Restoration Of The Primitive Church

[CASteinman]

When Lent started, I was an Episcopalian. Unfortunately, that ended about a week later when my baptism was revoked by the Diocese Bishop.

This might not be the place -- but why would they revoke something like that? (Its OK not to answer but I can't really imagine them doing this -- it seems something more like what Mormons would do but not the free and easy Episcopalians!)

And why are you in Jewish Studies?

You might burn out on scriptures!

[MormonMason]

Then how do you explain that the Eastern churches, who use Greek, believe essentially the same thing as the Western churches with regards to the Eucharist?

Vocabulary shift and loss of interpretive eimi. This kind of stuff happens in languages all the time. If you don't believe it, try looking for the word for "change" (metabole) in connection with the Greek of the Biblical texts regarding the Eucharist. Metabole is the term the Greek Orthodox came up with later on, but which is not used in the Bible to discuss what would later be called Eucharist as a result of further vocabulary shift.

While you are at it, try looking up Eucharist in the Greek New Testament. You won't find the word, except in its original meaning of "giving thanks" indicating the actual act of giving thanks rather than as a name for the emblems of the flesh and blood of Christ. That also was another invention and vocabulary shift among even the Greeks.

ETA: There is also the fact of the heavy influence of Rome over the teachings and philosophy of the early church before the schisms.

Edited March 25, 2013 by MormonMason

[Damien the Leper]

This might not be the place -- but why would they revoke something like that? (Its OK not to answer but I can't really imagine them doing this -- it seems something more like what Mormons would do but not the free and easy Episcopalians!)

And why are you in Jewish Studies?

You might burn out on scriptures!

I wasn't really given a reason by the Diocese. I'm over now, any way.

I chose Jewish Studies because it is much more fascinating to me than Christian/New Testament Studies.

Every week there is a moment where I am tempted to hold a book burning in which I burn all of my library on HB/NT studies along with my different translations of scripture. Then I come to my senses and realize that I need to take a short break and come back to it.

[CASteinman]

I wasn't really given a reason by the Diocese. I'm over now, any way.

Having no reason given is the worst of all. Its like --capricious.

[Bart Burk]

Vocabulary shift and loss of interpretive eimi. This kind of stuff happens in languages all the time. If you don't believe it, try looking for the word for "change" (metabole) in connection with the Greek of the Biblical texts regarding the Eucharist. Metabole is the term the Greek Orthodox came up with later on, but which is not used in the Bible to discuss what would later be called Eucharist as a result of further vocabulary shift.

While you are at it, try looking up Eucharist in the Greek New Testament. You won't find the word, except in its original meaning of "giving thanks" indicating the actual act of giving thanks rather than as a name for the emblems of the flesh and blood of Christ. That also was another invention and vocabulary shift among even the Greeks.

ETA: There is also the fact of the heavy influence of Rome over the teachings and philosophy of the early church before the schisms.

Should I trust you or should I trust someone like Ignatius of Antioch who was a student of the Apostle John when it comes to understanding the Real Presence? Ignatius of Antioch made some very clear statements regarding the Eucharist as you can find in this article:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

From the article:

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

John's writings are pretty clear about the literal understanding that the Lord's Supper is the body and blood of Christ. I'll trust the interpretation of John's student rather than rely on your interpretation of Greek.

[MormonMason]

...

John's writings are pretty clear about the literal understanding that the Lord's Supper is the body and blood of Christ. I'll trust the interpretation of John's student rather than rely on your interpretation of Greek.

How about you not trust either of us and learn to read Greek for yourself. Study the grammar of New Testament Greek thoroughly so as to learn to recognize interpretive eimi for yourself when you read it. Absolutely do not take my word for it. Investigate it for yourself and do not let yourself be influenced either by me or by your articles you are citing.

You did not cite John's writings, you cited Ignatius. And, in the days of Ignatius, interpretive eimi still was in use although it was being phased out quickly. What you are doing is trying to force these passage from Ignatius to fit a later construct. That is akin to people trying to quote one particular father into support for the Trinity when the Greek of the passage that people cite actually spoke of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as a Triad (Triados). A Triad is something quite different from what became the Trinity after the fourth century debates thereon. That concept is far closer to the Mormon idea of the Godhead but Catholics still try to press the passage into service in support of the Trinity, anyway.

Show me an authentic passage that has Ignatius specifically state that the Eucharist specifically and literally transforms into and becomes the literal flesh and blood of Christ and you will have begun to make part of your case. Show me some place in the Greek New Testament where that is taught, too, for good measure. You cannot because it is not there.

Edited March 25, 2013 by MormonMason

[Bart Burk]

How about you not trust either of us and learn to read Greek for yourself. Study the grammar of New Testament Greek thoroughly so as to learn to recognize interpretive eimi for yourself when you read it. Absolutely do not take my word for it. Investigate it for yourself and do not let yourself be influenced either by me or by your articles you are citing.

You did not cite John's writings, you cited Ignatius. And, in the days of Ignatius, interpretive eimi still was in use although it was being phased out quickly. What you are doing is trying to force these passage from Ignatius to fit a later construct. That is akin to people trying to quote one particular father into support for the Trinity when the Greek of the passage that people cite actually spoke of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as a Triad (Triados). A Triad is something quite different from what became the Trinity after the fourth century debates thereon. That concept is far closer to the Mormon idea of the Godhead but Catholics still try to press the passage into service in support of the Trinity, anyway.

Show me an authentic passage that has Ignatius specifically state that the Eucharist specifically and literally transforms into and becomes the literal flesh and blood of Christ and you will have begun to make part of your case. Show me some place in the Greek New Testament where that is taught, too, for good measure. You cannot because it is not there.

Perhaps you can point me to another article by someone else who agrees with your interpretation -- a non-mormon source would be nice.

[MormonMason]

Perhaps you can point me to another article by someone else who agrees with your interpretation -- a non-mormon source would be nice.

I do not use Mormon sources for stuff like this, even if I wanted to do so. There aren't any Mormon sources dealing in detail with Koine Greek Grammar. You need to learn to read Koine Greek and learn to recognize an interpretive eimi. Prepare for at least three years of schooling (or more on your own).

As to referencing articles or books for quotes for you, I can't do this for you at present because I am not with my books at home, and what is on the internet is too slim pickings to give you any decent information on the subject matter. I have already checked the library nearest my present location and they have crap for linguistic books that would be of use in this department. I have zero access to decent, language-based commentaries as well, and am so glad that my current situation is only temporary (even though it has lasted more than a year now).

You'll have to wait until I can find something, or you can go it on your own and learn yourself so you won't have to rely on any articles or statements of people made here or elsewhere.

ETA: I found something that addresses the multiple usages of the Greek eimi, in something concise enough for beginners. It is an electronic version of Gingrich's and Danker's A Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Second Edition. The formatting is such that it looks like it might be page 56 of the printed work (bold emphasis mine), but I cannot be certain without actually looking at the print version, which I do not have in my collection at home, and which, even if it were in my collection I could not access where I am now.

At any rate, here is the relevant citation (hopefully the Greek font comes through the board software):

εἰμί, ptc. ὤν, οὖσa, ὄν; inf. εἶνaι, be Mt 11:29; 12:11; Mk 3:11; Lk 16:1, 19; J 3:1. Exist Ro 4:17; Hb 11:6. Be present Mk 8:1. Live Mt 23:30; stay, reside 2:13. Take place 24:3. Mean 9:13; 13:38; 27:46; 1 Cor 3:7; 10:19. Belong w. gen. 1:12; 3:4; w. ἐκ or ἐξ Lk 22:3; Col 4:9. There is, there was, etc. Lk 16:1, 19; 1 Cor 8:5; 12:4ff. Impers. it is possible 1 Cor 11:20; Hb 9:5. In explanations or interrogations, esp. with τοῦτο or τί, means Mt 26:26; 27:46; Lk 18:36. W. dat. have Lk 1:7. With a participle as periphrasis for a single verb form Mk 1:22; 2:18; 4:38; Lk 1:20; 5:10, 17; 2 Cor 9:12. ὁ ἦν, where ἦν is a substitute for a past ptc. the one who was Rv 1:4, 8. ἡ οὖσa ἐκκλησίa the church there Ac 13:1. Followed by εἰς become Mk 10:8; Ac 8:23; 2 Cor 6:18; serve (as something) 1 Cor 14:22; Js 5:3. There are obviously many other possible translations of εἰμί, in various contexts.

Notice the bolded portion. Notice the verses of Biblical scripture that are cited as examples of the usage that is interpretive eimi. Some call it explanatory eimi. You can read about it in advanced Koine grammars. In any case, the sense of the Greek εἰμί with "this" there (τοῦτό ἐστιν) is "means" or "represents" in Matthew 26:26, which phrase in the passage then should be understood as "This means my body" or "This represents my body" rather than indicating some form of transubstantiation that later theologians would develop. By the way, in case you were wondering and lest you misunderstand, ἐστιν estin is the indicative present active 3rd person singular form of the verb εἰμί eimi.

This is the best I can do to help you with a source at present but I can assure you that this is no LDS publication.

Edited March 26, 2013 by MormonMason

[Robert F. Smith]

Should I trust you or should I trust someone like Ignatius of Antioch who was a student of the Apostle John when it comes to understanding the Real Presence? Ignatius of Antioch made some very clear statements regarding the Eucharist as you can find in this article:

http://www.catholic....e-real-presence

From the article:

John's writings are pretty clear about the literal understanding that the Lord's Supper is the body and blood of Christ. I'll trust the interpretation of John's student rather than rely on your interpretation of Greek.

While "literal" is not a word used by John, it is true that the ancient Passover meal (the seder) included the sacrificial lamb whose blood had been spread on the door posts of the Israelites so that the angel of death would "pass over" them in Egypt. Jesus' Last Supper (which we celebrate each week in our Sacrament of the Lord's Supper) was just such a Passover meal in which Jesus introduced a ritual commemoration of his forthcoming death as the Paschal/Passover Lamb offered by God -- for which he shed blood and died so that our sins might be remitted. The Eucharist is "thanks" for that great atoning act by the Savior, the bread and wine (water) the emblems of his body and blood. Tomorrow nite the Jews will begin another Passover week, while we are experiencing Holy Week which culminates in Easter Sunday. Let us commemorate that great and last blood sacrifice with joy, for without it all would be lost and the Great Plan of Happiness would be sterile and meaningless.

[volgadon]

I chose Jewish Studies because it is much more fascinating to me than Christian/New Testament Studies.

Are you gravitating towards any particular sphere or time period?

Every week there is a moment where I am tempted to hold a book burning in which I burn all of my library on HB/NT studies along with my different translations of scripture. Then I come to my senses and realize that I need to take a short break and come back to it.

Do you really need me to fly into Arizona and give you a swift quick? Get a firm basis in Jewish studies, then use your library to enrichen that study. HB/NT forms a valuable resource for Jewish studies.

[volgadon]

And why are you in Jewish Studies?

Why shouldn't he be in Jewish Studies?

[CASteinman]

Why shouldn't he be in Jewish Studies?

To be honest, I don't even know what "Jewish Studies" are. I suppose it is to study things that are "Jewish". Which sounds a bit like a wide field with some places that are interesting and lots of quicksand pits. But that's ignorance speaking. I really haven't a clue.

To directly answer your question -- I did not exactly understand how this related to being .. or then not being Episcopalian. And I was trying to be a bit friendly as well.

Edited March 26, 2013 by CASteinman

[volgadon]

To be honest, I don't even know what "Jewish Studies" are. I suppose it is to study things that are "Jewish". Which sounds a bit like a wide field with some places that are interesting and lots of quicksand pits. But that's ignorance speaking. I really haven't a clue.

To directly answer your question -- I did not exactly understand how this related to being .. or then not being Episcopalian.

That is fine, the form of my response was tongue in cheek.

Jewish studies is the study of Jews and Judaism, there are many, many subtopics.

[Bart Burk]

I do not use Mormon sources for stuff like this, even if I wanted to do so. There aren't any Mormon sources dealing in detail with Koine Greek Grammar. You need to learn to read Koine Greek and learn to recognize an interpretive eimi. Prepare for at least three years of schooling (or more on your own).

As to referencing articles or books for quotes for you, I can't do this for you at present because I am not with my books at home, and what is on the internet is too slim pickings to give you any decent information on the subject matter. I have already checked the library nearest my present location and they have crap for linguistic books that would be of use in this department. I have zero access to decent, language-based commentaries as well, and am so glad that my current situation is only temporary (even though it has lasted more than a year now).

You'll have to wait until I can find something, or you can go it on your own and learn yourself so you won't have to rely on any articles or statements of people made here or elsewhere.

ETA: I found something that addresses the multiple usages of the Greek eimi, in something concise enough for beginners. It is an electronic version of Gingrich's and Danker's A Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Second Edition. The formatting is such that it looks like it might be page 56 of the printed work (bold emphasis mine), but I cannot be certain without actually looking at the print version, which I do not have in my collection at home, and which, even if it were in my collection I could not access where I am now.

At any rate, here is the relevant citation (hopefully the Greek font comes through the board software):

Notice the bolded portion. Notice the verses of Biblical scripture that are cited as examples of the usage that is interpretive eimi. Some call it explanatory eimi. You can read about it in advanced Koine grammars. In any case, the sense of the Greek εἰμί with "this" there (τοῦτό ἐστιν) is "means" or "represents" in Matthew 26:26, which phrase in the passage then should be understood as "This means my body" or "This represents my body" rather than indicating some form of transubstantiation that later theologians would develop. By the way, in case you were wondering and lest you misunderstand, ἐστιν estin is the indicative present active 3rd person singular form of the verb εἰμί eimi.

This is the best I can do to help you with a source at present but I can assure you that this is no LDS publication.

I don't have to believe in transubstantiation (though I do) to believe in the Real Presence. The Eastern Orthodox don't bother with transubstantiation, but still believe in the Real Presence. "This means my body" isn't at all different than what Catholics believe. "Represents" seems like your interpretation -- I don't see that in the passage cited. I'm afraid I'll have to lean on Christ's promise to send the Holy Spirit to lead his Church into all truth on this one. I don't think he interrupted his promise for 1800 years before delivering.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Bart Burk

[Tacenda]

While "literal" is not a word used by John, it is true that the ancient Passover meal (the seder) included the sacrificial lamb whose blood had been spread on the door posts of the Israelites so that the angel of death would "pass over" them in Egypt. Jesus' Last Supper (which we celebrate each week in our Sacrament of the Lord's Supper) was just such a Passover meal in which Jesus introduced a ritual commemoration of his forthcoming death as the Paschal/Passover Lamb offered by God -- for which he shed blood and died so that our sins might be remitted. The Eucharist is "thanks" for that great atoning act by the Savior, the bread and wine (water) the emblems of his body and blood. Tomorrow nite the Jews will begin another Passover week, while we are experiencing Holy Week which culminates in Easter Sunday. Let us commemorate that great and last blood sacrifice with joy, for without it all would be lost and the Great Plan of Happiness would be sterile and meaningless.

Passover in my ward=fast Sunday. Easter=two missionary farewell talks.

[Bart Burk]

Passover in my ward=fast Sunday. Easter=two missionary farewell talks.

The good news is the two missionary farewells will likely include something about Easter.

[MormonMason]

I don't have to believe in transubstantiation (though I do) to believe in the Real Presence. The Eastern Orthodox don't bother with transubstantiation, but still believe in the Real Presence. "This means my body" isn't at all different than what Catholics believe. "Represents" seems like your interpretation -- I don't see that in the passage cited. I'm afraid I'll have to lean on Christ's promise to send the Holy Spirit to lead his Church into all truth on this one. I don't think he interrupted his promise for 1800 years before delivering.

"This means" actually is equivalent in meaning to "this represents." If I were home with my books I could show you a few things more that confirm the meaning. The phrase also is used in the same way in passages where meanings of other languages are being interpreted into the language of the reader. And, "this means" also is radically different from that advocated in the Roman Catholic concept of transubstantiation. It is closer to the Eastern Orthodox idea but even that idea still is outside the direct statement of the phrase in the scripture. There is nothing about the metabole of the elements contained anywhere therein or elsewhere in all the Bible. It is a vocabulary shift that became dogma and which was further expanded upon over time.

And, so far as the visible Church is concerned, even the Bible was clear that the Church was to be driven into the wilderness and that she would face the gates of Hades (requiring death in order to do so), so I will go with the promise of Christ concerning that. Of course, in that light, the Restoration makes so much more sense to me. The Catholic religion was made the religion of the State by Rome after its modification by influence of Rome.

Interestingly enough, the wilderness metaphor is also used in the Doctrine and Covenants to describe the restoration. But, to each his/her own.

ETA: Many have objected to the sheer length of time involved between the apostasy and restoration but I know the reason for that. At that time the people were no longer listening to the apostles. No attempt at ordaining new apostles would have lasted long under those circumstances. The restoration had to wait for a time when religious freedom could exist in a nation outside the reach of the Catholic religion of olden times.

Had the restoration begun any sooner than it did Joseph Smith would likely have been burned at the stake and the movement suppressed. In any case, the nation of America had to exist (so that a prophet could arise who could bring forth the Book of Mormon) and the Protestant Reformation had to take place to break the hold of Catholicism over the political landscape. Freemasonry had to shape the thinking of the early founders of the nation so that they would put in place the concepts of freedom of religion and religious tolerance.

All of these things, religious and non, were necessary to set in motion the restoration of all things and to ensure its survival, to allow the coming forth of the Church out of the wilderness by the ordination of new apostles by the hands of three of the original apostles of the Church who were kept hidden from mankind until the time was right for the Restoration to begin. That is why there was so long a wait.

Edited March 27, 2013 by MormonMason

[Lamanite]

So I've asked every old person I know about this and without fail they say the same thing. Restore/restoration = EXACT restoration of organization/institution/priesthood offices/ordinances.

Then I asked chapel Mormons. (don't whine about me using that label) Same thing.

Then I asked Internet Mormons/Apologists. And without getting too involved they mostly said Restore/restoration = restored gospel/doctrine/principles/powers. Not exact structure and/or details.

Sound about right to anyone else?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[MormonMason]

Many fundamentally misunderstand what is meant by "restoration of all things" when the words of Joseph Smith were before them all the time. My views on the matter have not changed since before the internet was invented. So, with that out of the way, this includes the restoration of all keys and priesthood offices from all previous dispensations (not just from the dispensation of the Gospel under Christ and his apostles), all welded together into this last dispensation. In addition, in that last dispensation would new things, which were hidden from the world since the world began, be revealed. And, this all is what Joseph Smith himself taught on the subject. He who has ears to hear let him hear.