Apostles And Structure Of The Church

[ChristKnight]

We are claiming we have the same organization as the primitive church and no other religious on the face of the earth makes this claim. What we do know is that they had apostles, prophets, evangelists pastors and teachers. A clear organized structure. The catholic church has an organized structure, but they do not the offices set out by Paul. No protestant church on the earth has this structure. There is argument about the exact duties of these offices, but the existence of the offices themselves are not in dispute.

Ephesians 4:11

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

But are these supposed to be "offices"? I mean, I can understand apostles, but the LDS Church does not claim to have an office (I assume you mean priesthood office) of prophet (the FP and Q12 are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, and the President is regarded as "the Prophet", but there is no office of prophet), nor an office of pastor (a specific example against the belief that the LDS Church has the "offices set out by Paul"). And as for evangelists, well Joseph said that a Patriarch is an Evangelist, so...

[danielwoods]

And was this part of the original Gospel, that Jesus set up?

I've seen no evidence to this end.

[Abulafia]

Chris mentioned

Ephesians 4:11

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

and asked

But are these supposed to be "offices"?

I think it depends which era, and which strand of the early christian movement you look at.

Paul's genuine letters are the earliest, so if we mine them for evidence we see that Paul, necessarily has a fluid view of the term Apostle. He has to really, because he claimed his own apostleship through a charismatic experience. He wasn't 'called' in the same way that the 12 disciples of Jesus are represented as being called in the Gospels. But, yet, Mark, the earliest Gospel has a fluid view of authority as seen in Mark 9:38. Mark has Jesus 'not' seeing the 12 as judging the 12 tribes of Israel, for Mark's Jesus, it is not his authority to give for instance. And what the Apostles have the authority to do, Jesus gives to anyone who uses his name. Messy indeed!

Itinerant Prophets and Teachers are seen as important roles in the Didache, ones for which, if they are authentic in terms of their gifts then they are worthy of support from first fruits. There is no evidence of this fluidity in the communities of Ignatius, and Polycarp who see the role of Apostle as a thing of the past, as indeed they do Prophets, whom they see as authoritative insofar as they prophecy of Jesus within the Hebrew Canon.

All the roles whether they be charismatic or not seem to be taken over by the local communities in the form of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon by the time of Ignatius, at least for their strand of orthodoxy. Perhaps that was unavoidable given that the parousia didn't occur as early as it was expected and that Jerusalem in terms of structure and organisation was no more after its fall in around 60CE.

[ChristKnight]

Chris mentioned

and asked

I think it depends which era, and which strand of the early christian movement you look at.

Paul's genuine letters are the earliest, so if we mine them for evidence we see that Paul, necessarily has a fluid view of the term Apostle. He has to really, because he claimed his own apostleship through a charismatic experience. He wasn't 'called' in the same way that the 12 disciples of Jesus are represented as being called in the Gospels. But, yet, Mark, the earliest Gospel has a fluid view of authority as seen in Mark 9:38. Mark has Jesus 'not' seeing the 12 as judging the 12 tribes of Israel, for Mark's Jesus, it is not his authority to give for instance. And what the Apostles have the authority to do, Jesus gives to anyone who uses his name. Messy indeed!

Itinerant Prophets and Teachers are seen as important roles in the Didache, ones for which, if they are authentic in terms of their gifts then they are worthy of support from first fruits. There is no evidence of this fluidity in the communities of Ignatius, and Polycarp who see the role of Apostle as a thing of the past, as indeed they do Prophets, whom they see as authoritative insofar as they prophecy of Jesus within the Hebrew Canon.

All the roles whether they be charismatic or not seem to be taken over by the local communities in the form of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon by the time of Ignatius, at least for their strand of orthodoxy. Perhaps that was unavoidable given that the parousia didn't occur as early as it was expected and that Jerusalem in terms of structure and organisation was no more after its fall in around 60CE.

Ok. I'm still curious to see how Freedom, or anyone else that holds a similar view to his, would respond to my previous post. He said that the LDS Church claims to have the same organization as the primitive Church, and that no other religion on earth makes that claim. He said that they had apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, and pastors (alluding to Ephesians 4:11), and that while the Catholic Church has an organized structure, they don't have the "offices" set out by Paul (and I'm assuming he's referring to the "offices" mentioned). But when we look at that, the LDS Church doesn't have an office of pastor, nor an office of prophet (see my previous distinction between a "priesthood office" that one is ordained to, i.e. apostle, teacher, deacon, bishop, etc, and being sustained a prophet, seer, and revelator), and with Evangelist, we have Joseph Smith identifying the office of evangelist with a patriarch, so there is no office specifically named "evangelist" either.

[Abulafia]

Yeah, I guess I would like to see that too Chris. If anyone is going to use Paul as a source for office, then they ought to use Paul's interpretation of office. So (arguably) the church should have women apostles and deacons for a start, and the term apostle shouldn't be limited to just 12 individuals.

[Questing Beast]

...

So, I just think it is all incredibly messy.

That's one of the more sensible assessments of the history of primitive Christianity I have read. I think that Mormon history is just as messy....

[Abulafia]

That's one of the more sensible assessments of the history of primitive Christianity I have read. I think that Mormon history is just as messy....

I totally agree. I've made no secret of the fact that on paper I am still LDS, on my course. My tutor is quite pleased, but some of my fellow students have no qualms about telling me that I am 'doing the right thing' by not being an active mormon. I tell them that they had better look to early christianity before judging Mormonism. Many of the same problems are there, just how many, I guess is a matter of faith.

[Questing Beast]

I totally agree. I've made no secret of the fact that on paper I am still LDS, on my course. My tutor is quite pleased, but some of my fellow students have no qualms about telling me that I am 'doing the right thing' by not being an active mormon. I tell them that they had better look to early christianity before judging Mormonism. Many of the same problems are there, just how many, I guess is a matter of faith.

I'm just finishing up the book, "Jesus Outside the New Testament" by Robert E. Van Voorst. It has been a bit of a slogfest for me. I guess I'm not scholarly enough. But it seems to me a "much ado about nothing" to examine the extant relics of primitive Christianity's earliest writings, compare them, and come up with asserted documents no longer extant! Just on the basis of similarities and dissimilarities. And all for the purpose of IDing the historical Jesus accurately. Of course, I started the book in the first place because I also have an interest in IDing the "historical Jesus" accurately. I find the pursuit in this "introduction" to the vast subject disappointing, but not unexpectedly so at this point. I wasn't expecting to read a book and get an epiphany or anything like that. One thing did sort of leap at me, and that was the line in the conclusion comments following the "Gospel of Thomas", where Van Voorst says, "...the lack of christological titles in the Gospel of Thomas may indicate that Jesus did not claim these for himself.", a suspicion I have entertained for years, based on the obvious "evolution" all religions undergo in defending and strengthening themselves. I think many words have been put into Jesus' mouth he did not say, or in ways to make him mean things that he did not mean about himself, etc....

[Tacenda]

I'm just finishing up the book, "Jesus Outside the New Testament" by Robert E. Van Voorst. It has been a bit of a slogfest for me. I guess I'm not scholarly enough. But it seems to me a "much ado about nothing" to examine the extant relics of primitive Christianity's earliest writings, compare them, and come up with asserted documents no longer extant! Just on the basis of similarities and dissimilarities. And all for the purpose of IDing the historical Jesus accurately. Of course, I started the book in the first place because I also have an interest in IDing the "historical Jesus" accurately. I find the pursuit in this "introduction" to the vast subject disappointing, but not unexpectedly so at this point. I wasn't expecting to read a book and get an epiphany or anything like that. One thing did sort of leap at me, and that was the line in the conclusion comments following the "Gospel of Thomas", where Van Voorst says, "...the lack of christological titles in the Gospel of Thomas may indicate that Jesus did not claim these for himself.", a suspicion I have entertained for years, based on the obvious "evolution" all religions undergo in defending and strengthening themselves. I think many words have been put into Jesus' mouth he did not say, or in ways to make him mean things that he did not mean about himself, etc....

I think too many religions can exploit God's message and try make themselves the only true messengers. We need to be careful of philosophies of men mingled with scripture.