Did The Church Ever Cease To Exist?

[Gervin]

Gervin said:

I agree in part, but I also think the earliest Jesus followers were more intent on proclaiming his message than proclaiming 'him'. It came to be about 'him' as the early followers attempted to define 'who' he was. Messiah, Divine Man and so forth. But his basic messages (insofar as we can tell what they are given the texts we have) were simple and profound and I think it should be remembered that he focused in on the 'organised religion' of his time, and the hypocrisy of missing the mark. He was a radical Jew.

I would only modify to clarify that he focused on people, and sometimes that included the organized religion(s) of the time. I think he also showed that there were many ways to miss the mark and only one way to correct the aim.

[Gervin]

Even if we assume that we have most of what the Apostles wrote, we have very very little of what they actually taught, and NONE of what Jesus taught them during that 40 days. So, I don't think it is "fair" to ASSUME anything of the sort.

Assuming a case for the apostasy, I was asking for people to draw a similar conclusion and tell me why it's valid or not.

[cdowis]

Gervin:

I read the NT apostles as focusing on the single most important message, to proclaim Christ. I frankly don't see a whole lot in the NT about correct organization - and nothing (?) about the church-conduit as the only way to receive full blessings.

Tell us what He taught during the forty days of "speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" Acts 1: 4. Your question is based on a false assumption.

[mfbukowski]

I think you mean "abated breath".

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. (I wanted to add the sad faced, teary eyed emoticon, but the system I am using today won't let me do that one)

AAhhh, no, glasshoppahh let the mastah teach you somesing!

http://www.straightd...of-bated-breath

Being really old has some advantages

I'm sure there's a nasty comeback line in there somewhere which would not be appropriate for this board

Edited August 1, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

We forgot you were the Prophet, sorry.

I await your usual self-righteous reply with bated breath.

I know someone is a prophet of God by God telling me someone is a prophet, with God's voice to me as my standard.

Do you do it some other way?

And No I am not the "Prophet" if by that you mean the President of the Church, and No I'm not self-righteous, either

You really should stop bearing a false witness against me.

[thesometimesaint]

Cheers fella! :-)

Yes my answer was simplistic, but a) I work nights and haven't been up that long b) it was a simple answer to a simple question. I personally don't believe that the apostasy occurred the moment the apostles died/were cut off. I believe that it was gradual process. Men who had the priesthood ordained others who continued to hold the priesthood, but that as the church gradually brought in new/false teaching they slowly turned away from the light and over many years those who were worthy to hold the priesthood died out until as far as the world was concerned it was no longer to be found. In the same way is if there was some hypothetical worldwide disaster in which I and a few other members of the human race survived, with me being the only LDS amongst them. I would still hold my priesthood even though all the GA's had been killed. I would still be able to bless the sick, and administer the sacrament, but I wouldn't hold the keys for all that I could do & so when I died my priesthood would die with me. Probably a bad example but you get my point.

My belief is that these pockets continued to exist but slowly died out over time.

I believe it was all over but the shouting no later than than about 130 CE.

[LordUther]

I believe it was all over but the shouting no later than than about 130 CE.

I think that's a fair assessment.

[Vance]

AAhhh, no, glasshoppahh let the mastah teach you somesing!

http://www.straightd...of-bated-breath

Being really old has some advantages

I'm sure there's a nasty comeback line in there somewhere which would not be appropriate for this board

I bow to you, mastah!!

[Gervin]

Tell us what He taught during the forty days of "speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" Acts 1: 4. Your question is based on a false assumption.

I didn't ask a question.

But here's a two-parter:

If Christ spent part or all of 40 days talking about the organization of the church, how well do you think the apostles understood the instruction and how would you assess the success of their implementation? Make any assumptions you want, if they're described.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Gervin

[Questing Beast]

I know someone isn't in agreement with God when what they say and mean isn't in agreement with what God has told me.

As has been pointed out innumberable times, there is no "deadlock". It's just that people either agree with God or they do not.

You are amazing. Put you in a room with any number of equally dogmatically certain other-religionists, even non believers, and you will have a roomful of separated, exclusive pov, never to meet on any common ground. And there you can wait till eternity runs its course....

[Ahab]

You are amazing. Put you in a room with any number of equally dogmatically certain other-religionists, even non believers, and you will have a roomful of separated, exclusive pov, never to meet on any common ground. And there you can wait till eternity runs its course....

There's nothing amazing about me. I just a regular run of the mill believer who believes what God has told me is true.

Sheesh. You act like I should change my mind or doubt my beliefs if somebody else believes something different than what I believe.

[Abulafia]

Vance said:

How, exactly do you reconcile this,

Mark 9:38 ¶ And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

With this,

Matt 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Okay, so, I don’t see the contradiction here. Matthew’s comments are echoed in the Didache interestingly enough where a false teacher, prophet and apostle can be recognised by their living the ideals of the first of the two ways. The Didache may well be contemporary with Matthew and as I understand it there is some good scholarly debate on who actually influences who.

Here’s the first of the two ways from the Didache:

1:2 {The way of life} is this.

1:3 First of all, {thou shalt love the God} that made thee;

1:4 secondly, {thy neighbour as thyself.}

1:5 {And all things whatsoever thou wouldest not have befal thyself neither do thou unto another.}

1:6 Now of these words the doctrine is this.

1:7 {Bless them that curse you, and pray for} your enemies and fast for {them that persecute you;

1:8 for what thank is it, if ye love them that love you? Do not even the Gentiles the same? But do ye love them that hate you,} and ye shall not have an enemy.

1:9 Abstain thou from fleshly and bodily lusts.

1:10 {If any man give thee a blow on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also,} and thou shalt be perfect;

1:11 {if a man impress thee to go with him, one mile, go with him twain;

1:12 if a man take away thy cloak, give him thy coat also;

1:13 if a man take away from thee that which is thine own, ask it not back,} for neither art thou able.

1:14 {To every man that asketh of thee give, and ask not back;}

1:15 for the Father desireth that gifts be given to all from His own bounties.

1:16 Blessed is he that giveth according to the commandment;

1:17 for he is guiltless.

1:18 Woe to him that receiveth;

1:19 for, if a man receiveth having need, he is guiltless;

1:20 but he that hath no need shall give satisfaction why and wherefore he received;

1:21 and being put in confinement he shall be examined concerning the deeds that he hath done, and {he shall not come out thence until he hath given back the last farthing.}

1:22 Yea, as touching this also it is said;

1:23 {Let thine alms sweat into thine hands, until thou shalt have learnt to whom to give.}

2:1 And this is the second commandment of the teaching.

2:2 {Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery,} thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not commit fornication, {thou shalt not steal,} thou shalt not deal in magic, thou shalt do no sorcery, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born, {thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods, thou shalt not perjure thyself, thou shalt not bear false witness,} thou shalt not speak evil, thou shalt not cherish a grudge, thou shalt not be double-minded nor double-tongued;

2:3 for the double tongue is a snare of death.

2:4 Thy word shall not be false or empty, but fulfilled by action.

2:5 Thou shalt not be avaricious nor a plunderer nor a hypocrite nor ill-tempered nor proud.

2:6 Thou shalt not entertain an evil design against thy neighbour.

2:7 {Thou shalt not hate} any man, {but some thou shalt reprove,} and for others thou shalt pray, {and others thou shalt love} more than thy life.

3:1 My child, flee from every evil and everything that resembleth it.

3:2 Be not angry, for anger leadeth to murder, nor jealous nor contentious nor wrathful;

3:3 for of all these things murders are engendered.

3:4 My child, be not lustful, for lust leadeth to fornication, neither foul-speaking neither with uplifted eyes;

3:5 for of all these things adulteries are engendered.

3:6 My child, {be no dealer in omens,} since it leads to idolatry, nor an enchanter nor an astrologer nor a magician, neither be willing to look at them;

3:7 for from all these things idolatry is engendered.

3:8 My child, be not a liar, since lying leads to theft, neither avaricious neither vainglorious;

3:9 for from all these things thefts are engendered.

3:10 My child, be not a murmurer, since it leadeth to blasphemy, neither self-willed neither a thinker of evil thoughts;

3:11 for from all these things blasphemies are engendered.

3:12 But be meek, since {the meek shall inherit the earth.}

3:13 Be long-suffering and pitiful and guileless and {quiet} and kindly {and} always {fearing the words} which thou hast heard.

3:14 Thou shalt not exalt thyself, neither shalt thou admit boldness into thy soul.

3:15 Thy soul shall not cleave together with the lofty, but with the righteous and humble shalt thou walk.

3:16 The accidents that befal thee thou shalt receive as good, knowing that nothing is done without God.

4:1 My child, {thou shalt remember him that speaketh unto thee the word of God} night and day, and shalt honour him as the Lord;

4:2 for whencesoever the Lordship speaketh, there is the Lord.

4:3 Moreover thou shalt seek out day by day the persons of the saints, that thou mayest find rest in their words.

4:4 Thou shalt not make a schism, but thou shalt pacify them that contend;

4:5 thou shalt judge righteously, thou shalt not make a difference in a person to reprove him for transgressions.

4:6 Thou shalt not doubt whether a thing shall be or not be.

4:7 {Be not thou found holding out thy hands to receive, but drawing them in as to giving.}

4:8 If thou hast ought passing through thy hands, thou shalt give a ransom for thy sins.

4:9 Thou shalt not hesitate to give, neither shalt thou murmur when giving;

4:10 for thou shalt know who is the good paymaster of thy reward.

4:11 Thou shalt not turn away from him that is in want, but shalt make thy brother partaker in all things, and shalt not say {that anything is thine own.}

4:12 For if ye are fellow-partakers in that which is imperishable, how much rather in the things which are perishable? Thou shalt not withhold thy hand from thy son or from thy daughter, but from their youth thou shalt teach them the fear of God.

4:13 Thou shalt not command thy bondservant or thine handmaid in thy bitterness, who trust in the same God as thyself, lest haply they should cease to fear the God who is over both of you;

4:14 for He cometh, not to call men with respect of persons, but He cometh to those whom the Spirit hath prepared.

4:15 But ye, servants, shall be subject unto your masters, as to a type of God, in shame and fear.

®LA1¯4:16 Thou shalt hate all hypocrisy, and everything that is not pleasing to the Lord.

4:17 Thou shalt never forsake the commandments of the Lord;

4:18 but shalt keep those things which thou hast received, neither adding to them nor taking away from them.

4:19 In church thou shalt confess thy transgressions, and shalt not betake thyself to prayer with an evil conscience.

4:20 This is the way of life.

What gives authority is adherence to a way of life.

Vance said:

So, given that Jesus specifically gave Peter (and the rest of "the Twelve") total sanction (see Matt 16:19), who should we give more credence to? Peter or the (johnny come lately) Paul???

I don’t think it is as easy as that. Mark does not have that same passage. Mark is earlier. So surely what we can say is that not all communities saw authority in the same way. For me, the Mark passage is significant because it is embarrassing to some later Jesus communities. It doesn’t fit with their view but there it stands in all its glory!

I said

What comes across is that James and Peter were Jews committed to Jewish Law and still loyal to the temple.

Vance responded

Ok, so?

Because they were working from within the context of Judaism. At this point there is no separation between Christianity and Judaism as we see it today. Paul got into trouble big time for attending the temple, almost got himself killed, but for the Jerusalem contingent the temple with all its sacrifices, councils, and so forth was something they (the apostles) continued to respect in terms of authority. That would have included the religious and legal authority. The break between Judaism and the early Jesus followers does not happen immediately. Even Paul would have considered himself a Jew.

I said:

They were not Levites.

Vance replied:

And this is relevant how?

They didn’t hold the Levitical Priesthood and there is no mention at this stage of Melchizedek Priesthood within the earliest texts except for Hebrews which could have been written any time between 50 and as late as 95CE

The way I see it at present is that after Jesus’ death the earliest followers in some of the communities looked to ‘their’ scripture to account for Jesus’ life and death and to validate 'their' authority from those texts. Hebrews is an attempt to do that, but Jesus (perhaps Robert can correct me if I am wrong) doesn’t refer to himself as a priest after the order of Melchizedek. It just isn’t there and if it was that important it should be. Even Ignatius, steeped in Pauline Christianity makes no mention of Melchizedek. Why not? Is it significant? Perhaps it is.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Abulafia

[Questing Beast]

There's nothing amazing about me. I just a regular run of the mill believer who believes what God has told me is true.

Sheesh. You act like I should change my mind or doubt my beliefs if somebody else believes something different than what I believe.

As long as you allow every other person equal rights to their own certainty, and they allow yours, there shouldn't be a problem. After all, "God" is infinitely expanding egocentric "universes" (aka as people) that never see reality exactly the same way as anybody else, and it doesn't seem to produce a problem for "God". It's when someone seeks converts to their way of thinking, asserting that everyone who is not converted is mistaken, that the trouble can begin to get out of control....

[Ahab]

As long as you allow every other person equal rights to their own certainty, and they allow yours, there shouldn't be a problem.

Yes, I allow that, but when I can see that someone is wrong in what they are certain about I still sometimes try to offer correction because I'd rather they be certain about what is right rather than about what is wrong. They can choose to disegard what I tell them, though, just as I can disregard what they tell me when they tell me something that I know is not right. Usually it will end up in at least a little bit of a conversation, though, just as I am now having with you.

After all, "God" is infinitely expanding egocentric "universes" (aka as people) that never see reality exactly the same way as anybody else, and it doesn't seem to produce a problem for "God". It's when someone seeks converts to their way of thinking, asserting that everyone who is not converted is mistaken, that the trouble can begin to get out of control....

Would you rather have everyone telling everyone else that everyone is right even when everyone doesn't agree with each other?

People can still love other people even while knowing that the people they love are wrong about what they believe.

[Robert F. Smith]

In response to my point about Apollos and Paul ‘not’ holding the priesthood in the way LDS consider important Robert said:

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

Robert, could you provide references for that?

http://catholicexchange.com/the-order-of-melchizedek/ .

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

Okay, I see a few problems here Robert. The Mark ending (after 16: 8 is not attested in the earliest manuscripts. That still leaves Matthew 24:14

"This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.”

Yet, there is a contradiction here with the behaviour of the ‘Pillars’ as shown in Acts and the earliest genuine letters of Paul. Paul is the one who wants to take the gospel to a gentile audience and thus to the whole ‘world’ (at least the World then known), the Apostles who walked and talked with Jesus have to be persuaded. It’s an interesting contradiction and needs to be accounted for I think.

It is certainly true that Peter and the others first opposed Paul's notion that the Gospel had to go to the Gentiles, but that matter got settled in short order and Peter himself began baptizing Gentiles (Acts 9:44 - 10:18).

As to your second point about a ‘species of infallibility’. I agree, but if ‘authority’ as LDS present it, was SO important, one would think that Jesus would have left a clearer message about what he wanted done in terms of organisation, structure and authority. That he didn’t is perhaps an important message in and of itself that is worth considering!

The same could be said with respect to the Israelites and later the Jews. As the chosen people of God, and with authentic priesthood authority, shoulda, woulda, coulda in those instances as well?? Your argument makes sense only if God gives his authority to people whom he infallibly perpetuates regardless of personal failings. The repeated diasporas of Israel ought to tell us something, and Romans 11 has the last word I should think.

You don’t mention how you would deal with Mark 9:38. Here Jesus attitude to authority is presented as being liberal. Very unlike Ignatius’s later view of the threefold ministry of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, in which the presence of a Bishop is essential to the running of a ‘church’, indeed the church, in his view doesn’t exist without the Bishop.

Mk 9:38 sounds like something Joseph Smith might say Or Wilford Woodruff when discussing the Prophet Robert Mason in Leaves from My Journal (1882), chapter 1..

Ah, there’s the rub. The use of the term ‘formal’, and thus we are back to the beginning! Perhaps you could reference why you feel only a ‘selective’ reading of the NT could project that notion?

All four Gospels and Acts are the product of the already extant Church (Sitz im Leben der Kirche) when they come into existence long after the epistles of Paul. The Church would be sui generis if it did not have basically the same officers and organization as the Jewish and Essene organizations which pre-existed it and then existed alongside it. The Twelve presbyters (or Fifteen, with the three priests) were considered the foundation wall of the New Testament and Qumran communities (1QS 8:1-8, 1QM 2:1-2, CD 7:5, 20:25,7; 4QpIsa [4Q164] 54:12; Numbers 3:4, Matthew 10:1-4, 19:28, Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:13-16, John 6:70, Acts 1:13, 19:1-7 [the twelve disciples of John the Baptizer were rebaptized by Paul], Revelation 21:14); the three styloi "pillars" (Galatians 2:9, Peter, James, and John), are the leaders of the Church; there are Seventy elders (Exodus 24:1,9, Luke 10:1-17, TB Sanhedrin);

Also as among the Essenes and in rabbinic Judaism, admission to membership was via immersion baptism. See the Pastoral Epistles to I & II Timothy and Titus on the formal organization, even if their status as Pauline is seriously questioned; and see in general

Joseph Baumgarten, “The Duodecimal Courts of Qumran, Revelation, and the Sanhedrin,” JBL, 95 (1976), 59-78.

Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (N.Y.: Paulist Press, 1984).

James T. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992).

Hugh W. Nibley, Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity (2005), CWHN XV.

Krister Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the New Testament (N.Y., 1957).

[Abulafia]

http://catholicexcha...of-melchizedek/ .

I asked for references because I had spent a while looking at ‘official sites’ and could find nothing specific. Thanks.

Robert said:

It is certainly true that Peter and the others first opposed Paul's notion that the Gospel had to go to the Gentiles, but that matter got settled in short order and Peter himself began baptizing Gentiles (Acts 9:44 - 10:18)

My response:

But I think you are missing the contradiction here Robert. If Jesus really had said what Matthew claims then Peter would have known that he should be preaching to those outside of Judaism.

Paul himself, in Galatians presents an entirely different story, which is first hand rather than Luke/Acts which is ‘not’ first hand as far as we know.

2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem,(A) this time with Barnabas.(B) I took Titus© along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation(D) and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.(E) I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race(F) in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus,(G) who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.(H) 4 This matter arose because some false believers(I) had infiltrated our ranks to spy on(J) the freedom(K) we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel(L) might be preserved for you.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem(M)—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism(N)—they added nothing to my message.(O) 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task(P) of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a](Q) just as Peter® had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle(S) to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle(T) to the Gentiles. 9 James,(U) Cephas[c](V) and John, those esteemed as pillars,(W) gave me and Barnabas(X) the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.(Y) They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles,(Z) and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor,(AA) the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

Paul Opposes Cephas

11 When Cephas(AB) came to Antioch,(AC) I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.12 For before certain men came from James,(AD) he used to eat with the Gentiles.(AE) But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.(AF) 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas(AG) was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel,(AH) I said to Cephas(AI) in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew.(AJ) How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?(AK)

15 “We who are Jews by birth(AL) and not sinful Gentiles(AM) 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law,(AN) but by faith in Jesus Christ.(AO) So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.(AP)

17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners,(AQ)doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not!(AR) 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

19 “For through the law I died to the law(AS) so that I might live for God.(AT) 20 I have been crucified with Christ(AU) and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.(AV) The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God,(AW) who loved me(AX) and gave himself for me.(AY) 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law,(AZ) Christ died for nothing!”[e]

Big contradiction Robert!

Robert said:

The same could be said with respect to the Israelites and later the Jews. As the chosen people of God, and with authentic priesthood authority, shoulda, woulda, coulda in those instances as well?? Your argument makes sense only if God gives his authority to people whom he infallibly perpetuates regardless of personal failings. The repeated diasporas of Israel ought to tell us something, and Romans 11 has the last word I should think.

My response:

Robert! Levites had a specific role for which they were paid. Their positions came with benefits but also many, many disadvantages, for instance they could not own property and so forth.

Robert said:

Mk 9:38 sounds like something Joseph Smith might say Or Wilford Woodruff when discussing the Prophet Robert Mason in Leaves from My Journal (1882), chapter 1..

My response:

I don’t have access to that book, but do remember Joseph saying that God is more liberal than many of us would give credit, perhaps that is what you are referring to?

Robert said:

All four Gospels and Acts are the product of the already extant Church ................ when they come into existence long after the epistles of Paul. The Church would be sui generis if it did not have basically the same officers and organization as the Jewish and Essene organizations which pre-existed it and then existed alongside it. The Twelve presbyters (or Fifteen, with the three priests) were considered the foundation wall of the New Testament and Qumran communities (1QS 8:1-8, 1QM 2:1-2, CD 7:5, 20:25,7; 4QpIsa [4Q164] 54:12; Numbers 3:4, Matthew 10:1-4, 19:28, Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:13-16, John 6:70, Acts 1:13, 19:1-7 [the twelve disciples of John the Baptizer were rebaptized by Paul], Revelation 21:14); the three styloi "pillars" (Galatians 2:9, Peter, James, and John), are the leaders of the Church; there are Seventy elders (Exodus 24:1,9, Luke 10:1-17, TB Sanhedrin);

Also as among the Essenes and in rabbinic Judaism, admission to membership was via immersion baptism. See the Pastoral Epistles to I & II Timothy and Titus on the formal organization, even if their status as Pauline is seriously questioned; and see in general

Joseph Baumgarten, “The Duodecimal Courts of Qumran, Revelation, and the Sanhedrin,” JBL, 95 (1976), 59-78.

Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (N.Y.: Paulist Press, 1984).

James T. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities(Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992).

Hugh W. Nibley, Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity (2005), CWHN XV.

Krister Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the New Testament (N.Y., 1957).

My response:

Thanks Robert, for the references. My recent essay for my masters was on structure thus my interest. If you like, I can send you my bibliography, a bit long to add here, but I spent most of my time on the original sources. The Canon, The Didache, 1 Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians. It’s utterly fascinating.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Abulafia

[Vance]

Okay, so, I don’t see the contradiction here.

Okay, so you don't see the contradiction there. May I suggest you look closer for it?

[Vance]

If Jesus really had said what Matthew claims then Peter would have known that he should be preaching to those outside of Judaism.

I think you are missing some context here.

Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

[Abulafia]

Vance said:

Okay, so you don't see the contradiction there. May I suggest you look closer for it?

Mark 9:38 ¶ And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

With this,

Matt 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Vance, I'm afraid you are going to have to be a little more specific.

For me, this fully supports my standpoint that living a life patterned after 'the way' is more important than any office, any miracle, any prophecy, and so forth. A trite saying perhaps, but 'the gospel is simply beautiful and beautifully simple.

Why the need to close up heaven to almost all of the human race because they havn't had a Mormon Baptism? This is the same wrangle that some of the early Pauline communities got into. We are of Apollos, we are of Cephas, we are of Paul, we are of Jesus.

[cdowis]

I didn't ask a question.

But here's a two-parter:

If Christ spent part or all of 40 days talking about the organization of the church, how well do you think the apostles understood the instruction and how would you assess the success of their implementation? Make any assumptions you want, if they're described.

As prophets they received on-going instruction and revelations. We do not have all the details, but we know that they baptized and conducted ordinances for the deceased.

Edited August 2, 2013 by cdowis

[Abulafia]

I think you are missing some context here.

Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Vance, I was responding to Robert. I had argued that since the earliest Saints, including Paul, had felt that the Parousia would occur very quickly, according to the prophecy of Jesus, the issue of long term structure probably wasn't first and foremost in any of their minds.

See Matt 24:34

34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

See here for original back and forth between myself and Robert.

I said:

I tend to go with the idea that had a 'church' been so important that Jesus would have left everything sown up in terms of structure and authority. He didn't. Infact there is every reason to assume that no-one thought, in the earliest communities, that there would be a need for a church, since the Parousia was going to manifest itself within the first generation of converts.

To which Robert replied:

A not uncommon theory, but a bit unrealistic if we consider Jesus' charge to his followers to take the Gospel to all the world -

[mfbukowski]

There's nothing amazing about me. I just a regular run of the mill believer who believes what God has told me is true.

Sheesh. You act like I should change my mind or doubt my beliefs if somebody else believes something different than what I believe.

See that is the problem, from my point of view, with your position.

You think that if you are right, they must be wrong, or that if they are right you must be wrong.

Suppose you are both wrong, and wrong to even think that way?

There are a myriad of other possibilities you are not considering which might actually be the truth. This is not a black and white world.

[mfbukowski]

Vance said:

Okay, so, I don’t see the contradiction here. Matthew’s comments are echoed in the Didache interestingly enough where a false teacher, prophet and apostle can be recognised by their living the ideals of the first of the two ways. The Didache may well be contemporary with Matthew and as I understand it there is some good scholarly debate on who actually influences who.

Here’s the first of the two ways from the Didache:

What gives authority is adherence to a way of life.

Vance said:

I don’t think it is as easy as that. Mark does not have that same passage. Mark is earlier. So surely what we can say is that not all communities saw authority in the same way. For me, the Mark passage is significant because it is embarrassing to some later Jesus communities. It doesn’t fit with their view but there it stands in all its glory!

I said

Vance responded

Because they were working from within the context of Judaism. At this point there is no separation between Christianity and Judaism as we see it today. Paul got into trouble big time for attending the temple, almost got himself killed, but for the Jerusalem contingent the temple with all its sacrifices, councils, and so forth was something they (the apostles) continued to respect in terms of authority. That would have included the religious and legal authority. The break between Judaism and the early Jesus followers does not happen immediately. Even Paul would have considered himself a Jew.

I said:

Vance replied:

They didn’t hold the Levitical Priesthood and there is no mention at this stage of Melchizedek Priesthood within the earliest texts except for Hebrews which could have been written any time between 50 and as late as 95CE

The way I see it at present is that after Jesus’ death the earliest followers in some of the communities looked to ‘their’ scripture to account for Jesus’ life and death and to validate 'their' authority from those texts. Hebrews is an attempt to do that, but Jesus (perhaps Robert can correct me if I am wrong) doesn’t refer to himself as a priest after the order of Melchizedek. It just isn’t there and if it was that important it should be. Even Ignatius, steeped in Pauline Christianity makes no mention of Melchizedek. Why not? Is it significant? Perhaps it is.

I find your posts very interesting and pretty much always agree with them. The Didache is a wonderful work which I personally accept as scripture.

But here's the deal. I think you put too much emphasis on "history" when we only have a sliver of someone's interpretation of what happened 2000 years ago in a society which was primarily illiterate. What got written down was minimal, the sources are all suspect to one degree or another, and besides all of that, who knows what the person Jesus "really" said anyway?

All the apostles and writers- even IF they were eyewitnesses to the events (doubtful assumption) were interpreting what they experienced through their own eyes.

But in reality we don't have a clue who these people really were or who really wrote any of it!

I tend to throw out alleged "history" for those reasons and instead rely on the spirit and what God tells me personally anyway. The reason I like the Didache, is that it teaches PRINCIPLES of how to lead a good life- not quotes, not what someone supposedly said or didn't say- it stands on its own as a book to be tested in your own life and proven, not because of who wrote or did not write it, but because the principles it teaches simply WORK.

So for me citing alleged "authority" for these volumes becomes irrelevant, because it relies on the assumption that these "authorities" actually have something they knew that the others did not and for that reason we should believe one source and not the others.

I just go by the principles- if it works, it is true.

It makes it a lot simpler that way, especially when we have no way of knowing if the alleged "authorities" actually were authorities or not.

[Abulafia]

mfbukowski, I think we agree more than you realise! I absolutely take your point that the sources are imperfect and that there was an oral tradition before anything got written down. Yet at the same time, they are all we have got and I think that amidst the myth, prejudice and rhetoric there might just be some genuine history there.

Just to add that when I write sources, I don't 'just' mean the canon.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Abulafia

[Ahab]

See that is the problem, from my point of view, with your position.

You think that if you are right, they must be wrong, or that if they are right you must be wrong.

No, because we can both be right as long as we don't contradict each other.

Suppose you are both wrong, and wrong to even think that way?

Back up and make up for the error you've already made. I don't think that way, and I'm not going to chase after a red herring.

There are a myriad of other possibilities you are not considering which might actually be the truth.

I'm not saying I possess a knowledge of ALL truth, but when I know something is true, I know it is true, and it's your error if you think I do not.

This is not a black and white world.

I see trees of green, red roses too

I see them bloom for me and you

And I think to myself, what a wonderful world

I see skies of blue and clouds of white

The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night

And I think to myself, what a wonderful world

The colours of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky

Are also on the faces of people going by

I see friends shakin' hands, sayin' "How do you do?"

They're really saying "I love you"

I hear babies cryin', I watch them grow

They'll learn much more than I'll ever know (he's wrong about that but it's a nice song anway)

And I think to myself, what a wonderful world

Yes, I think to myself, what a wonderful world

Oh yeah