Did The Church Ever Cease To Exist?

[mfbukowski]

I don't think that way, and I'm not going to chase after a red herring.

Great.

Please take this as my reply to all your future posts to me, so we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I am definitely going to have to remember that phrase "I don't think that way".

It is the all-purpose answer to any discussion.

[Ahab]

Great.

Please take this as my reply to all your future posts to me, so we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I am definitely going to have to remember that phrase "I don't think that way".

It is the all-purpose answer to any discussion.

Unless you do think that way, and I know for a fact that you do think the way I do about at least a few things in reality.

[mfbukowski]

Unless you do think that way, and I know for a fact that you do think the way I do about at least a few things in reality.

"The church is true" is a biggie!

[Ahab]

"The church is true" is a biggie!

Yes, and there are even more things involved in "Mormonism" that we both think the same way about.

It's amazing how we grow to have more and more in common with each other the more we become like Jesus Christ.

[Gervin]

Great.

Please take this as my reply to all your future posts to me, so we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I am definitely going to have to remember that phrase "I don't think that way".

It is the all-purpose answer to any discussion.

Really? I don't happen to think that way.

[Gervin]

you're right, it worked!

[mfbukowski]

you're right, it worked!

Here's what we do: Change the name of the board to "I don't think that way" and then we don't have to post anymore!!

Think of the time we would save!

[Calm]

As long as you quote Louis Armstrong songs, who cares what you think...any of you?

[Abulafia]

Just going back to Inquiring Mind's initial questions, the biggest problems for me is that it makes structure and organisation, if we answer in the negative,

Can the Church exist without priesthood authority?

more important than the basic gospel messages which Jesus is recorded as giving. Yes those records are imperfect and fuzzy, but amidst them there are some wonderful messages to which humans might aspire. Love God, Love your neighbour as yourself. Jesus, if he said it, is arguing against the backdrop of 'organised' religion. For me, he was trying, or is presented as trying, to re-navigate what it means to be religious. That Paul records the 'pillars' injunction to remember the poor (in Galatians), while he was preaching to the Gentiles, indicates that Jesus' radical message against wealth, power and riches was one which they took seriously.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

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.

Big contradiction Robert!

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.

I'm not sure that this deals with the Pauline view in Romans 11 that the Jews will come back into their own in the end-time when the times of the Gentiles have been exhausted. History in this more nuanced view is not some cleanly delineated synchronic matter, but rather messy and diachronic in the interim.

My main point, here and below, is that the Church was not constructed instantly, and much of the seeming disjointed nature of it as reflected in NT docs is based on the few docs which have survived, which do not give us a full and well-established view. No one set about providing a thorough description until Eusebius centuries later. I concentrate on understanding the Church from the point of view of those who constructed the Gospels and Acts (fallible humans all, with treasure in earthen vessels) at a later time. Reminds me of the way in which Mormon scholars look back on the hurly-burly origins of their Church. God doesn't set out to make it nice. He depends on human agents to do the heavy lifting, and they sometimes come up a bit short.

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?

\

Joseph frequently lauded the truth found in other religions. Wilford Woodruff believed father Robert Mason to have been a true prophet of God, even though he existed outside the neatly defined Restoration as we hear of it in Sunday school.

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.

Yes, Abulafia, I would be very interested in your bibliography on structure and your essay as well (are you going to submit if for publication?) I'll send my email separately in a PM.

[Abulafia]

Robert said:

Your argument makes sense only if God gives his authority to people whom he infallibly perpetuates regardless of personal failings.

Historically, if we accept the account of Aaron's Rod, and the perpetuation of the Levitical Priesthood then that is 'exactly' what God does do. I would like to think that whether 'God' had anything to do with it or not, it was probably a practical matter whereby the religious needs could be taken care of, at the same time as allowing society to function in all the 'other' ways it needed to in order to develop. Levitical priesthood came to be about power and control, much to the consternation of many Hebrews, but it's function as service, I think, was something that was also there. Leadership wasn't about 'lording it' over others, but about service. That aspect is highlighted in the NT canon and many of the non-canonical sources.

I think Joseph Smith was aware of this tension both in himself and others, thus the 'unrighteous dominion' and 'amen to the priesthood of that man' kind of thing.

The repeated diasporas of Israel ought to tell us something, and Romans 11 has the last word I should think.

You need to explain why you think a Pauline document written to a Jewish and Gentile audience should have the last word. Paul himself is aware of the problem of the seeming delay of the Parousia.

From 1 Thessalonians 4 - one of the earliest of Paul's letters.

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Paul says 'we'. 'We who are alive and remain will be caught up together'

The hope of the near immediate return of Jesus should not be downplayed in my opinion. These people really, really expected it in their lifetimes, and this was something that had to be re-analysed and explained as it became apparent that the time was not 'then'.

Thus we later get in 2 Peter 3 (written most likely between 100-160 so much later)...

3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming ? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire,kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Abulafia

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Historically, if we accept the account of Aaron's Rod, and the perpetuation of the Levitical Priesthood then that is 'exactly' what God does do. I would like to think that whether 'God' had anything to do with it or not, it was probably a practical matter whereby the religious needs could be taken care of, at the same time as allowing society to function in all the 'other' ways it needed to in order to develop. Levitical priesthood came to be about power and control, much to the consternation of many Hebrews, but it's function as service, I think, was something that was also there. Leadership wasn't about 'lording it' over others, but about service. That aspect is highlighted in the NT canon and many of the non-canonical sources.

I see what you mean here, and, of course, in the Mormon Canon, despite shortcomings, the lineal priesthood of Aaron within rabbinic Judaism is considered authentic and continuous (D&C 68:15-21, 107:13-17,69-76), just as the modern gathering of the Jews was initiated by Apostle Orson Hyde, who formally dedicated Palestine to that gathering in a prayer on the Mount of Olives on Oct 24, 1841 -- at the direction of Joseph Smith (since you mention Aaron's Rod, I might add that Elder Hyde was said to have used a rod in that dedication).

My main point was that regardless of this or that general apostasy or galut, God does not prevent the dissolution of his holy congregation, but allows the members of it to taste the fruits of their own evil, having planned for intermittent failure from the beginning.

I think Joseph Smith was aware of this tension both in himself and others, thus the 'unrighteous dominion' and 'amen to the priesthood of that man' kind of thing.

Yes, of course, but one must ask whether this entails instant loss of priesthood authority, lest we have ordinances which have been performed by errant priesthood holders to be declared invalid -- which does not happen unless the priesthood has been removed formally. The same problem confronts one in high church priesthood functions (Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican).

You need to explain why you think a Pauline document written to a Jewish and Gentile audience should have the last word. Paul himself is aware of the problem of the seeming delay of the Parousia.

From 1 Thessalonians 4 - one of the earliest of Paul's letters.

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

Paul says 'we'. 'We who are alive and remain will be caught up together'

The hope of the near immediate return of Jesus should not be downplayed in my opinion. These people really, really expected it in their lifetimes, and this was something that had to be re-analysed and explained as it became apparent that the time was not 'then'.

Thus we later get in 2 Peter 3 (written most likely between 100-160 so much later)...

Naturally, the delay of the Parousia should be taken now the same way it was taken then, with patience and long-suffering. After all Joseph Smith made some similar statements, which have earned similar mockery.

However, Rom 11 should not be interpreted in isolation, and I see it in context with Jacob 5 & 6, in light of Psalm 80:8-10, in which Israel is the "vine" which was brought "out of Egypt" and "planted" in a land prepared for it, where it was caused “to take deep root," and in which its "boughs" and "branches" spread like those of a cedar tree; in Jacob, the man or master of the vineyard here is God (and his servants) as the planter, waterer, and grower (so in I Cor 3:5-9); cf Isa 5:1-7 [iI Ne 15:1-7], 27:2-11, Jer 2:21, Hos 10:1, Ezk 19:10-14, Zech 8:12-13, Lk 13:6-9, Rom 11:13-25, Ahiqar Syr. 8:35 (olive & viticulture parables); Mat 20:1-16, 21:33-45, Mk 12:1-12, Lk 20:9-19, Jn 15:1-8, Gospel of Thomas 65-66 (vineyard parables, which include the rejected-cornerstone imagery of Jacob 4:15-18); 1QH VIII; Mat 13:4-43, 17:20-21; I Ne 10:12, 15:12, 19:10,12,16, Alma 26:36, III Ne 10:16; cf also Gn 49:22, Judg 9:8-15, II Ki 14:9; II Esdras 9:21, Wisdom of Solomon 4:3-5; Mk 7:1-8; Ahiqar Elephantine 73; Midrash Sifre Deut 32:9 §312; Lev Rabba 11 (113a); Strack & Billerbeck I:874-875; Clement of Alexandria Stromata 6:15.

[Abulafia]

Yes, of course, but one must ask whether this entails instant loss of priesthood authority, lest we have ordinances which have been performed by errant priesthood holders to be declared invalid -- which does not happen unless the priesthood has been removed formally. The same problem confronts one in high church priesthood functions (Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican).

Okay, I appreciate that is the position of LDS, Orthodox and Catholic (having read Rowan Williams recent book "Why Study the Past?" - I'm not sure it is the position of all Anglicans). What I am trying to argue is that position is problematic.

Take Paul as a prime example. Here is someone who claims a visionary experience, who converts to the message of the Jesus Movement (whatever that was, but it seems it included a belief that Jesus was both Human and Divine Man), and then begins to preach, teach, baptize and found christian communities. Did he have the 'priesthood' as even the Jews would understand it. I would say not, and if there was a way to justify 'priesthood' either Aaronic or Melchizedek, then one would think that some of the earliest communities for which we have records would have mentioned it, that is, whether they were aware of the Hebrews document (that much later made its way into canon) or not.

I cannot find one reference in the non-canonical early 'christian' works to Melchizedek Priesthood in the way that LDS use it. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that at present there is no evidence.

Naturally, the delay of the Parousia should be taken now the same way it was taken then, with patience and long-suffering.

Absolutely, but that wasn't the point of my mentioning it. The point was to show that structure and church 'authority' are subsumed in the earliest years under the more weighty matter of an absolute belief in the immediacy of the return of Jesus.

Edited to add that I think that it is reasonable to assume that the 'Pillars' (reading between the lines, somewhat reluctant) acceptance of Paul is because of traditions on authority as found in Mark 9:38. Their handling of Paul is evidence that they took Jesus' admonition against dismissing those who used Jesus' name, quite seriously. They accept Paul, but insist that he remembers the poor. That's interesting.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Abulafia

[Robert F. Smith]

Okay, I appreciate that is the position of LDS, Orthodox and Catholic (having read Rowan Williams recent book "Why Study the Past?" - I'm not sure it is the position of all Anglicans). What I am trying to argue is that position is problematic.

Take Paul as a prime example. Here is someone who claims a visionary experience, who converts to the message of the Jesus Movement (whatever that was, but it seems it included a belief that Jesus was both Human and Divine Man), and then begins to preach, teach, baptize and found christian communities. Did he have the 'priesthood' as even the Jews would understand it. I would say not, and if there was a way to justify 'priesthood' either Aaronic or Melchizedek, then one would think that some of the earliest communities for which we have records would have mentioned it, that is, whether they were aware of the Hebrews document (that much later made its way into canon) or not.

I cannot find one reference in the non-canonical early 'christian' works to Melchizedek Priesthood in the way that LDS use it. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that at present there is no evidence.

I agree that it seems problematic, and reflects a "messy" situation (to use a word that you use in your fine essay) in the early Church. One would like a set of annals or sober reports which do not assume that we already know the behind-the-scenes activity. So much is normally taken for granted in letters that it becomes quite difficult to suss out the meaning between the lines. Of course, as a revealed religion, the LDS Church doesn't express qualms about the absence of specific evidence on this or that issue.

Roman Catholic priests such as William Saunders simply assert that Hebrews makes it clear that the priesthood of Melchizedek is a non-levitical priesthood through which the Eucharist is to be offered -- and presumably other ordinances performed -- thus requiring priests:

http://catholiceduca...ion/re0357.html

“Every high priest is taken from among men and made their representative before God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins” (Hebrews 5:1). Despite human weakness, a man is called by God to be a priest.

St. Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) in his

Letter to Cecil

, taught, “Also in the priest Melchizedek we see the Sacrament of the Sacrifice of the Lord prefigured, in accord with that to which the Divine Scriptures testify, where it says: ‘And Melchizedek, the King of Salem, brought out bread and wine, for he was a priest of the Most High God; and he blessed Abraham.’” That Melchizedek is in fact a type of Christ is declared in the psalms by the Holy Spirit, saying to the Son, as it were from the Father: “Before the daystar I begot You. You are a Priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.” The order certainly is that which comes from his sacrifice and which comes down from it: “because Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God; because he offered bread; and because he blessed Abraham. And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when He offered sacrifice to God the Father, offered the very same which Melchizedek had offered, namely bread and wine, which is in fact His Body and Blood.”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures (

Mystagogikai

5) also referenced Melchizedek’s sacrifice as a “type” which prefigured the Holy Eucharist.

Michael C. Astour goes even further in his article on Mechizedek in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, IV:685-6,

The Epistle to the Hebrews was addressed to a group of Judeo-Christians of Essene background and aimed at overcoming their lingering attachment to the idea of an exclusively levitical priesthood. It exhorted them to recognize that Jesus was a priest despite his non-levitical ancestry.

and IV:686,

The choice (in Ps 110:4) of the phrase “after the order of Melchizedek” rather than “after the order of Aaron” confirms Melchizedek’s precedence over levitical priests (Heb 7:14).

Absolutely, but that wasn't the point of my mentioning it. The point was to show that structure and church 'authority' are subsumed in the earliest years under the more weighty matter of an absolute belief in the immediacy of the return of Jesus.

A strongly held belief among many, no doubt, but probably not "absolute." The notion that an expectation of a quick end of all things might certainly influence believers not to take care of mundane affairs, nor to organize, is not an unreasonable notion. However, it may simply assume too much in the absence of adequate evidence.

Edited to add that I think that it is reasonable to assume that the 'Pillars' (reading between the lines, somewhat reluctant) acceptance of Paul is because of traditions on authority as found in Mark 9:38. Their handling of Paul is evidence that they took Jesus' admonition against dismissing those who used Jesus' name, quite seriously. They accept Paul, but insist that he remembers the poor. That's interesting.

Yes, and not only because "the poor" is a code word both at Qumran and in early Christianity, and not only because Saul had trained as a Pharisaic rabbi under Gamiliel I, but because we don't actually know what those who took care of Paul in Damascus actually did with him, nor what they may have communicated to their brethren in Jerusalem. The early Church is very charismatic, but the sketchy information we have doesn't allow us to assume a complete lack of organization and officers (including Melchizedek priesthood holders). We just don't have enough info.

Edited to add: When more thoroughgoing information is available, centuries later, we find something very odd indeed, if there was no early Judeo-Christian Church organization, and that is a complete Jewish liturgy within the fully Hellenized Church. How can that have come to pass?

See Eric Werner, The Sacred Bridge: Liturgical Parallels in Synagogue and Early Church (Schocken, 1970).

Edited August 6, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Abulafia]

Roman Catholic priests such as William Saunders simply assert that Hebrews makes it clear that the priesthood of Melchizedek is a non-levitical priesthood through which the Eucharist is to be offered -- and presumably other ordinances performed -- thus requiring priests:

Yes, that may be so, though I believe it is a stretch to presume that ordinances were performed other than the Eucharist since the link was seen with Melchizedek’s offering of bread and wine (Gen 14:18 - Malki-Tzedek king of Shalem brought forth bread and wine: and he was Kohen of El `Elyon.)

It was Ignatius who regarded the Eucharist as ineffectual without the presence of a bishop for instance, but for other (earlier) communities I don’t believe this was the case.

In fact, for the community of the Didache, there is no mention of a Eucharist in any sense that we might understand it. For their community, the Eucharist is a Thanksgiving meal. That it consisted of a full meal can be seen in Did:10 (Highlighted below)

9:1 But as touching the Eucharistic thanksgiving give you thanks thus.

9:2 First, as regards the cup:

9:3 We give You thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Your son David, which You made known to us through Your Son Jesus;

9:4 Yours is the glory for ever and ever.

9:5 Then as regards the broken bread:

9:6 We give You thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which You did make known to us through Your Son Jesus;

9:7 The glory is Yours for ever and ever.

9:8 As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom;

9:9 For Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.

9:10 But let no one eat or drink of this Eucharistic thanksgiving, except those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord;

9:11 For concerning this also the Lord has said:

9:12 Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

10:1 And after you are satisfied thus give you thanks:

10:2 We give You thanks, Holy Father, for Your holy name, which You have made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You have made known unto us through Your Son Jesus;

10:3 Yours is the glory for ever and ever.

10:4 You, Almighty Master, did create all things for Your name's sake, and did give food and drink unto men for enjoyment, that they might render thanks to You;

10:5 But did bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Your Son.

10:6 Before all things we give You thanks that You are powerful;

10:7 Yours is the glory forever and ever.

10:8 Remember, Lord, Your Church to deliver it from all evil and to perfect it in Your love;

10:9 And gather it together from the four winds -- even the Church which has been sanctified -- into Your kingdom which You have prepared for it;

10:10 For Yours is the power and the glory for ever and ever.

10:11 May grace come and may this world pass away.

10:12 Hosanna to the God of David.

10:13 If any man is holy, let him come;

10:14 If any man is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

I point this out to show that the way ordinances were performed and by who is not clear. That it took 100 years up to the Ignatian and Pauline established communities to formulate who could do what and where (often against a backdrop of divergent practice and belief) indicates that there was no ‘one’ clear way to do things. I agree with Bart Ehrman therefore, when he talks of Christianities rather than Christianity.

On the quick return of Jesus, Robert said:

However, it may simply assume too much in the absence of adequate evidence.

I think there is other evidence worth considering. Not only the attempts to redefine a day as a 1000 years as already mentioned, but also Paul’s attitude towards marriage, and the eagerness of many women to make themselves ‘widows’ to the extent that later communities had to set down rules such that a woman could only be categorised as a ‘widow’ if she were over 60.

Yes, and not only because "the poor" is a code word both at Qumran and in early Christianity,

You would need to explain what you mean here. It is not something I am familiar with, but I think it is problematic to see the Essene community as a precursor of the Jesus Movement (if that is what you are implying – which it may not be). There were some similarities but also many significant differences as I understand it.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, that may be so, though I believe it is a stretch to presume that ordinances were performed other than the Eucharist since the link was seen with Melchizedek’s offering of bread and wine (Gen 14:18 - Malki-Tzedek king of Shalem brought forth bread and wine: and he was Kohen of El `Elyon.)

It was Ignatius who regarded the Eucharist as ineffectual without the presence of a bishop for instance, but for other (earlier) communities I don’t believe this was the case.

In fact, for the community of the Didache, there is no mention of a Eucharist in any sense that we might understand it. For their community, the Eucharist is a Thanksgiving meal. That it consisted of a full meal can be seen in Did:10 (Highlighted below).

Which is reminiscent of the Christian agape feasts discussed by Hyppolytus, and which even took place in the catacombs in Rome in order to be near the dear departed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so that I continue to wonder when the first Christian priest intoned Aramaic liturgical den bisri "this is my body," and den idmi "this is my blood" (and officiated in all the other ordinances). For these were equivalent to the sacrificial words used at the Jewish Temple, and Holy Communion is believed by some to have replaced the temple sacrifice -- Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (Doubleday, 2000), 250-257, asserts that Jesus’ Last Supper was merely the most important in a series of feasts which replaced Temple sacrifice –- very much akin to the great, angelic banquet of salvation in heaven (cf. TB Hagiga 14b)., while the great Solomon Zeitlin and Joachim Jeremias both said that the Jewish-Christian Eucharist was held as a kind of seder meal on the first night of Passover (back when the Jewish and Christian liturgical calendars were the same).

I point this out to show that the way ordinances were performed and by who is not clear. That it took 100 years up to the Ignatian and Pauline established communities to formulate who could do what and where (often against a backdrop of divergent practice and belief) indicates that there was no ‘one’ clear way to do things. I agree with Bart Ehrman therefore, when he talks of Christianities rather than Christianity.

Yes, and one need not even see signs of denominationalism in those "Christianities" which Ehrman correctly sees, though something like it is clearly taking place, so that by the time that the Valentinian Gnostic Gospel of Philip shows up in the mid-3rd century AD, an entire 5-part initiation and sacramental catachesis is well in place (Nag Hammadi Codex II,3) 115:27-30 (= 67:27-30, Robinson, NHLE³ p. 150):

1. baptism

2. chrism-anointing

3. eucharist-thanks

4. ransom-redemption-salvation (sote)

5. bridal chamber/koiton = Holy of Holies

This Nibley compared to the Manichaean 5 ordinances (Works XII:54 n. 40), but is it all late, and did a Hellenistic Church later adopt Jewish liturgy and calendar? Eric Werner doesn't see how that would have been possible.

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

I think there is other evidence worth considering. Not only the attempts to redefine a day as a 1000 years as already mentioned, but also Paul’s attitude towards marriage. and the eagerness of many women to make themselves ‘widows’ to the extent that later communities had to set down rules such that a woman could only be categorised as a ‘widow’ if she were over 60.

You would need to explain what you mean here. It is not something I am familiar with, but I think it is problematic to see the Essene community as a precursor of the Jesus Movement (if that is what you are implying – which it may not be). There were some similarities but also many significant differences as I understand it.

I wouldn't say "precursor" so much as one sect begins chronologically earlier in time and (even though they are very different groups) that both Jewish sects share certain peculiarities of language and doctrine:

All four gospels begin the ministry of Jesus with a favorite Essene quotation (Isa 40:3) in the mouth of John the Baptizer in the wilderness of Judah, not far from Qumran. It is now abundantly clear to Jewish scholars that both the Essenes and NT considered the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 to be the coming Messiah -- Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000); Michael Wise, The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ (S.F.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), something which had always been denied. Indeed, religiously loaded code words were shared in both sects:

the Perfect/Perfection

the Poor

the Way

Works

Righteousness

Keepers of the Covenant

Truth

Riches

Piety

Light & Darkness (the Two Ways)/sons of Light/sons of Darkness -- the dualistic, Qumran-style language is particularly apparent in the Gospel of John.

Moreover, some scholars have gone so far as to place the Essenes and Christians in very close contact:

Bargil Pixner, "Mount Zion, Jesus, and Archaeology," 309-322, and Brian J. Capper, "Essene Community Houses and Jesus' Early Community," 472-502, both in James Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). Both use realia and literary evidence to argue for adjacent compounds for both groups in Jerusalem and elsewhere, as well as for a commonality in certain doctrines and practices.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[volgadon]

10:1 And after you are satisfied thus give you thanks:

Seeing that as a full meal is reading a little too much into the text, in my opinion.

[kassie]

This is an issue I often debate with my Catholic friends. They always lean to the verse in “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Their argument is that Christ promised that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" and therefore the Church could not have ceased to exist. What say the LDS (I am LDS) to this verse?

[boulder257]

This is an issue I often debate with my Catholic friends. They always lean to the verse in “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Their argument is that Christ promised that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" and therefore the Church could not have ceased to exist. What say the LDS (I am LDS) to this verse?

I think also key to the Catholic argument (and I am Catholic) is the apostolic succession running from Peter to Francis today.

[Abulafia]

Seeing that as a full meal is reading a little too much into the text, in my opinion.

Volgadon, there's some good scholarship out there that suggests that it isn't. I'll get back to you on that one.

[volgadon]

Volgadon, there's some good scholarship out there that suggests that it isn't. I'll get back to you on that one.

Looking forawrd to it.

[ChristKnight]

I think also key to the Catholic argument (and I am Catholic) is the apostolic succession running from Peter to Francis today.

Well, I think the "key" (pun intended?) to the Catholic argument is the belief in the apostolic succession running from Peter to Pope Francis, as well as the belief in the apostolic succession of the apostles to the entire College of Bishops and the transmission of apostolic authority to them.

[daz2]

As has been said here, and to paraphrase President Clinton, "It depends on what you mean by 'church'". There are a multitude of possible definitions. Under some of them, the church never ceased to exist, and never will. Under others, it did. In my mind, the church never ceased to exist--the various entities (remembering that there were multiple congregations/entities claiming authority from various apostles, not just the bishop of Rome who claimed it) might not have been completely "true", but they still existed. I have not doubt that there were others before Joseph who prayed which "church" to join, and were told by God to participate in one of the Christian churches that then existed. I imagine some were told, like Joseph was, not to join any of them, but to be spiritual but not religious. I don't know.

I like President Faust's implicit definition of "the church" as something that exists in our hearts. http://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/08/where-is-the-church

[kassie]

As has been said here, and to paraphrase President Clinton, "It depends on what you mean by 'church'". There are a multitude of possible definitions. Under some of them, the church never ceased to exist, and never will. Under others, it did. In my mind, the church never ceased to exist--the various entities (remembering that there were multiple congregations/entities claiming authority from various apostles, not just the bishop of Rome who claimed it) might not have been completely "true", but they still existed. I have not doubt that there were others before Joseph who prayed which "church" to join, and were told by God to participate in one of the Christian churches that then existed. I imagine some were told, like Joseph was, not to join any of them, but to be spiritual but not religious. I don't know.

I like President Faust's implicit definition of "the church" as something that exists in our hearts. http://www.lds.org/e...e-is-the-church

Nice statement and an interesting take on the "Catholic Question." Maybe the "Church" is not at all what we think it is. Maybe it means the body of believers? I'm sure JS wasn't the first person to inquire of God using the verse in James. What did God tell all those people who inquired before?

[Abulafia]

Volgadon, okay. Here goes. For the origin of the Eucharist as a full meal look at the evidence of the 'Last Supper' in all the Synoptics. Each has Jesus break bread, and offer wine within the context of a full meal.

Mark 14:22-24

22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

See also Jude 1:12

These are blemishes on your love-feasts, while they feast with you without fear, feeding themselves. They are waterless clouds carried along by the winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted;

and also some of the social problems that occurred because of a difference in wealth levels and the habits of wealthy Greek (and Roman) communities during the Eucharistic Meals.

1 Corinthians 11

18 For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. 19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. 20 When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. 22What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not commend you! 23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.

So the NT passages indicate that the Eucharist as we understand it was once part of a full meal.

Given that, the passages in the Didache (which seem as early if not earlier than the Gospel of Matthew) start to make sense within the context of 'that' particular community.

For Scholarly opinion on this issue there is the work of Jonathan Draper, Aaron Milavec and Jonathan Schwiebert.

(Edited to add - there are also some intriguing differences, with regard to what were later seen as essential Eucharistic elements, that are wholly absent for the community of the Didache)

Edited August 9, 2013 by Abulafia