Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[CASteinman]

Hope that helps.

It does for me.

[Flyonthewall]

In Amos 8:11 it does mention something that could be considered "total" or "complete"...

11 ¶Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a ^afamine of bread, nor a ^bthirst for water, but of hearing the ^cwords of the Lord:

12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall ^arun to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

[Robert F. Smith]

The following statement was contained in an in-house letter of correction to Eugene England (February 19, 1981), a professor at BYU (now deceased), who had been instructing certain things in relation to the concept of God always increasing in knowledge. In response, writing as an LDS apostle, Elder McConkie was in disagreement with that idea. I think it is instructive in how the recognized leadership of the Church views their authority in establishing what doctrine the Church teaches:

I'm not sure what you mean by "an in-house letter of correction," but you apparently are not familiar with the true story: In 1980 Professor England sent a copy of his unpublished essay to Elder McConkie for his comment. McConkie responded with a very threatening letter and mailed it to England. He also sent a copy of his letter to his son Joseph McConkie, a professor at BYU, who immediately copied and circulated the letter. England and his wife were out of the country at the time and had not seen the letter. He arrived back in Provo to find a virtual firestorm about the matter. I personally witnessed England's wife Charlotte weeping over the false rumors and claims being made about her husband.

England's dangerous essay was published in BYU Studies, 29/3 (1989), 31-47, and is available online at http://eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/1989_e_001.pdf . Read it for yourself. See if it is so horrible. You can read Rebecca England's account of the entire matter at http://www.eugeneengland.org/a-professor-and-apostle-correspond-eugene-england-and-bruce-r-mcconkie-on-the-nature-of-god .

[volgadon]

The New Testament extant manuscripts are in Greek not Hebrew.

Did I state otherwise? Maybe the Bereans were studying Acts 17:11 and onwards...

[cdowis]

Am an engineer by profession...part of my job is to investigate claims against my employer...assist our lawyers...by punching holes into the claims, recommend holes our lawyers can attack claims. I can pretty much tell if my leg is being pulled.

Let me ask you then...which is more full of baloney....the evidence presented in article that has not been verified by independent, well known, well respected non-LDS archaeologists? Or self serving testimony?

Do you think this is baloney: When an archaeological is found or discovered about a Biblical event, the world wants to know about this discovery? Why has no one ever trooped head over heels to an archaeological proof of the BOM?

Let us suppose that you are given an assignment to investigate the liability of a company regarding an air crash.

Now you line up a couple of experts, those who have excellent reputations based on their investigation of a hundred air accidents. Now you ask his opinion of the cause, but discover that he only knows what he read a few days after the accident in the local newspaper.

OK, so based on that newspaper report, he gives you his expert opinion. How useful is his opinion in your assignment -- an expert, yes, but lacking critical details.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, look into how many in the archeology community have given the BOM an extensive study. No... wait... just find out how many have actually read the BOM, are familiar with its text. You will find that they 'trip over' a "book delivered by an angel."

Because of the source of the BOM, it requires the possibility of angels. The Bible makes no such requirement -- it was written by scribes and the texts were passed down in a naturalistic way.

Why has no one ever trooped head over heels to an archaeological proof of the BOM?

The BOM has a very high hurtle for any scientist to take it seriously for research -==>> delivered by an angel, translated by a prophet, the voice of God affirming that it was translated correctly, gold plates not available.

Edited March 29, 2013 by cdowis

[Gervin]

Now, look into how many in the archeology community have given the BOM an extensive study. No... wait... just find out how many have actually read the BOM, are familiar with its details. You will find that they have no interest in a "book delivered by an angel."

I believe you overstate the importance of a book's provenance in the investigative interests of an archaeologist. The Bible is a good example. Archaeologists use the Bible as a guidebook to understand the cultural setting and purported geographic locations described therein. Ultimately, they put most of their trust in a verification process based in ground archaeology. Using the Bible as a guidebook doesn't require a belief in the religious claims of the book. That the book contains some accurately-described historic items probably doesn't hurt.

The historic truth of the people and events described in the BOM aren't dependent on the provenance of the book. LDS and non-LDS archaeologists, alike, are welcome to use the BOM as a guidebook. It's up to the former to convince the latter that there is merit in actually doing so.

[Questing Beast]

...

Now, look into how many in the archeology community have given the BOM an extensive study. No... wait... just find out how many have actually read the BOM, are familiar with its details. You will find that they have no interest in a "book delivered by an angel."

It is more simple than that, cdowis: reading the book, as more have done than you allow, produces instant problems for non Mormons. Without the early training, or the already existing desire to find a "truth", a reader who knows his Bible will see instant "plagiarisms" in the BoM. With the reader's alarm bells already going off, s/he will be looking for further such indicators, and find plenty of them. The top of the list is the use of biblical quotations, many of which are simply KJV mistaken notions about biblical history. You are aware, I take it, that the official LDS scriptures before the 1981 footnoted edition, included a Bible dictionary/commentary which taught the theory of "first Isaiah and second Isaiah", i.e. pre exilic and post exilic Isaiah? And that the BoM quotes directly from post exilic Isaiah? That the biblical quotes include 18th century KJV mistakes? That there is nothing whatsoever about the book's assertions about geography that fit into the Western Hemisphere beyond the obvious, facile north continent, south continent, Panama peninsula as the "narrow neck of land" paradigm? All such searching for a "limited geography" and hidden small population theory stemmed from the obvious dichotomies (and contradicting statements) of Joseph Smith and the book itself? At this juncture it is unlikely to determine what Joseph Smith et al. possessed vis-a-vis knowledge of the Middle East and ancient America. But the book itself contains the kind of errors in thinking that were extant at the time. And as time moves on, with further discoveries, the BoM will continue to recede in accuracy, not be vindicated as literal history, including the story of how we got the book in the first place.

Is the BoM worthless? Is the Bible worthless? Is "scripture" worthless if it isn't based in a literal, historical setting? Those questions depend on what the individual needs. If you need ONE religious paradigm to be "God's only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth", then no the scriptures are not worthless. If you don't require everyone in all times and places to adhere eventually to one religious paradigm in order to "get into heaven", etc., then the scriptures are far less useful doctrinally, probably almost useless for teaching doctrine: because doctrine only governs believers inside a religious paradigm. All other truth-seekers are seeking with other tools. Scriptures contain "wisdom literal" as well, and that is proven to be constant and timeless. The stories in scripture can illustrate human behavior and "comeupance", but often the conclusions are falsely associated with "God's will". "Caveat emptor!"....

Edited March 29, 2013 by Questing Beast

[cdowis]

It is more simple than that, cdowis: reading the book, as more have done than you allow, produces instant problems for non Mormons. Without the early training, or the already existing desire to find a "truth", a reader who knows his Bible will see instant "plagiarisms" in the BoM. With the reader's alarm bells already going off, s/he will be looking for further such indicators, and find plenty of them.

We are talking about two different audiences The archeologists have little or no direct knowledge of the contents of the BOM. You are assuming that they will will actually read the book, much less do a detailed textual analysis with a comparison of the Bible. I am answering the question regarding the specific audience of archeologists are not looking into the archeology of the BOM, not various and sordid antimormon arguments.

You are talking about the views of the general population, which I have already addressed in previous discussions. If you want to open a new thread on that topic, I will be happy to respond. But you can look in previous threads for this discussion.

Edited March 29, 2013 by cdowis

[Gervin]

The archeologists have little or no direct knowledge of the contents of the BOM.

Of course this is correct. Until LDS-archaeologists make a compelling case to non-LDS archaeologists about the contents of the BOM, why should they?

[cdowis]

Of course this is correct. Until LDS-archaeologists make a compelling case to non-LDS archaeologists about the contents of the BOM, why should they?

To satisfy the curiosity of questing beast and others, of course. LDS archeologists have little or no interest in proving the BOM to the scientific community -- they have their own fish to fry.

Edited March 29, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

I believe you overstate the importance of a book's provenance in the investigative interests of an archaeologist. The Bible is a good example. Archaeologists use the Bible as a guidebook to understand the cultural setting and purported geographic locations described therein. Ultimately, they put most of their trust in a verification process based in ground archaeology. Using the Bible as a guidebook doesn't require a belief in the religious claims of the book. That the book contains some accurately-described historic items probably doesn't hurt.

The historic truth of the people and events described in the BOM aren't dependent on the provenance of the book. LDS and non-LDS archaeologists, alike, are welcome to use the BOM as a guidebook. It's up to the former to convince the latter that there is merit in actually doing so.

I am merly answering the question. I don't think archeologists think about the BOM at all.

You need to address the post to questing beast.

[CASteinman]

I don't think archeologists think about the BOM at all.

When I was on my mission, I met a Catholic Archaeologist who claimed that he used the Book of Mormon to give him a sense of the people he might be excavating. He told me he read it all the time and when I tested him on that, he seemed to actually know some things from it.

I asked him why he was not a Mormon. What do you suppose his answer was?

[Robert F. Smith]

It is more simple than that, cdowis: reading the book, as more have done than you allow, produces instant problems for non Mormons. Without the early training, or the already existing desire to find a "truth", a reader who knows his Bible will see instant "plagiarisms" in the BoM. With the reader's alarm bells already going off, s/he will be looking for further such indicators, and find plenty of them. The top of the list is the use of biblical quotations, many of which are simply KJV mistaken notions about biblical history.

A serious non-Mormon scholar giving the Book of Mormon a careful read would know that the KJV style of language was standard translation style throughout the 19th century on into the early 20th century for anything scripture-like (collections of NT apocrypha for example, as well as ancient Egyptian texts, etc.). Someone who is not well-read would not know that, and so would come up with a list of pseudo-problems, such as you do on a regular basis.

You are aware, I take it, that the official LDS scriptures before the 1981 footnoted edition, included a Bible dictionary/commentary which taught the theory of "first Isaiah and second Isaiah", i.e. pre exilic and post exilic Isaiah? And that the BoM quotes directly from post exilic Isaiah? That the biblical quotes include 18th century KJV mistakes?

Scholars debate the dating of parts of Isaiah, many dividing it into 3 parts, but nearly all agreeing that these sections were produced by what is seen as a Isaianic school of thought and tradition. There is no guarantee that Second Isaiah in whole or in part is Exilic or Post-Exilic. A late dating for much of the OT has been in fashion for a long time, but is not certain.

More to the point, you seem quite unaware of the archaisms and authentic variants in the text of the BofM as compared to the KJV. You claim to have done extensive reading on such subjects, yet you are completely unaware of such simple facts which have been in circulation for decades. What gives, Beast? Are you just pretending?

That there is nothing whatsoever about the book's assertions about geography that fit into the Western Hemisphere beyond the obvious, facile north continent, south continent, Panama peninsula as the "narrow neck of land" paradigm? All such searching for a "limited geography" and hidden small population theory stemmed from the obvious dichotomies (and contradicting statements) of Joseph Smith and the book itself? At this juncture it is unlikely to determine what Joseph Smith et al. possessed vis-a-vis knowledge of the Middle East and ancient America.

You claim to have read J. Sorenson's Ancient American Setting, but I see no evidence of that here. Indeed, to say what you have just said you would have to falsify the data which you are surely acquainted with if you have actually done the reading you claim!! This does not bode well for any sort of sincere exchange of views on any subject.

But the book itself contains the kind of errors in thinking that were extant at the time. And as time moves on, with further discoveries, the BoM will continue to recede in accuracy, not be vindicated as literal history, including the story of how we got the book in the first place.

Actually, the opposite has been true for over a century now. Even B. H. Roberts had no inkling of the number and significance of the apparent "problems" of his day which are no longer problems at all due to archeological, linguistic, and historical discoveries. This is merely one more indicator of how out of touch with reality and with scholarship you are. You even selectively forget crucial discussions on this board which have falsified your hard position, i.e., your position is akin to a religious belief system in that you adhere to it no matter what data falsify it.

Is the BoM worthless? Is the Bible worthless? Is "scripture" worthless if it isn't based in a literal, historical setting? Those questions depend on what the individual needs. If you need ONE religious paradigm to be "God's only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth", then no the scriptures are not worthless. If you don't require everyone in all times and places to adhere eventually to one religious paradigm in order to "get into heaven", etc., then the scriptures are far less useful doctrinally, probably almost useless for teaching doctrine: because doctrine only governs believers inside a religious paradigm. All other truth-seekers are seeking with other tools. Scriptures contain "wisdom literal" as well, and that is proven to be constant and timeless. The stories in scripture can illustrate human behavior and "comeupance", but often the conclusions are falsely associated with "God's will". "Caveat emptor!"....

This is as incoherent a statement as I have seen you make. You should read Aesop's Fables with a view to seeing yourself in there somewhere, but not make the mistake of attacking it as false scripture.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[volgadon]

It is more simple than that, cdowis: reading the book, as more have done than you allow, produces instant problems for non Mormons. Without the early training, or the already existing desire to find a "truth", a reader who knows his Bible will see instant "plagiarisms" in the BoM. With the reader's alarm bells already going off, s/he will be looking for further such indicators, and find plenty of them. The top of the list is the use of biblical quotations,

You mean "plagiarisms" like the typology that abounds in the Hebrew Bible?

[ChristKnight]

Thanks for your lengthy response 3DOP! I do appreciate the time you took to post this (and interestingly, I was searching the forum a few days ago, and found similar posts by you on the same topic, and they were helpful). And Happy Easter! FYI, I went to the Solemn Liturgy of the Lord's Passion and Death at St. Patrick's Cathedral on Good Friday. It was packed, I had to stand up against a wall, there was absolutely nowhere to sit (and they even brought out folding chairs). Luckily, I've attended Divine Liturgy at an Orthodox cathedral a few times, so standing for 1.5+ hours was no big deal . It was a great liturgy, very moving. Two priests and the congregation read the Passion narrative (John 18:1-19:42), with the congregation reading the part of the Jews, very interesting. When Christ was crucified everyone knelt. Oh and Cardinal Dolan said something interesting in his homily. He referenced an African American hymn, one that says something like "were you there when they crucified our Lord". He then said that Catholics believe the answer is yes, because for one, you believe that at the Mass everyone is at the foot of the cross at Calvary, and Christ's sacrifice is re-presented.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that it was a nice liturgy.

There are certain prerogatives that apostles had which bishops lack that the Church does recognize. One of the most important is that the Apostles travelled extensively and had jurisdiction wheresoever they went. A bishop's authority was within a certain geographical boundary. This is what is remarkable about St. Clement's letter to Corinth. What right does the Roman bishop have to impose his will on the Corinthians? Of course, one need not see this as prescriptive of what ought to have happened. But obviously Catholics have seen in this a prerogative accorded to one bishop that no others would take. St. Irenaeus points to it as a precursor to the development of the doctrine of the primacy of the Roman bishop. Of course non-Catholics can plausibly argue that Clement was out of line and Irenaeus was messed up, but it is what a Catholic would need to see. We can't just have the papacy or any doctrine just pop out of nowhere.

I think that LDS would agree with much of this. The apostles had jurisdiction wherever they went (i.e., were "general authorities"), while the bishops had local authority in a specific geographical area. I think that LDS would view this as an example of how bishops couldn't replace apostles as general leaders of the universal Church. Since the Bishop of Rome seems to be a "general authority", since he has jurisdiction not only of his local area, as Bishop of Rome, but also has authority over the entire Church, this seems to be more in line with apostolic authority, right?

Of course the Church needs "continuing revelation" if it is understood as the need for God's wisdom. But this is now promised to all who pray for it. I see the parallel with apostolic revelation, but wisdom is not and never can be public revelation, which is so-called because it is binding on all the faithful.

So "public revelation" is revelation that is binding on all faithful. From my understanding, Catholics believe that "public revelation", a technical phrase, means all that has been revealed that is necessary for salvation, which culminated in Jesus Christ and His ministry. Is this correct? Also, do Catholics believe that the Holy Ghost guides the Church, that the Ecumenical Councils were guided by the Spirit in their decisions, etc? I did find it interesting that prior to the Conclave, there was a Mass of the Holy Spirit, invoking the Spirit to guide the selection.

But St. Paul also says to "despise not prophesying." The Church has had prophets down through the centuries that have foretold the future with great accuracy.

What are some examples of this?

Private revelation is very important in the life of the Church and is as remarkable in its source as public revelation. As in the first century, our doctrine about apostolic foundations and public revelation sometimes leads even Catholics to fail to appreciate the value of private revelation. It is no wonder if Mormons pooh pooh private revelation when sadly, Catholics don't always recognize its value. Private revelation cannot have the kind of universal authority we give to the apostolic doctrine. If there is a question of dogma, we will always adhere to the Apostles' teaching, but we Catholics are fools if because we understand public revelation we despise prophecy approved by the Church that gives us timely knowledge from heaven applicable to our time and place in history.

It is interesting that certain private revelations, such as Fatima, Lourdes, etc, are so widely accepted in the Catholic Church (is it Fatima that has the Secrets, or something like that?), and are deemed authentic revelations, yet they aren't accorded the status of "public revelation", when they, in Catholic belief, have important information for all.

And yes, I do think that many Catholics seem to not emphasize or understand the value of their private revelations, especially in comparison to how Latter-day Saints understand revelation. Having been both Catholic and LDS, I see LDS as emphasizing the importance of revelation in guiding the Church, as well as the importance of personal revelation (what it is, how to receive it, etc) in receiving guidance for ourselves, our families, etc, and gifts of the Spirit. While I'm sure Catholics believe in such things in a sense, I think, in my experience, that the LDS Church emphasizes it much more. Interestingly, various LDS apologists and scholars, such as Hugh Nibley, point out, in their view, the decline and eventual disappearance of the gifts of the Spirit, the Divine gifts that mark out the true Church (Nibley's The World and the Prophets talks a lot about this), and that such gifts were restored to the Lord's Church. It certainly is interesting to see how Catholics view their Church having and exercising such gifts (again, in my limited, personal experience, I see LDS as emphasizing these things more).

[MormonMason]

From the list of terms you offered it still doesn’t allow for “complete” “total”. That is the issue directly dealing with the Mormon claim for the “restoration” (which by the way is still future) as taught by the “MORMON CHURCH”.

You ignore this authoritative statement of the First Presidency:

Two things that you (as well as a number of others throughout the history of the Church, both within and without) fail to understand:

1. There never was a total apostasy and never could be. Peter, James and John never apostatized. But, many did apostatize, multiple times, in early Christian times, so much so that the visible Church could not continue as it was, and died (death is, after all, how one reaches the gates of Hades and Hades (the realm of the dead) is where one needs to be in order for the gates of Hades even to attempt to prevail against one; this also goes for the visible organization of the Church).
   
2. Articles of Faith 8 trumps your quotations. Besides, I don't need no stinkin' English translation. I only use one for convenience and because it is bound together with my Triple Combination.
   

Edited March 31, 2013 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

I agree, as for coolroks statement does he not see that others outside the LDS Faith/Church see his faith/church [Lutheranism] as part of the Great/small apostacy within christianity ?.

...

There are those Catholics who would see things this way, yes.

[Questing Beast]

A serious non-Mormon scholar giving the Book of Mormon a careful read would know that the KJV style of language was standard translation style throughout the 19th century on into the early 20th century for anything scripture-like (collections of NT apocrypha for example, as well as ancient Egyptian texts, etc.). Someone who is not well-read would not know that, and so would come up with a list of pseudo-problems, such as you do on a regular basis.

Ignoring or passing over the obvious, that a "translation" should not include existing KJV mistakes when quoting Isaiah or the Savior, et al. any biblical passage. "Revelation" as "translation" should logically correct any such errors that have crept in. I wasn't talking about the "familiar" linguistic writing style that JS and his generation regarded as "scriptural", which he imitated throughout his religious career.

Scholars debate the dating of parts of Isaiah, many dividing it into 3 parts, but nearly all agreeing that these sections were produced by what is seen as a Isaianic school of thought and tradition. There is no guarantee that Second Isaiah in whole or in part is Exilic or Post-Exilic. A late dating for much of the OT has been in fashion for a long time, but is not certain.

More to the point, you seem quite unaware of the archaisms and authentic variants in the text of the BofM as compared to the KJV. You claim to have done extensive reading on such subjects, yet you are completely unaware of such simple facts which have been in circulation for decades. What gives, Beast? Are you just pretending?

Memory is fading as the years multiply, but yes I have read quite a bit on this. The trouble is that now all such references BACK to it no longer impresses. I've been over it all before. You have not flagged anything new. I seem to recall reading an extensive treatment upon the differences in the "Isaiah parts", concluding that the different words appearing in the BoM match up with non KJV variants that are older, more "Hebrew-like", or somesuch observation. I seem to recall also that at the time I thought "very interesting", but also very subjective.

You claim to have read J. Sorenson's Ancient American Setting, but I see no evidence of that here. Indeed, to say what you have just said you would have to falsify the data which you are surely acquainted with if you have actually done the reading you claim!! This does not bode well for any sort of sincere exchange of views on any subject.

I read Sorensen's book when it was new. My daughter "borrowed" it and I have no copy to refer back to. I also seem to recall that as I was reading it, he had to strain at some things, while other things were far easier to accept. I especially enjoyed his hypothetical "distances traveled" as given mainly in the book of Alma, where some Guatemalan (iirc) city sites match up with the BoM rather closely. The whole "north sea, south sea" and "narrow neck of land" issue was unresolved, and his offering was subjective and unconvincing.

Actually, the opposite has been true for over a century now. Even B. H. Roberts had no inkling of the number and significance of the apparent "problems" of his day which are no longer problems at all due to archeological, linguistic, and historical discoveries. This is merely one more indicator of how out of touch with reality and with scholarship you are. You even selectively forget crucial discussions on this board which have falsified your hard position, i.e., your position is akin to a religious belief system in that you adhere to it no matter what data falsify it.

As I said, none of this minutia is very important anymore, since I view Mormonism as one of a plethora of man-made religions that "God" works within. The BoM does not have to be a historically, geographically located book in order to achieve its purpose; it only has to be plausible, like the Bible.

This is as incoherent a statement as I have seen you make. You should read Aesop's Fables with a view to seeing yourself in there somewhere, but not make the mistake of attacking it as false scripture.

I have never once said that the Bible or BoM are "false scripture". False history, yes....

Edited March 31, 2013 by Questing Beast

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for your lengthy response 3DOP! I do appreciate the time you took to post this (and interestingly, I was searching the forum a few days ago, and found similar posts by you on the same topic, and they were helpful). And Happy Easter! FYI, I went to the Solemn Liturgy of the Lord's Passion and Death at St. Patrick's Cathedral on Good Friday. It was packed, I had to stand up against a wall, there was absolutely nowhere to sit (and they even brought out folding chairs). Luckily, I've attended Divine Liturgy at an Orthodox cathedral a few times, so standing for 1.5+ hours was no big deal . It was a great liturgy, very moving. Two priests and the congregation read the Passion narrative (John 18:1-19:42), with the congregation reading the part of the Jews, very interesting. When Christ was crucified everyone knelt. Oh and Cardinal Dolan said something interesting in his homily. He referenced an African American hymn, one that says something like "were you there when they crucified our Lord". He then said that Catholics believe the answer is yes, because for one, you believe that at the Mass everyone is at the foot of the cross at Calvary, and Christ's sacrifice is re-presented.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that it was a nice liturgy.

I just want to thank you for your posts and sensibilities and attitude. I am lurking on this thread but really find the discussion between you and 3DOP quite fascinating.

[MormonMason]

Paul was not one of the Twelve.

As far as I know the James who is called "James the brother of Jesus" and "James the Just", was one of the Seventy, who were also called apostles, ie, "one who is sent". This James was later appointed as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

The two James' who are listed as members of the Twelve Apostles were James the brother of John, and James the son of Alphaeus, who are also called respectively, "James the Great" and "James the Lesser". Neither of these two are the same person that is called "James the brother of Jesus".

At any rate, there isn't anything known about the life of "James the brother of Jesus", ie, when, how or why he started following Jesus as a disciple.

1 Cor 15

3

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7

After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

As you can see, Jesus appeared first to the Twelve, then about 500 brethren, then James, and then "all of the apostles". This group of apostles who saw Jesus after James were the Seventy.

Hope that helps.

Did it help? No, not really. The reference to the Seventy as Apostles did not occur until later in time after the New Testament, until the 2nd Century CE.

I never said that James the Lord's brother was one of the two James' in the Twelve. Your argument there is moot.

"The Twelve" likely was a formal name for the Quorum, not to the actual number of apostles at all times. Evidence of that can be seen in the Bible because it is said that Jesus appeared to "the Twelve" after his resurrection, but the number of apostles in the Quorum was not twelve at the time. Remember that Judas was dead and had not yet been replaced by Matthias until after the resurrection.

Also problematic is that the appearance to Mary Magdelene was not mentioned by Paul here.

So, Paul's extant text has some confusion about it because it leaves out details and also Judas was dead. So, Jesus could not have been seen by twelve apostles at that time. And, he was not even seen at the first by all eleven remaining apostles until he came back a week later for Thomas to see him. I think Paul may have had that event involving Thomas in mind, if you ask me.

But, we in fact do know that James was an unbeliever because John explicitly says Jesus' brothers "did not believe in him" (John 7:5). James was one of Jesus' four brothers. And, there is nothing in the text that would have excluded James from that mention of unbelieving brothers.

So, he was not with them from the baptism of John and certainly did not continue with them up to the time of the resurrection. It is very likely that James became a believer when he saw the risen Jesus. Some of your own Catholic traditions would seem to support such an idea that he became converted and became a believer on seeing the risen Jesus. In any case, still he did not meet the "requirement." Yet, he still was called to be an apostle.

James the Brother of the Lord, and Paul, also were not of the Seventy because the Seventy were called and sent out long before either James or Paul became believers. Nowhere, in any scripture I am aware of, are James and Paul said to be members of the Seventy, either. I am not even sure I can recall any Catholic tradition to that effect. I'd be interested in seeing one, though.

Of course, I have no recourse to my books for the time being since I am not home with them so have no way of checking carefully, but I do not recall something like that. But, something of interest is the timeline of the calling of Paul and Barnabas. James, the brother of John was killed by the sword before Paul and Barnabas were called. It certainly is of interest that both Paul and Barnabas had some sort of ministry before their calling as apostles but if they already were Seventy and were already Apostles by virtue of their being of the Seventy, why would they then be called again as apostles? That idea just does not seem to make sense to me.

[Robert F. Smith]

ChristKnight, on 31 March 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

Thanks for your lengthy response 3DOP! I do appreciate the time you took to post this (and interestingly, I was searching the forum a few days ago, and found similar posts by you on the same topic, and they were helpful). And Happy Easter! FYI, I went to the Solemn Liturgy of the Lord's Passion and Death at St. Patrick's Cathedral on Good Friday. It was packed, I had to stand up against a wall, there was absolutely nowhere to sit (and they even brought out folding chairs). Luckily, I've attended Divine Liturgy at an Orthodox cathedral a few times, so standing for 1.5+ hours was no big deal . It was a great liturgy, very moving. Two priests and the congregation read the Passion narrative (John 18:1-19:42), with the congregation reading the part of the Jews, very interesting. When Christ was crucified everyone knelt. Oh and Cardinal Dolan said something interesting in his homily. He referenced an African American hymn, one that says something like "were you there when they crucified our Lord". He then said that Catholics believe the answer is yes, because for one, you believe that at the Mass everyone is at the foot of the cross at Calvary, and Christ's sacrifice is re-presented.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that it was a nice liturgy.

I just want to thank you for your posts and sensibilities and attitude. I am lurking on this thread but really find the discussion between you and 3DOP quite fascinating.

I fully agree, Mark.

Would that all discussions on this board were as sincere and meaningful.

What also struck me about ChristKnight's comments here were the dramatic value of participatory liturgy -- which we Mormons experience in the Temple.

[Robert F. Smith]

saemo, on 28 March 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

................................

As far as I know the James who is called "James the brother of Jesus" and "James the Just", was one of the Seventy, who were also called apostles, ie, "one who is sent". This James was later appointed as the first Bishop of Jerusalem

But, we in fact do know that James was an unbeliever because John explicitly says Jesus' brothers "did not believe in him" (John 7:5). James was one of Jesus' four brothers. And, there is nothing in the text that would have excluded James from that mention of unbelieving brothers.

So, he was not with them from the baptism of John and certainly did not continue with them up to the time of the resurrection. It is very likely that James became a believer when he saw the risen Jesus. Some of your own Catholic traditions would seem to support such an idea that he became converted and became a believer on seeing the risen Jesus. In any case, still he did not meet the "requirement." Yet, he still was called to be an apostle.

James the Brother of the Lord, and Paul, also were not of the Seventy because the Seventy were called and sent out long before either James or Paul became believers. Nowhere, in any scripture I am aware of, are James and Paul said to be members of the Seventy, either. I am not even sure I can recall any Catholic tradition to that effect. I'd be interested in seeing one, though.

...........................................

Prominent Jewish scholars have argued that the Sanhedrin would never have executed Jesus, that it was all the Romans' doing. Yet the High Priest and Sanhedrin did in fact execute James the Just (James the Brother of Jesus) in AD 62, as we know from Josephus, Antiquities, XX,9,1.

Something to bear in mind on this Easter Day.

[MormonMason]

It is more simple than that, cdowis: reading the book, as more have done than you allow, produces instant problems for non Mormons. Without the early training, or the already existing desire to find a "truth", a reader who knows his Bible will see instant "plagiarisms" in the BoM. With the reader's alarm bells already going off, s/he will be looking for further such indicators, and find plenty of them. The top of the list is the use of biblical quotations, many of which are simply KJV mistaken notions about biblical history. You are aware, I take it, that the official LDS scriptures before the 1981 footnoted edition, included a Bible dictionary/commentary which taught the theory of "first Isaiah and second Isaiah", i.e. pre exilic and post exilic Isaiah? And that the BoM quotes directly from post exilic Isaiah? That the biblical quotes include 18th century KJV mistakes?

...

1. Biblical quotations can be directly seen in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series. Many of them are verbatim quotes from the KJV, errors and all.

2. 18th century KJV mistakes? Don't you mean 17th century? Or, are you referring to 1769 Blayney Revision of the KJV? In any case, some of these alleged errors are debatable, particularly in the passages quoted in the Book of Mormon. These can be discussed in greater detail at some future time, if you wish. (I need to be home and with my books to discuss these in any decent detail.

3. I am aware of the "first Isaiah/second Isaiah arguments. While I cannot speak to the contents of the Bible Dictionary in the old LDS versions of the KJV, because I am not with mine at home, I see this differently than most. I and someone I know are of the opinion that the entire main body of text is a unity but that the latter portion was heavily interpolated by a post-exilic writer to make it a promoter of stricter monotheism. If you notice, none of the stronger monotheistic passages of Isaiah ever are quoted in the Book of Mormon. In fact, even when it would have been appropriate to cite passages from Isaiah to support the idea of monotheism in the Book of Mormon, these stricter, monotheistic passages, in what commonly is regarded as Deutero-Isaiah, never are cited or quoted anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Such would be expected if the Book of Mormon was written by a pre-exilic people precisely because these monotheistic passages would not have been available to them.

4. The edition year of the footnoted LDS Bible actually was 1979. 1981 was year of the LDS edition of the Triple Combination.

[MormonMason]

saemo, on 28 March 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

................................

As far as I know the James who is called "James the brother of Jesus" and "James the Just", was one of the Seventy, who were also called apostles, ie, "one who is sent". This James was later appointed as the first Bishop of Jerusalem

Prominent Jewish scholars have argued that the Sanhedrin would never have executed Jesus, that it was all the Romans' doing. Yet the High Priest and Sanhedrin did in fact execute James the Just (James the Brother of Jesus) in AD 62, as we know from Josephus, Antiquities, XX,9,1.

Something to bear in mind on this Easter Day.

True enough. According to the same author, the High Priest then was relieved of duty for doing that.

Edited March 31, 2013 by MormonMason

[mfbukowski]

I fully agree, Mark.

Would that all discussions on this board were as sincere and meaningful.

What also struck me about ChristKnight's comments here were the dramatic value of participatory liturgy -- which we Mormons experience in the Temple.

Indeed!

Additionally through our participation, we as patrons also become officiators in the ordinances of salvation by becoming the proxy representatives of those who cannot be there themselves. We not only pray for those "in purgatory"- we become them as individuals in standing before the Lord in a way they cannot in their present state. It becomes more than participation and representation symbolically, it gives those souls "real presence" in the house of the Lord.

Edited March 31, 2013 by mfbukowski