Was There An Apostacy In The Early Christian Church?

[3DOP]

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.

Thanks Yep.

I am encouraged to move on to something more refreshing.

Unless someone else wants to continue, this is the last time I will belabor my point on the durability of the Levitical priesthood. Collectively, Israel had committed the most appalling sins with the complicity of the Levitical priests which ultimately resulted in their being sold into slavery and the Temple destroyed. I Esdras, or Ezra tells the story of how the second Temple was rebuilt:

In the first year of Cyrus king of the Persians, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremias might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of the Persians: and he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and in writing also, saying: Thus saith Cyrus king of the Persians: The Lord the God of heaven hath given to me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he hath charged me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judea.

---Ezra 1: 1-3

Clearly this is the work of God. It is God's desire that the Levitical priesthood begin anew to offer up sacrifices as before in the Temple:

Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Juda and Benjamin, and the priests, and Levites, and every one whose spirit God had raised up, to go up to build the temple of the Lord, which was in Jerusalem.

---Ezra 1:5

Chapter two gives a catalogue of the people who came back to Jerusalem to help rebuild. There is an interesting observation toward the end of the chapter about a family who was denied the priesthood:

And of the children of the priests: the children of Hobia, the children of Accos, the children of Berzellai, who took a wife of the daughters of Berzellai, the Galaadite, and was called by their name: These sought the writing of their genealogy, and found it not, and they were cast out of the priesthood.

---Ezra 2:62, 63

This would appear to teach that regardless of any punishments from God for spiritual adultery, that the priesthood remained intact according to the ordinary way of its continuance, by family. There was no interruption of the priesthood, and that is why I said above that the history of the Old Testament is one of apostasy followed by revival with the same continuous priestly ordinances. The people of these times never fell so far that God removed the priesthood from them.

I will conclude with a long but to me, clear passage indicating with assurance that God had given the Israelites the grace and freedom to return to Jerusalem to celebrate the same feasts with the same priests in the same way as they had done in the days of Moses:

And the children of Israel, the priests and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity kept the dedication of the house of God with joy. And they offered at the dedication of the house of God, a, hundred calves, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs, and for a sin offering for all Israel twelve he goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses over the works of God in Jerusalem, as it is written in the book of Moses. And the children of Israel of the captivity kept the phase [passover], on the fourteenth day of the first month. For all the priests and the Levites were purified as one man: all were clear to kill the phase for all the children of the captivity, and for their brethren the priests, and themselves. And the children of Israel that were returned from captivity, and all that had separated themselves from the filthiness of the nations of the earth to them, to seek the Lord the God of Israel, did eat. And they kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy, for the Lord had made them joyful, and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, that he should help their hands in the work of the house of the Lord the God of Israel.

---Ezra 6:16-22

I see no way to believe that the Levitical priesthood was lost at the time of Christ if it was found at the times of the 2nd Temple. The same phenomena which preceded the building of the 2nd Temple occurred with the rebuilding of the 3rd Temple. Again, a king was motivated to help the Jews rebuild the House of God, with prophets foretelling the future and good priests, like Zachary:

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zachary, of the course of Abia; and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elizabeth.

---Luke 1:5

The reason I ask if Zachary was a real priest is because it IS possible that someone might be willing to call someone a priest, while at the same time denying that his office is valid. I would appreciate that this would be what is meant if folks here ever have the opportunity to congratulate me regarding my son on becoming a "priest". But is Luke being merely polite about a priest with no special authority to intercede to God on behalf of God's people? Is the author of Ezra simply reporting that the Levites, except for one family, faithfully preserved the family genealogy through several generations of priestly inactivity only to be "pretend priests" whose office is no longer desired by God. I submit that the same pattern follows in the Gospel, where after an interruption of priestly activity of many generations occurs, there are still some Levitical priests who have the papers, like Zachary, which is why it is so significant that it is mentioned not only that he is of the course of Abia, but that even his wife was of the daughters of Aaron.

This would all be superfluous information except it lets us know that Zachary and his fellow priests, unlike the family of Berzellai, had faithfully preserved proof of their priestly authority, and when the 3rd Temple was built, which Jesus called My Father's House, the sacrifices and offerings which were made could once again be renewed because just as before, the Levites and priests were "purified as one man."

The abominations which led to the destruction of Temples did not result in the destruction of the Levitical priesthood.

____________________

My sole reason for belaboring over this is because I want to move on to discuss the papacy, celibacy, Mary, or other concerns of a doctrinal nature. What I do not want is to make my case for priestly celibacy only to have to switch back to that morbid story about the pope in the 800's who got pulled out of his grave so his corpse could be put on trial before they pitched him in the Tiber. I know about these things. I can see how that event could be disconcerting to one investigating the Catholic faith. But what about the one investigating the true religion in the times before Christ? There were events equally or more disturbing during the era of the Levitical priesthood. But some of us can see that spiritual life continued and the sacrifices and offerings of the true religion were re-established or continued in spite of sometimes horrific disturbances which involve leadership of the one true religion.

I propose that he who would find the true religion must understand that horrific behavior is compatible with the true religion. It is not because the good God is indifferent. We see God's chastising hand repeatedly. Nevertheless, in His mercy, God does not necessarily remove the means of grace and instruments of salvation every time that he punishes. The searcher may learn that God loves His people even in their sin, and if they fall away and lose all faith, it is not because He removed from them the human instruments of faith and salvation. (I bolded not necessarily to highlight that I can remain open to the idea that in this dispensation, God is less merciful than in the last. That might still allow for an apostasy theory on the basis of horrible behavior). I can think of no other reason why anyone could imagine the Levitical priesthood to be defunct than that they are persuaded that horrific behavior is always incompatible with the true religion.

I am more than willing to channel my concentration on to doctrinal difficulties, but not if everybody thinks because the Spanish crown once had a misplaced political strategy of exile for Jews who would not accept baptism, that it follows that the Catholic Church is false. First of all, the Pope was never an omnipotent temporal ruler. The monarchs were at frequent odds with Catholic teaching as with this Spanish policy. But even more simply, if we have a precedent to see that even if the Church was complicit in such an activity, it does not extinguish the priesthood, then it becomes more inviting for me to move on to the more difficult doctrinal controversies. That historical precedent is what I have endeavored to establish. Clearly, some LDS agree with me. You can still believe in an apostasy. But don't insist on making it more simple to prove than it really is by recalling how your schoolbooks describe the meeting between Conquistador and Aztec. Ultimately, I predict that the clearest "proof" of the apostasy will be a testimony of the Book of Mormon. That is where I would go if I had such a testimony.

Thanks for your consideration to any who should continue to the end of a long post. Yep, I am afraid I have to go out of town this week for work. I might get to your question about the primacy before I leave. If not, I hope I can begin to discuss doctrine next Saturday.

3DOP

Edited July 8, 2012 by 3DOP

[Ron Beron]

I see no way to believe that the Levitical priesthood was lost at the time of Christ if it was found at the times of the 2nd Temple. The same phenomena which preceded the building of the 2nd Temple occurred with the rebuilding of the 3rd Temple.

I am also inclined to believe that the Levitical priesthood did continue with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and into the diaspora. The difference is that with the loss of the temple system in Israel the need for the priesthood ceased, but continued to live on alas, in name only.

[Yep]

3DOP,

If I understand what you have written so far, it seems that you are claiming that an apostacy wasn't likely to have occurred based on historical precedent in regards to similar occurrences not leading to such in the OT. My personal view is that the crucifixion of Christ began the divorce of Judah which was complete upon the dispersion of the Jews. Since that occurrence, there is not the same level of promise to the Christian following due to a lack of covenant between God and Man.

[Yep]

Now, we, the LDS, claim God has made covenants with us. But prior to this there were none.

Sorry, my phone limits me to short posts.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Yep

[CASteinman]

John's father was a Levite who officiated in the temple. His ordination was hereditary.

But John the Baptist's ordination had a different source.

[Calm]

Perhaps, but he could have had two callings/missions preceded by two ordinations in order to anticipate him fulfilling his Levitical work that he had been groomed for since his birth and the other for his calling as Elias for which he had been groomed before his birth.

[Ron Beron]

But John the Baptist's ordination had a different source.

As I stated in the church's position per DC 84:28 (see #51 above)

[CASteinman]

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

Does anyone on the planet have an indisputable fact? (That would be a fact that is not disputable).

[CASteinman]

As I stated in the church's position per DC 84:28 (see #51 above)

But it was not the Church's position you quoted in #51. It was the opinion of some random person who created a website. And he kinda got it wrong as indicated by the quotes he presented from apostles and prophets.

For example he says that the priesthood was just automatic from father to son. But modern apostles say that (despite the many people who might be father and son in the so-called Levitical priesthoood) only John was an actual legal priesthood authority.

Which, obviously, negates the theory that the true Levitical Priesthood was passing from father to son. What we were seeing was the apostate remnant of that Priesthood. Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.

[Ron Beron]

But it was not the Church's position you quoted in #51. It was the opinion of some random person who created a website. And he kinda got it wrong as indicated by the quotes he presented from apostles and prophets.

For example he says that the priesthood was just automatic from father to son. But modern apostles say that (despite the many people who might be father and son in the so-called Levitical priesthoood) only John was an actual legal priesthood authority.

Which, obviously, negates the theory that the true Levitical Priesthood was passing from father to son. What we were seeing was the apostate remnant of that Priesthood. Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.

Gosh, Steinman...I was agreeing with you, but I disagree it was ordination of the priesthood which came from his father. Instead, he was ordained not in priesthood, but as an Elias. Check verse 26, “the lesser priesthood continued…with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John.”

Joseph Fielding Smith

The reason Zacharias could not ordain John is because of the fact that John received certain keys of authority which his father Zacharias did not possess. Therefore this special authority had to be conferred by this heavenly messenger, who was duly authorized and sent to confer it. John's ordination was not…the bestowal of the Aaronic Priesthood, which his father held, but…the conferring of certain essential powers peculiar to the time among which was the authority to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews and “to make straight the way of the Lord.” Moreover, it was to prepare the Jews and other Israelites for the coming of the Son of God. This great authority required a special ordination beyond the delegated power that had been given to Zacharias or any other priest who went before him, so the angel of the Lord was sent to John in his childhood to confer it. (Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 5: 2.)

Edited July 10, 2012 by Ron Beron

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Does anyone on the planet have an indisputable fact? (That would be a fact that is not disputable).

Yes, there truly are an enormous amount of indisputable facts in the world.

1. The earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa.

2. We all breathe air as humans.

3. Water can quench our thirst as effective if not better than other fluids.

4. Life has been being born and dying for quite some time here.

5. The oceans on earth are vaster than the land mass.

6. The mountains on earth are higher in elevation than the valleys.

7. Bugs can REALLY "bug" you man!

Just some obvious quickies......

Edited July 10, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[CASteinman]

Yes, there truly are an enormous amount of indisputable facts in the world.

1. The earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa.

2. We all breathe air as humans.

3. Water can quench our thirst as effective if not better than other fluids.

4. Life has been being born and dying for quite some time here.

5. The oceans on earth are vaster than the land mass.

6. The mountains on earth are higher in elevation than the valleys.

7. Bugs can REALLY "bug" you man!

Just some obvious quickies......

I believe that there are people who would dispute all of these things. I have seen it disputed that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth. I have heard of people who claim that they do not have to breathe. I believe I recall reading about certain holy men who only subsisted on fruit that fell and never even drank water... and so on.

It can all be disputed. Thus it is all disputable.

[CASteinman]

Gosh, Steinman...I was agreeing with you, but I disagree it was ordination of the priesthood which came from his father. Instead, he was ordained not in priesthood, but as an Elias. Check verse 26, “the lesser priesthood continued…with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John.”

I did not think we were in agreement at all -- for exactly the reasons you are pointing out.

Yes.. up to John, through righteous Zachariah who died in the Temple. And had he not had John as a son, he would have been the last Priesthood holder. As it was, John was the last priesthood holder.

So, what does that make of all the other people who claimed to hold the priesthood? Obviously it is not passed from father to son in those cases.

[Ron Beron]

I did not think we were in agreement at all -- for exactly the reasons you are pointing out.

Yes.. up to John, through righteous Zachariah who died in the Temple. And had he not had John as a son, he would have been the last Priesthood holder. As it was, John was the last priesthood holder.

So, what does that make of all the other people who claimed to hold the priesthood? Obviously it is not passed from father to son in those cases.

If the line is a blood line the priesthood line of Aaron is inherited, but because of the destruction of the temple and the advent of Jesus as Great High Priest effectually the priesthood ceased only in function, not in inheritance. I was born from a Jewish mother named Adler who was Levitical. I inherited the bloodline, but not the authority until I came into the church.

We haven't even begun to question the priesthood of James and his family. If Jesus was Levitical and born through Mary, a cousin to Elizabeth then wouldn't he and his brothers have also been Levitical? Some sources find Jesus his father Joseph (Matthew 1:4) and ostensibly James a Zadokite or a high priest.

[Yep]

I do not know if this relates to some of the comments going on at the moment, but if it does so much the better.

As to when/if the levitical line lost the priesthood since the NT, I believe that Maimonides as well as other Jewish Rabbis have stated that one of the major reasons that the Jews do not have a temple is that they do not have the priesthood. This, I believe, is regardless of the fact that there must be Levitical descendants among the Jews today. The existence of a Levitically descended individual is irrelevant. Maimonides stated once that the Jews need the priesthood to be restored to the Jews.

[thesometimesaint]

CASteinman:

I believe that there are people who would dispute all of these things. I have seen it disputed that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth. I have heard of people who claim that they do not have to breathe. I believe I recall reading about certain holy men who only subsisted on fruit that fell and never even drank water... and so on.

It can all be disputed. Thus it is all disputable.

Everything/anything CAN be disputed. But that hardly makes it a valid disputation.

[KevinG]

It can all be disputed. Thus it is all disputable.

I dispute that.

[CASteinman]

Everything/anything CAN be disputed. But that hardly makes it a valid disputation.

Validity was not the issue.

[3DOP]

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.

3DOP

The original twelve apostles were bishops sent by Christ to evangelize. When Judas fell, he was replaced. When Mathias became an apostle, he filled Judas' office of bishop:

Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas...Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry...For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

---Acts 1: 16, 17, 20

Judas' bishopric was filled by Mathias, who was numbered with the eleven apostles. But there is no indication that every other apostle was to be replaced. There is no evidence to show that "the Twelve" had on any other occasions, any concern or obligations about "replacement apostles". There's was a unique mission and they had successors who would follow them in the episcopate, but not as apostles. Of course the Church has an apostolic foundation, but to suggest that the apostolic office is required to continue seems like little less than accusing the apostles themselves of negligence.

St. Clement of Rome, who flourished in the first century, offers some insight into how the searcher may understand where the apostolic authority resides:

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

---I Clement 42

This is the Tradition, compatible with Holy Scripture, that Catholics accept. Like St. Clement of Rome, understanding that the meaning of apostle, is "one who is sent" (Jn. 13:16), we perceive that as Christ was an Apostle (Heb. 3:1) sent by the Father, the apostles were sent by Christ for a special mission (Jn. 20:21). All of the Apostles were bishops by virtue of Holy Orders. But they were apostles by virtue of their mission. To be an apostle is not to hold an office, but to perform a distinct mission as one who is sent. To this day, Catholics refer to great missionaries as apostles. St. Francis Xavier for instance, is known as the Apostle to the Indies, because he spread the Gospel eastward into India and China, but not because it is some kind of office to be perpetually filled. You will note that first century Christians understood the apostolic office in the same way, seeing that the Apostles went about ordaining bishops and deacons as their successors for the perpetuation of Christ's Gospel.

Yep, if the Church had split up, faded away, and gone into obscurity after adopting the view of St. Clement I could be inclined to wonder if perhaps you are correct. I am not saying that your position is incompatible with Scripture. I am suggesting that the Catholic view seems more compatible with the history of the Church. In the next chapter of his work, Clement, continuing his theme of recognizing the true ministry, points out to the time where there was contention over which tribes of Israel might have the privilege of the priesthood. He reminds us that Moses took a barren stick from each of the twelve tribes. When Aaron's stick, or rod had budded, it showed how they knew that God was indicating that His will was that it would be the children of Aaron who would be the priests. Likewise, if the Apostles had opted to ordain other apostles, who in turn oversaw the triumph of the Gospel in pagan Rome, I would be entirely inclined to see in that fruit too, Aaron's rod that budded.

I do not imagine to present clever and irrefutable ideas. My ideas are merely plausible as are yours. But I am looking for Aaron's rod. I am looking for fruit to indicate where the authority and power of God resides. I am satisfied that the popular acceptance of the Christian Gospel by pagan Rome is that fruit. It was a miracle, won by the blood of disciples of Christ willing to die for their faith, which is more potent testimony to me than a dead stick bearing a blossom. I am not open to any so-called apostasy that is forced to deny good fruit while presenting technical difficulties about church hierarchy and disputed doctrines. Such controversies are irresolvable by themselves. But a corrupt tree does not bear good fruit. I am completely enthused if I may be privileged to be grafted in as a branch on the tree spoken of by St. Clement, whereas an apostasy theory would make me disdain that which is preeminently desirable.

How could anyone who loves the Gospel be unimpressed with the sacrifices of the early Christians? That is what impressed the pagans! That is why they converted. Because I find a verse that says the Church is founded on the apostles I would need to think that the first centuries after Christ were apostate? I cannot do that. I want Scripture to make sense, but I need my history to make sense too. I believe St. Clement, before his own martyrdom, adequately answers how we can believe that the Church is founded on the Apostles, and continued with their successors in the episcopate.

3DOP

Edited July 14, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

I am so sorry for all the kooky changes in size and stuff...How distracting. I did that because when I compose in the reply box, I sometimes "lose" the post so I used Word Perfect or some such program and look at how that turns out. Anyway, I'll try to tidy it up.

[CASteinman]

I am so sorry for all the kooky changes in size and stuff...How distracting. I did that because when I compose in the reply box, I sometimes "lose" the post so I used Word Perfect or some such program and look at how that turns out. Anyway, I'll try to tidy it up.

Your post looked good actually. It made some sense to me also. I could reply in detail, but I am not sure it would be useful to you or anyone else.

[3DOP]

Yep

The Primacy supposedly was passed by Peter to Linus prior to Peter's death? This doesn't make very much sense to me.

3DOP

The primacy is with the church at Rome because that is the place where the Apostles Peter and Paul fruitfully labored and were martyred. It is to the beliefs and practices of the Church at Rome to which the Christians of the first centuries looked for guidance. We believe that Peter's work continues in God's providence and that the promises of Christ that are unique to St. Peter continue not because of a special ceremony of primacy, but because God will not let the bishop who follows in Peter's chair at Rome to fail:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

---St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2

Above and before beliefs about Petrine primacy were more fully developed, the teachings and practices of the Church at Rome were considered to be authoritative and reliable. In my opinion, many Catholics in our day are unfamiliar with the lack of evidence for full knowledge of the papacy prior to the third century. They almost seem to assume that the Catholic faith was fully blossomed in the first century and that everyone immediately looked to the bishops of Rome as infallible popes, and successors of St. Peter. Now, I do hold that such views as later developed naturally follow from the apostolic revelation. But I am convinced that the first Christians understood little of the papal prerogatives and perhaps the popes themselves were not entirely knowledgable. St. Irenaeus wrote in the late 2nd Century. I admit what I do because there is no mention of the bishop of Rome as successor to St. Peter by Irenaeus. But significantly, there clearly WAS a tradition pointing to the Church at Rome. Arguably apostolic, this tradition posited that for various reasons, and principally because of the joint custody of its founding years under Peter and Paul, that all of the faithful must follow the Roman Church.

So I would agree that any idea of Peter ordaining Linus doesn't make much sense.

Yep

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?

3DOP

We don't believe that the primacy is transferred to any apostle or bishop unless he be the bishop of Rome. Peter's greatest and final work was at Rome. Peter was martyred at Rome. Peter was buried at Rome. It is that local church which enjoyed his teaching, experienced the grief of his death and suffering, and which could be relied upon to fiercely maintain the practices and teachings which he, along with St. Paul established. Not only this. Approximately the first fifteen bishops of Rome died for their faith. The faith was most fiercely persecuted in the city of bread and circuses where the suffering of Christians was the entertainment of the populace. The primacy of Peter is clearly seen in Scripture, the primacy of the city of his resting place is clearly seen historically.

The early church seeing the promises made unto St. Peter by our Lord, observed a rule which had been practised from the beginning. This rule of adhering to the Church at Rome was expounded by Irenaeus. He appears to have been the first to recognize the significance of the letter of St. Clement (bishop of Rome) to the Corinthians in response to a question they had addressed to him. Why, if each local church had independent hegemony, did Corinth appeal to Rome? And why did Clement answer with authority? Gradually then, the Church began to more clearly understand why and how the Roman bishop was the successor of St. Peter in a singular way.

------------------------------------

I would answer that a very important reason against the propriety of St. John as bishop of Rome is that he wasn't there. The people of Rome didn't even know him personally. For the same reason, most of the 264 popes have been Italians and many of those Romans. Certainly after its founding and establishment by apostles, and throughout the centuries of persecution, the Roman bishops were from Rome. As for why neither Linus, nor Cletus, nor Clement received the revelation that was given to the Apostle John, I could not say. I could speculate. To recognize the primacy of Peter is not to diminish the prophetic word to whosoever it may appear. In neither testament is revelation the exclusive prerogative of the highest ranking religious authority.

Edited July 14, 2012 by 3DOP

[Glenn101]

3DOP, you have shown us the Catholic tradition of how the bishop of Rome attained primacy in the Catholic Church. And that is all well and good, for Catholics. Obviously the rest of Christianity does not accept those traditions. It would help your legal and spiritual case if some documentary evidence could be found to support those traditions. Of course there is none in the Bible, but extra-canonical documents would help.

It is easy to understand why the apostles could not call other apostles to replace the ones that were being killed off. The persecution of Christians had become very sever in the Roman empire by that time. Peter's case is a prime example.

The efforts of the various bishops to control and run the church seem to be a natural result of the leadership vacuum that existed as the apostles were either killed, exiled, or imprisoned. The Roman government evidently felt that the Christians were part of a new and dangerous cult that believed in Jesus as a "king" and was subversive to Roman rule. Getting rid of the apostles by the Roman government seems to have been an attempt to kill the Christian movement by cutting off its head.

History tells us that there was early disagreement among the various bishops about which of them should become the head of the church and the primacy of the bishop of Rome did not come about easily or quickly.

Glenn

[Flyonthewall]

3DOP aligns himself with the Catholic tradition of a continuous line of authority, which is understandable.

From the outside looking in, the only reason LDS say there was an apostasy, is LDS tradition.

If I understand the origins of Protestantism correctly, they started out in protest of the way the Catholic church was doing things.

They may believe in an apostasy also but not quite the same as LDS.

Catholics have their writings that point to continuous authority.

We have our writings that tell us of the apostasy.

Whether or not one accepts there was actually an apostasy, depends on where their faith resides.

[CASteinman]

I like 3DOP's posts. I believe the evidence for apostasy is compelling and the evidence for continued line of authority at the very best to be wispy and tenuous.

But I do not dislike seeing efforts to firm up that foggy mess.

I think from an apologetics perspective, removing the "Faith" elements (this is what my Church teaches) is going to work pretty well in a more academic discussion and I believe 3DOP does that pretty well.

Edited July 15, 2012 by CASteinman