctrine of God or anything else. If the LDS faith is true, I expect that we got a lot of stuff wrong. I can handle the positive LDS stuff. But every time we start talking apostasy, everything falls apart for me. If Mormons are forced to conclude that in Luke 1, Zachary is exercising an apostate, invalid priestly function, it doesn't add up. I am not trying to be closed minded. Its like the Gospel writers are deliberately revealing to us that the religion of Moses and Aaron was alive and well, with a good holy man exercising the office of high priest at the time of the coming of the Savior. And even after the office fell into disrepute because of unworthiness, Jesus continues to encourage adherence to the priests to those He counsels.

I don't see how or why I have to believe that the Levitical priesthood was invalid at the time of Christ. I don't know how to do it. You need to figure out an apostasy theory without postulating what seems so difficult to reconcile with the New Testament record. At this point, I would be afraid of getting involved with "strange fire" myself!

3DOP

Edited July 5, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

I think the question was more of the mechanical means in which it was conveyed. But for clarity...

http://www.gospeldoc...ament/Matt3.htm

CK was partially correct on this one.

Hey Ron. I was not writing my most recent post in opposition to Latter-day revelation. I had not seen your post and I did not mean to say that Mormons could discount commentary that they find in the Book of Mormon. I don't take exception to the possibility that the Baptist could have received a different priesthood. My last post was only intended to analyse the Levitical priesthood of John's father Zachary, and that which was exercised by the priests up until the veil of the Temple was ripped in half.

Edited July 5, 2012 by 3DOP

[Ron Beron]

I don't see how or why I have to believe that the Levitical priesthood was invalid at the time of Christ. I don't know how to do it. You need to figure out an apostasy theory without postulating what seems so difficult to reconcile with the New Testament record. At this point, I would be afraid of getting involved with "strange fire" myself!

I don't see how it was invalid either. As long as there are Levites there is the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood. I accept the possibility of the apostasy not because of LDS teachings, but because of research in college.

[Ron Beron]

Hey Ron. I was not writing my most recent post in opposition to Latter-day revelation. I had not seen your post and I did not mean to say that Mormons could discount commentary that they find in the Book of Mormon. I don't take exception to the possibility that the Baptist could have received a different priesthood. My last post was only intended to analyse the Levitical priesthood of John's father Zachary, and that which was exercised by the priests up until the veil of the Temple was ripped in half.

No problem. I was just trying to figure out what priesthood they were talking about as well. There was a secondary priesthood that was also extant at the time called the "Zadokites" which Robert Eisenman has written about.

[3DOP]

This is what Matthew 23 says in the KJV:

1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying, The ^ascribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ ^bseat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

To me, it seems like what is being said is...the scribes and Pharisees sit in the judges seat of the Mosaic law, therefore, observe the law, but do not follow their example. Their priesthood may be invalid, but the law is still valid.

Hi Fly. I could be okay with that. That's a plausible way of dealing with Mt. 23. I don't think it is conclusive for you, but I will concede that you have shown that it is inconclusive on my side too.

Why would the cleansed lepers need to go to a priest? There's no moral law involved with that. It's ceremonial. It is a distinctively priestly function. If the priesthood is invalid, what is the point of approaching a priest? Read Lev. 14 to see all of the ceremony involved with the ritual sacrifices attached to the cleansing of a leper.

3DOP

Edited July 5, 2012 by 3DOP

[Ron Beron]

'3DOP'

Quick question...Who is in your avatar?

[Flyonthewall]

Hi Fly. I could be okay with that. That's a plausible way of dealing with Mt. 23. I don't think it is conclusive for you, but I will concede that you have shown that it is inconclusive on my side too.

Why would the cleansed lepers need to go to a priest? There's no moral law involved with that. It's ceremonial. It is a distinctively priestly function. If the priesthood is invalid, what is the point of approaching a priest? Read Lev. 14 to see all of the ceremony involved with the ritual sacrifices attached to the cleansing of a leper.

3DOP

To me, it would be as simple as...that's what the law says to do. What else could be done to obey the law?

Does it really matter that the priests of the Mosaic Law were utilized? The Mosaic law was fulfilled and did not continue. There was a change of priesthood that came with the change of the law. It is the new priesthood that is to administer the new law, and the old priests did not have it unless called by Jesus or one of the 12.

So even if the Levitical priesthood was valid, it would not be what leads the Church of Christ.

I think I would change the term I use for describing the priesthood... "invalid/valid" isn't the right term.

[Ron Beron]

To me, it would be as simple as...that's what the law says to do. What else could be done to obey the law?

Does it really matter that the priests of the Mosaic Law were utilized? The Mosaic law was fulfilled and did not continue. There was a change of priesthood that came with the change of the law. It is the new priesthood that is to administer the new law, and the old priests did not have it unless called by Jesus or one of the 12.

So even if the Levitical priesthood was valid, it would not be what leads the Church of Christ.

I think I would change the term I use for describing the priesthood... "invalid/valid" isn't the right term.

Why would you say it didn't continue? Certainly, it somewhat ceased with the demise of temple centered Israel, but the apostles and disciples continued to observe the Mosaic Law as did Jesus.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Ron Beron

[Flyonthewall]

Why would you say it didn't continue? Certainly, it somewhat ceased with the demise of temple centered Israel, but the apostles and disciples continued to observe the Mosaic Law as did Jesus.

I say it did not continue because it was fulfilled. Yes the Apostles and Jesus continued to observe the Mosaic law during His mortal mistry, but it was fulfilled with the resurection.

Yes, there may be remnants of the Mosaic Law within the higher law brought by Christ as it was a training tool for the higher law.

Now, if I am in need of some clarification on this, I am all ears...I do not claim to be a scholar on this.

[Ron Beron]

I say it did not continue because it was fulfilled. Yes the Apostles and Jesus continued to observe the Mosaic law during His mortal mistry, but it was fulfilled with the resurection.

Yes, there may be remnants of the Mosaic Law within the higher law brought by Christ as it was a training tool for the higher law.

Now, if I am in need of some clarification on this, I am all ears...I do not claim to be a scholar on this.

Thanks for the input. Some further notes...

According to M. Barker they (the apostles) continued to observe the Mosaic Law

• (Acts 2:46 "Every day they continued to gather together by common consent in the temple courts, breaking bread from house to house, sharing their food with glad and humble hearts,
  
• 2:47 praising God and having the good will of all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number every day those who were being saved."
  
• Luke 24:53 "So they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 24:53 and were continually in the temple courts blessing God.
  
• "Acts 2:42 "They were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.".
  

Fulfillment doesn't mean ending, just that it found its fruition in Jesus and His ministry. The Law is not observed in part to its completeness today which has been brought to fruition through the fulfillment of eschatological messianic expectations. It is still not abolished only accomplished.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Ron Beron

[Calm]

Think of a dream being fulfilled, often that means at last being able to live that dream constantly...like living in one's dream home...

[Flyonthewall]

Thanks for the input. Some further notes...

According to M. Barker they (the apostles) continued to observe the Mosaic Law

• (Acts 2:46 "Every day they continued to gather together by common consent in the temple courts, breaking bread from house to house, sharing their food with glad and humble hearts,
  
• 2:47 praising God and having the good will of all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number every day those who were being saved."
  
• Luke 24:53 "So they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 24:53 and were continually in the temple courts blessing God.
  
• "Acts 2:42 "They were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.".
  

Fulfillment doesn't mean ending, just that it found its fruition in Jesus and His ministry. The Law is not observed in part to its completeness today which has been brought to fruition through the fulfillment of eschatological messianic expectations. It is still not abolished only accomplished.

Yes, this is along the lines of my understanding...to me, if the law is not observed, it is discontinued. I would not say it was abolished either.

And using Calmoriah's example of building a dream home, when construction has been completed, or fulfilled if you will, construction stops or is discontinued, and you move in. Sure there may be things within the home that need maintaining and will require some construction skills, but I would not say I am constructing my house if I am simply repairing a hole in the wall.

[Ron Beron]

Yes, this is along the lines of my understanding...to me, if the law is not observed, it is discontinued. I would not say it was abolished either.

And using Calmoriah's example of building a dream home, when construction has been completed, or fulfilled if you will, construction stops or is discontinued, and you move in. Sure there may be things within the home that need maintaining and will require some construction skills, but I would not say I am constructing my house if I am simply repairing a hole in the wall.

We are still trying to cap those holes, aren't we?

[Yep]

Ok, I've read through a lot of the posts, and I think I'll jump to one thing that for me is rather telling.

The living Apostles Called and Ordained successors as Apostles passed away. This maintained an unbroken line of authority.

The Primacy supposedly was passed by Peter to Linus prior to Peter's death? This doesn't make very much sense to me. Why would an Apostle transfer the Primacy to a Bishop while there were still at least one living Apostle? Also, if Linus, Clement or Cletus were the Leader of the early Church of Jesus Christ, as is claimed by those who deny the apostacy, why did John receive revelation for the seven Churches in Asia and not the leader of the Church who was one of these three?

Also, given the method of successionused by Peter, if Peter did in fact pass the Primacy to the Bishop Linus, why does the Catholic Church not follow Peter's method and have the Pope call his successor? Currently it is my understanding that the Pope dies and then a successor is decided upon, this doesn't match with how Peter is supposed to have passed the succession.

I am an EV, rather than Catholic but felt the need to respond. On what basis is your belief that these claims of yours are indicative of the entire Church going into apostasy?

Changes made to Church ordinances, government and practice would have to occur without revelation since there has been no revelation according to the majority of Christianity. A change from the original state, without God changing it, would be defined as apostacy. Given that Christ set up his Church prior to his crucifixion, I would propose that a change in the governmental structure of his Church would constitute a Church wide Apostacy.

Christ had set up a Church with the Apostles and Seventy as the leadership:

Matthew 18:15-17

15 ¶Moreover if thy brother shall ^atrespass against thee, go and ^btell him his ^cfault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three ^awitnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the ^achurch: but if he ^bneglect to hear the ^cchurch, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

[cksalmon]

Even assuming no misspellings, Mormons have no indisputable facts. Smith said, she said.

Edited July 7, 2012 by cksalmon

[3DOP]

'3DOP'

Quick question...Who is in your avatar?

Hey Ron.

Why that's father and son on the occasion of his reception of the cassock!

Our youngest received the cassock on the Feast of the Purification earlier this year. Also known as Candlemas, this feast is on February 2nd, forty days after Christmas, to recall the Holy Family's visit to the Temple for the purpose of fulfilling the obligation to make sacrifice for the mother of the first-born. It was while fulfilling this precept of the ceremonial law that the holy priest Simeon prophesied that Jesus would be the light of the Gentiles. For this reason, the Church has always used not a few candles in the ceremonies to symbolize Christ as Light of the Nations at what is popularly called Candelmas. (I only give the explanation to further explain my difficulties with the position argued for by your fellow LDS, that the Levitical priesthood was defunct/obsolete/of no effect.)

It is on this great feast that the seminarian receives from the bishop many of the privileges that are avaliable prior to holy orders. In addition to the most visible privilege, the cassock, tonsure is also given, and I think one other ceremony...maybe for porter or something like that. If our boy continues on his present path, I'll let you know what follows next!

3DOP

Edited July 7, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

To me, it would be as simple as...that's what the law says to do. What else could be done to obey the law?

Does it really matter that the priests of the Mosaic Law were utilized? The Mosaic law was fulfilled and did not continue. There was a change of priesthood that came with the change of the law. It is the new priesthood that is to administer the new law, and the old priests did not have it unless called by Jesus or one of the 12.

So even if the Levitical priesthood was valid, it would not be what leads the Church of Christ.

I think I would change the term I use for describing the priesthood... "invalid/valid" isn't the right term.

Hi again Fly. Sorry to be a while getting back...I had a nasty 24 hour stomach flu. Then I wrote a long detailed post that I mistakenly deleted this afternoon. Its okay. Let me summarize:

It would make a big deal of difference if priests were NOT utilized. It would completely undermine my case. But for purposes of discerning total apostasy, with the loss of priesthood keys, If Levitical priests were effectively performing their sacrificial ministry as prescribed by Moses during the times of Christ, we could look back at events of the Old Testament to see what does NOT cause total apostasy. If the Levitical priesthood survived sins, destruction of two Temples, rearrangement of the original hierarchy of service, blasphemies, and other scandals, it might make us be wary about proposing that an apostasy has occurred in the New Testament era.

I'll have to think about this whole thing a lot more. It just never occurred to me that you guys thought that Zachary and Simeon weren't even real priests. I have been going over Luke 1 and 2, and...I just don't see it like that. I see holiness and miracles and perseverance and prophecies that continue to be attached to works associated with the Temple. Notice how the author, I think it is St. Luke, takes such care to tell us that the Holy Family returned to Jerusalem once a year at Passover time to fulfill a Ritual Law that you are saying was meaningless. When Jesus after He had been missing for three days, he explains that he was about His Father's business. And where was that? The Temple! It just seems like there is a pattern here which is aiming at making us recognize that the Old Covenant with its inferior promises and benefits was still nevertheless alive and well.

So if those guys weren't even priests, what about Zerubbabel and Haggai and the guys who rebuilt the Temple according to Ezra and Nehemiah? How far back do you push this thing? I won't but I almost want to make a poll. Would you say that your position, that Zachary's and Simeon's priesthood was defunct is, if not official, the predominant view of LDS?

3DOP

Edited July 7, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Ok, I've read through a lot of the posts, and I think I'll jump to one thing that for me is rather telling.

The living Apostles Called and Ordained successors as Apostles passed away. This maintained an unbroken line of authority.

The Primacy supposedly was passed by Peter to Linus prior to Peter's death? This doesn't make very much sense to me. Why would an Apostle transfer the Primacy to a Bishop while there were still at least one living Apostle? Also, if Linus, Clement or Cletus were the Leader of the early Church of Jesus Christ, as is claimed by those who deny the apostacy, why did John receive revelation for the seven Churches in Asia and not the leader of the Church who was one of these three?

Also, given the method of successionused by Peter, if Peter did in fact pass the Primacy to the Bishop Linus, why does the Catholic Church not follow Peter's method and have the Pope call his successor? Currently it is my understanding that the Pope dies and then a successor is decided upon, this doesn't match with how Peter is supposed to have passed the succession.

Changes made to Church ordinances, government and practice would have to occur without revelation since there has been no revelation according to the majority of Christianity. A change from the original state, without God changing it, would be defined as apostacy. Given that Christ set up his Church prior to his crucifixion, I would propose that a change in the governmental structure of his Church would constitute a Church wide Apostacy.

Christ had set up a Church with the Apostles and Seventy as the leadership:

Matthew 18:15-17

15 ¶Moreover if thy brother shall ^atrespass against thee, go and ^btell him his ^cfault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three ^awitnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the ^achurch: but if he ^bneglect to hear the ^cchurch, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Hey Yep. Good to see you. I hope I get time to get back to you on your latest question before my trip early next week. I'm glad you had a chance to go through your thread. Do you have any comment on what has been said so far? What is your opinion of the Levitical priesthood in the time of Christ, alive or dead?

[Ron Beron]

Hey Ron.

Why that's father and son on the occasion of his reception of the cassock!

Our youngest received the cassock on the Feast of the Purification earlier this year. Also known as Candlemas, this feast is on February 2nd, forty days after Christmas, to recall the Holy Family's visit to the Temple for the purpose of fulfilling the obligation to make sacrifice for the mother of the first-born. It was while fulfilling this precept of the ceremonial law that the holy priest Simeon prophesied that Jesus would be the light of the Gentiles. For this reason, the Church has always used not a few candles in the ceremonies to symbolize Christ as Light of the Nations at what is popularly called Candelmas. (I only give the explanation to further explain my difficulties with the position argued for by your fellow LDS, that the Levitical priesthood was defunct/obsolete/of no effect.)

It is on this great feast that the seminarian receives from the bishop many of the privileges that are avaliable prior to holy orders. In addition to the most visible privilege, the cassock, tonsure is also given, and I think one other ceremony...maybe for porter or something like that. If our boy continues on his present path, I'll let you know what follows next!

3DOP

That is really exciting! You must be very proud. I remember well my First Communion and Confirmation as if it were yesterday. Except for the theology (the wife, kids, etc., etc.,) it kinda makes me wish I were a priest.

[3DOP]

That is really exciting! You must be very proud. I remember well my First Communion and Confirmation as if it were yesterday. Except for the theology (the wife, kids, etc., etc.,) it kinda makes me wish I were a priest.

Thanks Ron. We are proud...and will be even if he doesn't make it as a priest. He'd make a good catch for a good Catholic girl. He has become a good, happy, helpful young man and such a joy to be around. I think I mentioned once that our other boy got married a few years ago and somehow I think it came up that we were within a stone's throw of where you live or work. I might be mistaken, but was that you that is near the Basilica at San Juan Capistrano? Anyway, he just got on with the Orange County Sheriff's Office after his Marine stint. Anyway, yeah...proud of the youngest and the oldest boy.

Thanks again for the personal interest.

3DOP

Edited July 7, 2012 by 3DOP

[Flyonthewall]

Hi again Fly. Sorry to be a while getting back...I had a nasty 24 hour stomach flu. Then I wrote a long detailed post that I mistakenly deleted this afternoon. Its okay. Let me summarize:

It would make a big deal of difference if priests were NOT utilized. It would completely undermine my case. But for purposes of discerning total apostasy, with the loss of priesthood keys, If Levitical priests were effectively performing their sacrificial ministry as prescribed by Moses during the times of Christ, we could look back at events of the Old Testament to see what does NOT cause total apostasy. If the Levitical priesthood survived sins, destruction of two Temples, rearrangement of the original hierarchy of service, blasphemies, and other scandals, it might make us be wary about proposing that an apostasy has occurred in the New Testament era.

I'll have to think about this whole thing a lot more. It just never occurred to me that you guys thought that Zachary and Simeon weren't even real priests. I have been going over Luke 1 and 2, and...I just don't see it like that. I see holiness and miracles and perseverance and prophecies that continue to be attached to works associated with the Temple. Notice how the author, I think it is St. Luke, takes such care to tell us that the Holy Family returned to Jerusalem once a year at Passover time to fulfill a Ritual Law that you are saying was meaningless. When Jesus after He had been missing for three days, he explains that he was about His Father's business. And where was that? The Temple! It just seems like there is a pattern here which is aiming at making us recognize that the Old Covenant with its inferior promises and benefits was still nevertheless alive and well.

So if those guys weren't even priests, what about Zerubbabel and Haggai and the guys who rebuilt the Temple according to Ezra and Nehemiah? How far back do you push this thing? I won't but I almost want to make a poll. Would you say that your position, that Zachary's and Simeon's priesthood was defunct is, if not official, the predominant view of LDS?

3DOP

Hi 3DOP, hope you are feeling better...

I can understand the frustration of taking the time to compose a long, well thought out response, only to have it disappear when somehow the entire post gets highlighted and you hit the spacebar....and its gone....

Hopefully I can clarify without sounding like I'm backtracking...too much...

I believe there were "real" priests. There were righteous individuals that weilded their priesthood in righteousness, but Israel as a whole, was apostate.

I will use a hollywood movie as an example...Batman...Gotham City had a corrupt police force...yes, there were individuals that were still honest, but as a group, they were corrupt. Now those corrupt officers were still on the police force, but are they really officers of the law?

This is the same as with all the times Israel went into apostasy...there were righteous individuals, but as a whole they were apostate.

There were times that the Lord said He would no longer accept their offerings, but that did not mean they weren't required to continue obeying the law.

Now, for the NT times, as I have stated before, the Levitical priesthood would not be leading the church, or officiating in the higher law. The higher law mandated a higher priesthood, which Christ gave to the Apostles. The Apostles selected replacements for several of their members as needed, but eventually, they all had died out.

I understand, you may beleive that the authority of the Apostles were given to Bishops, and that is the difference between continuing authority and loss of authority.

This is the way I see it going down...Apostles were the leadership of the church as a whole. They selected congregational leaders, or Bishops. Bishops had the authority to lead congregations, and select leaders within their congregation, but not to select other Bishops or lead the whole church.

When the Apostles had all died, without selecting new Apostles, the authority to lead the church, and select new Bishops, was lost.

Bishops that were select by the Apostles, continued on until their deaths, at which time the proper authority to lead congregations was lost.

The people recognized they needed new leaders, so they selected them, but without the proper authority to do so. These most likely were good men that did the best they could with what they understood. There were instances of the people rejecting the Bishops that were selected by the Apostles and replaced them with ones they selected.

So the desire to continue the church was there, but not the authority to officiate.

The loss of authority does not automatically mean everyone was unrighteous or unfaithful. There were many good and faithful individuals, but with the loss of proper authority came doctrinal drift.

[Calm]

I can understand the frustration of taking the time to compose a long, well thought out response, only to have it disappear when somehow the entire post gets highlighted and you hit the spacebar....and its gone....

Don't forget to try "undo [edit]" or "undo typing", I always forget this when it happens to me.

[Yep]

3DOP,

I believe the Levitical priesthood was alive at the time of the NT. I believe that Christ would have commented or condemned them for it if it were not. When Israel went into captivity there were 24 (num?) courses of priests, after they returned there were 4 left. At the time of the NT I believe there were over 1000 priests that could have been selected for the privilege that Zachary was given. I have never heard this theory before.

[cdowis]

The evidence for the apostacy is simple, when the Christan church replaced apostles and prophets with scholars and theologians. The Christians had then followed the model of the scribes and Pharasees, rather than the organization of Christ.

We see this difference when Saul the Pharasee became Paul the apostle and prophet.

Edited July 8, 2012 by cdowis