Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[saemo]

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 Remember that Judas was dead and had not yet been replaced by Matthias until after the resurrection.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.

MormonMason, Thomas did not believe until he put his fingers in the side of our risen Lord. They were called by Jesus as Apostles while he was performing his earthly ministry. That is what makes them Apostles. Does it matter that Paul did not list Mary Magdalene? BTW, we (the universal church) call her the apostle to the Apostles.

The greatest evidence that the office of Twelve Apostles is not perpetual are the Apostles themselves, who did not appoint more Apostles, but did appoint Bishops. To insist there should be Apostles is to insist the 12 called and chosen by Jesus Christ, who witnessed his life, death, resurrection, and were fortified at Pentecost with the gift of the Holy Spirit, failed. History itself, the experience of the Church through the ages, the lives of the faithful, all deny this assertion.

Edited April 1, 2013 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

The greatest evidence that the office of Twelve Apostles is not perpetual are the Apostles themselves, who did not appoint more Apostles, but did appoint Bishops.

Except for Matthias and Barnabas and Paul.....

I didn't know you were Rebecca. Hi Rebecca!

[saemo]

Except for Matthias and Barnabas and Paul.....

I didn't know you were Rebecca. Hi Rebecca!

Hi Bukowski,

Paul was not appointed an apostle by the Twelve. He was not one of the Twelve.

Matthias and Barnabas met the criteria laid out in Acts.

There isn't any evidence Apostles (one of the Twelve) was ever ordained from anyone outside of that criteria. There is evidence they ordained Bishops as their successors.

But this is beating a dead horse. I see the LDS argument as coming from silence, or more like, "This is how we do it but because we can't find evidence for it in the ancient church, they did it wrong, therefore we restored something."

Not very convincing, to me at least.

[Ahab]

Hi Bukowski,

Paul was not appointed an apostle by the Twelve. He was not one of the Twelve.

You're mistaken, again. He was appointed to the actual office of an apostle, as an apostle, thus he was in the same quorum as the other 7/11/12/15 (however many other men there were who were also appointed as apostles at that time).

Matthias and Barnabas met the criteria laid out in Acts.

The criteria laid out by Peter, you mean, which our Lord had the right to alter at any time.

There isn't any evidence Apostles (one of the Twelve) was ever ordained from anyone outside of that criteria. There is evidence they ordained Bishops as their successors.

No, not as successors, but as bishops by apostles or the the office of an apostle after having been a bishop.

But this is beating a dead horse. I see the LDS argument as coming from silence, or more like, "This is how we do it but because we can't find evidence for it in the ancient church, they did it wrong, therefore we restored something."

Not very convincing, to me at least.

It's actually more like: "This is how we do it because this is how our Lord told us to do it, through revelation, and by looking at the scriptures we can see evidence that it worked that way in the ancient church too while it acted under revelation from God."

[CASteinman]

You're mistaken, again. He was appointed to the actual office of an apostle, as an apostle, thus he was in the same quorum as the other 7/11/12/15 (however many other men there were who were also appointed as apostles at that time).

Not sure this can be supported (that he was in the 12) from Scripture. Seems likely -- but can we actually point to some place that say so?

[Ahab]

Not sure this can be supported (that he was in the 12) from Scripture. Seems likely -- but can we actually point to some place that say so?

What you need is the Holy Spirit to tell you it is true. The fact that it's written somewhere doesn't necessarily mean it is true.

Thoughts that got me to the point where the Holy Spirit bore witness to me:

Paul was called to be an apostle by the Lord. The Lord is the one who calls his apostles. Men who have been appointed to the office of an aposlte are members of a Quorum of Apostles, and that Quorum includes any man who has ever been called to the office of an apostle by our Lord. This is the way it has always worked within our Lord's church, regarding apostles, and while there are men who other men may call an apostle of our Lord, the only apostles admitted into the Quorum of Apostles in our Lord's church are those apostles who have been called to be an apostle by our Lord. The fact that men may vote for some man to be called an apostle is not enough to do it, in itself, unless that calling and appointment has also been authorized by our Lord.

[CASteinman]

The Lord is the one who calls his apostles. Men who have been appointed to the office of an aposlte are members of a Quorum of Apostles, and that Quorum includes any man who has ever been called to the office of an apostle by our Lord.

Are you aware that there are men who have been called as Apostles and were never in the Quorum of 12 Apostles? The last one that I know of -- served as one of the Quorum of 70, not as one of the 12 when he died.

[Ahab]

Are you aware that there are men who have been called as Apostles and were never in the Quorum of 12 Apostles? The last one that I know of -- served as one of the Quorum of 70, not as one of the 12 when he died.

What makes you think he wasn't in the Quorum of Twelve Apostles while serving in a Quorum of Seventy? I see that kinda like a high priest serving as a bishop in the priest's quorum. He's actually a member of a higher quorum while serving in a lower quorum.

[mathonihah]

Are you aware that there are men who have been called as Apostles and were never in the Quorum of 12 Apostles? The last one that I know of -- served as one of the Quorum of 70, not as one of the 12 when he died.

I think you are referring to Alvin R. Dyer, a very interesting case. However, the emphatic way in which Paul always introduces himself as an Apostle at the beginning of his epistles, and how he compares himself with the other Apostles, suggests that he was one of the Twelve:

"For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

"Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed." (1 Cor. 15:9)

See also 2 Cor. 11, 12; 1 Cor. 9; Gal. 2. He even had the cheek to rebuke Peter and other Apostles! I think it is safe to assume that he considered himself one of the Twelve.

[CASteinman]

What makes you think he wasn't in the Quorum of Twelve Apostles while serving in a Quorum of Seventy? I see that kinda like a high priest serving as a bishop in the priest's quorum. He's actually a member of a higher quorum while serving in a lower quorum.

He was never in the Quorum of the 12. Per the official records of the Church.

[CASteinman]

I think you are referring to Alvin R. Dyer, a very interesting case. However, the emphatic way in which Paul always introduces himself as an Apostle at the beginning of his epistles, and how he compares himself with the other Apostles, suggests that he was one of the Twelve:

"For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

"Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed." (1 Cor. 15:9)

See also 2 Cor. 11, 12; 1 Cor. 9; Gal. 2. He even had the cheek to rebuke Peter and other Apostles! I think it is safe to assume that he considered himself one of the Twelve.

You say you think it is safe. I did not know that there was danger either way. HOWEVER, the 70 were also (as I recall) called Apostles and Paul said he was the least of the Apostles.

[Ahab]

He was never in the Quorum of the 12. Per the official records of the Church.

I haven't seen that on official records of the Church, so I think you'll understand if I don't take your word on that. As far as I know, anyone who has been ordained to the office of an apostle is a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, just as anyone ordained to the office of Elder is in the Elder's quorum, and high priests are in the high priest's quorum, etc, etc. A quorum is simply a group for all who have been ordained to a particular office in the priesthood, so all of our Lord's ordained apostles should be in the quorum for apostles... unless they were excommunicated or lost their priesthood authority.

[mathonihah]

You say you think it is safe. I did not know that there was danger either way. HOWEVER, the 70 were also (as I recall) called Apostles ...

I am not so sure that the 70 were called apostles. The Twelve were:

“And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;” (Luke 6:13)

See also Matt. 10:2; Luke 22:14.

and Paul said he was the least of the Apostles.

I think he said that as an expression of humility, rather than as a declaration regarding his office in the Church.

[CASteinman]

I am not so sure that the 70 were called apostles.

Someone besides the 12 were:

1 Corinthians 15:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures, and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. 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. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles

It would seem that there was "Cephas and the 12" and in a second group "all the apostles". Someone besides the 12 were "all the apostles".

[mathonihah]

Someone besides the 12 were:

1 Corinthians 15:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures, and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. 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. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles

It would seem that there was "Cephas and the 12" and in a second group "all the apostles". Someone besides the 12 were "all the apostles".

That is a bit ambiguous, and open to interpretation. Who were they? It doesn't tell you that they were the Seventies. In the four Gospels only the Twelve are called Apostles, not the Seventies.

[mathonihah]

What makes you think he wasn't in the Quorum of Twelve Apostles while serving in a Quorum of Seventy? I see that kinda like a high priest serving as a bishop in the priest's quorum. He's actually a member of a higher quorum while serving in a lower quorum.

The Quorum can only have 12 members. The same is true of any quorum, including elders etc. If the number is exceeded then the quorum needs to be split; and since there can be only one Quorum of the Twelve, it cannot be split, therefore there can be only 12 members of the quorum at any one time.

[CASteinman]

That is a bit ambiguous, and open to interpretation. Who were they? It doesn't tell you that they were the Seventies. In the four Gospels only the Twelve are called Apostles, not the Seventies.

It was someone above and beyond the 12 in number. Because first he appeared to the twelve -- then later to "all the apostles". Which is a word for "one sent" as I recall. And the 70 were sent. They were called "other 70". Other what?

[Ahab]

Someone besides the 12 were:

1 Corinthians 15:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures, and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. 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. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles

It would seem that there was "Cephas and the 12" and in a second group "all the apostles". Someone besides the 12 were "all the apostles".

Paul is giving a chronological timeline of our Lord's appearances after his resurrection, so when he's saying our Lord was seen of Cephas then of the twelve, he's referring to those particular men who were apostles during his mortal ministry, minus Judas Iscariot who had killed himself by that time. Later he was seen of 500 other men, and then James (the Lord's brother who incidentally also become an apostle), and then all of the apostles who were apostles at that time which included Matthias, and Barnabas, and Paul, and maybe some others who had been called to that office we don't know about now. That's who those "other" apostles were, and they were all in the quorum which apostles are members of.

[Ahab]

The Quorum can only have 12 members. The same is true of any quorum, including elders etc. If the number is exceeded then the quorum needs to be split; and since there can be only one Quorum of the Twelve, it cannot be split, therefore there can be only 12 members of the quorum at any one time.

That's not right because that's essentially saying there can only be 12 apostles at any one time, and yet we know there are and were others who have been called and ordained as apostles. Are they then apostles without a quorum, ya think? If not, what quorum are those apostles in?

[CASteinman]

then James (the Lord's brother who incidentally also become an apostle),

Maybe. But strangely.. not one of the 12 if the evidence is correct.

and then all of the apostles who were apostles at that time which included Matthias, and Barnabas, and Paul, and maybe some others who had been called to that office we don't know about now. That's who those "other" apostles were, and they were all in the quorum which apostles are members of.

As revealed in the 3rd chapter of 1st Speculations.

[mathonihah]

That's not right because that's essentially saying there can only be 12 apostles at any one time, and yet we know there are and were others who have been called and ordained as apostles. Are they then apostles without a quorum, ya think? If not, what quorum are those apostles in?

There can be more than twelve Apostles at any one time, but they cannot form a quorum, nor be a member of the only quorum. That is what the word quorum means.

[saemo]

You're mistaken, again. He was appointed to the actual office of an apostle, as an apostle, thus he was in the same quorum as the other 7/11/12/15 (however many other men there were who were also appointed as apostles at that time).

Paul claimed the title and authority of Apostle, because he was called by Jesus Christ. He was set apart to preach the gospel in a particular area and to a particular people; the gentiles. So he is an apostle, one who is sent, and he is an Apostle as he was sent by Christ. He was never one of the Twelve, which my understanding is what LDS have claimed to "restore".

We view the Church as apostolic in two ways, the obvious which most people focus on, is in the successors to the Apostles, our Bishops and Patriarchs (in the east). The second way is found in the liturgy of the Mass, where at the end of every Mass we are dismissed. This dismissal is one where we are told leave, taking with us into the world that which we have received. We are sent. In this way all the baptized share in the apostolate.

The criteria laid out by Peter, you mean, which our Lord had the right to alter at any time.

The veracity of this criteria is real, as can be seen in 1 Corinthians 9 where Paul has to defend his apostleship. I don't think it can be explained away as easily as you would like it to be.

No, not as successors, but as bishops by apostles or the the office of an apostle after having been a bishop.

There is no evidence of this.

It's actually more like: "This is how we do it because this is how our Lord told us to do it, through revelation, and by looking at the scriptures we can see evidence that it worked that way in the ancient church too while it acted under revelation from God."

As I said, there is no evidence of the LDS claim in the ancient church.

Edited April 1, 2013 by saemo

[CASteinman]

As I said, there is no evidence of the LDS claim in the ancient church.

The LDS do not have a claim in the ancient Church. It is Jesus who has that claim.

That Church died. The Church of Jesus Christ is the Resurrected Church of Jesus Christ and he has claim in both versions.

[Ahab]

There can be more than twelve Apostles at any one time, but they cannot form a quorum, nor be a member of the only quorum. That is what the word quorum means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum

A quorum is the minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly (a body that uses parliamentary procedure, such as a legislature) necessary to conduct the business of that group. According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons."^[2]

[Ahab]

Paul claimed the title and authority of Apostle, because he was called by Jesus Christ. He was set apart to preach the gospel in a particular area and to a particular people; the gentiles. So he is an apostle, one who is sent, and he is an Apostle as he was sent by Christ. He was never one of the Twelve, which my understanding is what LDS have claimed to "restore".

He was one of the Twelve and your failure to recognize him as such doesn't mean he wasn't what he was.

We view the Church as apostolic in two ways, the obvious which most people focus on, is in the successors to the Apostles, our Bishops and Patriarchs (in the east). The second way is found in the liturgy of the Mass, where at the end of every Mass we are dismissed. This dismissal is one where we are told leave, taking with us into the world that which we have received. We are sent. In this way all the baptized share in the apostolate.

Nobody has said you didn't come up with some of your own ideas which you consider to be true. That's just not what the truth is.

The veracity of this criteria is real, as can be seen in 1 Corinthians 9 where Paul has to defend his apostleship. I don't think it can be explained away as easily as you would like it to be.

I'm the one saying he was an apostle just as much as any other apostle, including today's apostles, while you deny that.

There is no evidence of this.

Testimony is evidence, and we have given you our testimony as well as the testimony of Jesus Christ in the spirit of prophecy.

As I said, there is no evidence of the LDS claim in the ancient church.

You can keep saying that as much as you want but that doesn't negate the fact that you are rejecting a lot of the truth.