Imbibing Revisionist History

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Bob Betts

This is now your third post to me without a word of substance, or hint of a defense of your universal apostasy doctrine ... No Mormon has come to the defense of the apostasy doctrine..Apparently, I have proven my point, that there was no universal apostasy.

---Uh, I think the topic of this thread had something to do with what John Wesley said regarding apostasy in early Christianity. And the question was whether or not Wesley's statements are evidence that he had employed historical revisionism. Let's look again at one of his statements on that: In this sermon on how true Christians should behave, Pastor Wesley talks about various gifts of the Spirit, and he starts out explaining WHY Christianity LOST the extraordinary ones (hint: the answer is in paragraph #2):


1. In the preceding verses, St. Paul has been speaking of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost; such as healing the sick, prophesying, (in the proper sense of the word; that is, foretelling things to come) speaking with strange tongues, such as the speaker had never learned, and the miraculous interpretation of tongues. And these gifts the Apostle allows to be desirable; yea, he exhorts the Corinthians, at least the teachers among them (to whom chiefly, if not solely, they were wont to be given in the first ages of the Church) to covet them earnestly, that thereby they might be qualified to be more useful either to Christians or heathens. "And yet," says he, "I show unto you a more excellent way;" far more desirable than all these put together, inasmuch as it will infallibly lead you to happiness both in this world and in the world to come; whereas you might have all those gifts, yea, in the highest degree, and yet be miserable both in time and eternity.

2. It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian, and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby heaped riches, and power, and honour, upon the Christians in general; but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they [those gifts of the Spirit] almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has been vulgarly supposed) "because there was no more occasion for them," because all the world was become Christian. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause was, "the love of many," almost of all Christians, so called, was "waxed cold." The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine his Church, could hardly "find faith upon earth." This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church -- because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left.

(The More Excellent Way Sermon 89
text from the 1872 edition - Thomas Jackson, editor)


Now, I will ask AGAIN, since this is what this thread is about: Are any of you really going to claim Pastor Wesley's conclusions are the result of his subscribing to revisionist history?

[Bob Betts]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---Uh, I think the topic of this thread had something to do with what John Wesley said regarding apostasy in early Christianity. And the question was whether or not Wesley's statements are evidence that he had employed historical revisionism. Let's look again at one of his statements on that: In this sermon on how true Christians should behave, Pastor Wesley talks about various gifts of the Spirit, and he starts out explaining WHY Christianity LOST the extraordinary ones (hint: the answer is in paragraph #2):


1. In the preceding verses, St. Paul has been speaking of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost; such as healing the sick, prophesying, (in the proper sense of the word; that is, foretelling things to come) speaking with strange tongues, such as the speaker had never learned, and the miraculous interpretation of tongues. And these gifts the Apostle allows to be desirable; yea, he exhorts the Corinthians, at least the teachers among them (to whom chiefly, if not solely, they were wont to be given in the first ages of the Church) to covet them earnestly, that thereby they might be qualified to be more useful either to Christians or heathens. "And yet," says he, "I show unto you a more excellent way;" far more desirable than all these put together, inasmuch as it will infallibly lead you to happiness both in this world and in the world to come; whereas you might have all those gifts, yea, in the highest degree, and yet be miserable both in time and eternity.

2. It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian, and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby heaped riches, and power, and honour, upon the Christians in general; but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they [those gifts of the Spirit] almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has been vulgarly supposed) "because there was no more occasion for them," because all the world was become Christian. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause was, "the love of many," almost of all Christians, so called, was "waxed cold." The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine his Church, could hardly "find faith upon earth." This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church -- because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left.

(The More Excellent Way Sermon 89
text from the 1872 edition - Thomas Jackson, editor)


Now, I will ask AGAIN, since this is what this thread is about: Are any of you really going to claim Pastor Wesley's conclusions are the result of his subscribing to revisionist history?

I KNOW the ***le of this forum is Mormonism.

I KNOW that LDS leadership imbibes revisionist history.

And, I KNOW that Ward services are not known for having healings, or where people prophesy, speak in tongues, or interpret tongues.

I KNOW there was no universal apostasy, just going by LDS scripture, alone.

I KNOW that Christ would not abandon, nor remove His Spirit from His universal Church for 1,700 years, or even for one day for that matter, since His parting promise was, and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. He sent His Spirit, and the Spirit of Christ will continue to be with us, even unto the end of the world.

I KNOW that if Christ was going to restore anything in His universal Church, He would not use an occult-practicing, law-breaking, womanizing, adulterous, covetous, lying, decieving, false prophesying man like Joseph Smith.

Does LDS leadership imbibe revisionist history? ABSOLUTELY. I've seen your VC movie.

There have always been varying degrees of apostasy. There was some while all the Apostles were alive. There was apostasy from Jesus Christ, himself: John 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

But, your LDS claim to a complete apostasy? Nothing but false doctrine to promote Joseph Smith as a restorer.

Sex, lies, and false prophecies. Fact, not fiction. And, your leadership will revise anything in LDS history to make a reprehensible man, appear adoring.

[Richard]

Of interest is the Coptic Gospel of the Twelve, which even thought not Canonical, seems interesting that the
inference helps to make our case seem even more plausible.

One text in particular, the Coptic Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, makes it clear that 3 Nephi has more in common with the themes of the earliest Christian writings than we have heretofore realized. Among the parallels are the Lord’s desire for unity among his people and his offer to give them whatever they may righteously ask of him. In both accounts, he eats with them, feeds them, administers the sacrament (accompanied by a sacramental prayer), and prays with them.

1. The Apostasy is foretold. Even though the literature on the Old World forty-day mission of the Lord is extensive, it disappeared from the Christian world because it was never very popular. One reason is its pessimism. In almost all the accounts, for example, the Apostles anxiously ask the Lord about the future of the Church. They are surprised to hear that it will fall prey to the plottings of evil and disappear after two generations. “The Apostles protest, as many do today: Is this a time for speaking of death and disaster? … But Jesus remains unyielding.” Christ among the Ruins By Hugh W. Nibley

Characteristic of the Old World forty-day literature is its emphasis on certain teachings neglected or opposed by later Christianity. Whether or not religious scholars choose to accept these teachings as authentic, it is their presence in 3 Nephi which interests us here. For example, Luke does not mention the Savior’s visits among his servants throughout the world, although he records the Lord’s comings and goings in Judaea. In the Old World forty-day literature, however, there is discussion that the Savior is to appear to people in all parts of the world. So also in the Book of Mormon:

“I have other sheep which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of the land round about whither I have been to minister. …

“They … have not as yet heard my voice. …

“But … I shall go unto them, and … they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep.” (3 Ne. 16:1–3; see also 3 Ne. 15:14–24; 3 Ne. 17:4.) Nibley.

[BrianH]

Of interest is the Coptic Gospel of the Twelve, which even thought not Canonical, seems interesting that the
inference helps to make our case seem even more plausible.

Why?

Please be specific.

thank you

-BH

.

[Richard]

First answer, ---- in Vigilae Christianae, 20 (1966), p. 6–7.


Here is some more Brian.

While there are few New Testament references to priests, other than Jesus Christ and converted Levite priests (Acts 6:7), Protestants should not ***ume that this office was abolished. The early church had priests along with bishops and deacons. Origen (ca. 240 A.D.) spoke of the church hierarchy in the 2nd century describing the priest's office as being between that of the deacon and bishop (Jean Danielou, "Origen", p.44-45, 49-50; Cel. 5,3,1; De Princ. 3,2,4; Hom. Luc., 35; Hom. Ez. 1,7) and Eusebius (ca. 300 A.D.) clearly distinguished between those holding the priesthood (i.e. bishops, presbyters or elders, priests, deacons, etc.) and the lay members both men and women. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:19, 23, 43; 7:30; 10:3, 4) Eugene Seaich observes that "documents from the early Church show that the Aaronic Priesthood did not immediately disappear from Christianity. 1 Clement (ca. 96 A.D.) divides the priesthood into High Priests, Priests and Levites. The latter were also called "Deacons" and according to Justin's First Apology (ca. 150 A.D.) were responsible for p***ing the bread and wine to those attending service" (Ancient Texts and Mormonism, p. 59). Though the ***le priest was rarely used in the New Testament, so also were similar priesthood ***les such as pastor (Eph. 4:11), evangelist (Acts 21:8); (2 _Tim. 4:5), presbytery (1 _Tim. 4:14), and seventy (Luke 10:1),(Luke 10:17). [2] (See also 1 Clement 40-44; an article in Ferguson's Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, pp. 754-5 provides references to other second and early third century Christian sources mentioning Christian priests.)

[BrianH]

BH>>Why?

Please be specific.


R>First answer, ---- in Vigilae Christianae, 20 (1966), p. 6–7.[/B]

That is pretty vague. What you trying to say?

Here is some more Brian.

While there are few New Testament references to priests, other than Jesus Christ and converted Levite priests (Acts 6:7), Protestants should not ***ume that this office was abolished. The early church had priests along with bishops and deacons. Origen (ca. 240 A.D.) spoke of the church hierarchy in the 2nd century describing the priest's office as being between that of the deacon and bishop (Jean Danielou, "Origen", p.44-45, 49-50; Cel. 5,3,1; De Princ. 3,2,4; Hom. Luc., 35; Hom. Ez. 1,7) and Eusebius (ca. 300 A.D.) clearly distinguished between those holding the priesthood (i.e. bishops, presbyters or elders, priests, deacons, etc.) and the lay members both men and women. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:19, 23, 43; 7:30; 10:3, 4) Eugene Seaich observes that "documents from the early Church show that the Aaronic Priesthood did not immediately disappear from Christianity. 1 Clement (ca. 96 A.D.) divides the priesthood into High Priests, Priests and Levites. The latter were also called "Deacons" and according to Justin's First Apology (ca. 150 A.D.) were responsible for p***ing the bread and wine to those attending service" (Ancient Texts and Mormonism, p. 59). Though the ***le priest was rarely used in the New Testament, so also were similar priesthood ***les such as pastor (Eph. 4:11), evangelist (Acts 21:8); (2 _Tim. 4:5), presbytery (1 _Tim. 4:14), and seventy (Luke 10:1),(Luke 10:17). [2] (See also 1 Clement 40-44; an article in Ferguson's Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, pp. 754-5 provides references to other second and early third century Christian sources mentioning Christian priests.)

1.) Is this the text from your reference above or was that reference to something else?

2.) No one disputes the fact that there were those who ministered and officateted in many places throughout the early church who were called "priests". There were even CONVERTED Levites. And since they held an official office in the Jewish temple, it would make sense for the Christian church to employ them in some offical capacity. This does not mean that they were performing the duties commaned by God to the Levitical priests in his own definition of that priesthood.

Are you trying to tell me that the early Christian "priests" performed the ritual sacrifices commaned by God?

What are you trying to get at here?

-BH

.

[nrajeff]

Thanks for that fascinating info, Richard. For a while, I have been wondering why it seems like the orthodoxy have never compared their churches--in doxy and praxy--to the original church that Jesus established. I have to ***ume that there are sincere Christians out in the world who honestly wish to find, and join, the church that comes the closest to the original. (Why would any Christian NOT want to do that?) So I think it would be useful and common sense for the "united" world of modern Christendom to publish a list of all churches within its "tent," and rank each church according to how close it is to the original, so people will know and will be able to make informed decisions. So far, I have not been able to find such a list. Why would anyone fear such info being made public? It stands to reason that it's not a giant tie for 1st Place--some churches are going to be closer to the original in doctrine and ordinances, while others are going to be farther away from it. So why not compile rankings so the average Christian can make an informed decision when deciding which to join?

[BrianH]

One of the things I noticed about this "fascinating info" is that, if it is intended to support the claim of the LDS "restoration" of the Old Testament priesthood, it is false and/or misleading.

First of all, the fact that there were "priests" in portions of the early church is hardly support for the Mormon claim of a "restored" Levitical priesthood. The simple fact is that the Greek and other Eastern Orthodox churches have a continuous priesthood tradition dating back to the first century. The Roman church has a similar tradition, so it appears that the CHRISTIAN priesthoods were never "lost" such that they needed to be "restored". So that portion of Richard's citation is simply irrelevant and to the extent that it is presented as support for the claims of Mormonism, it is misleading. Again the office of "priest" is not any evidence of a MOMRON priesthood. In fact, it clearly reflects the Orthodox and Catholic priesthood tradition.

Secondly, Richard's source is simply wrong if he claims that Clement describes a Levitical priesthood in the Christian church. Its not clear that this is what he is saying in the first place, but if it is, he is simply wrong. A careful reading of 1 Clement will show that the claim that Clement "divides the priesthood into High Priests, Priests and Levites" is false. If you read 1 Clement ch 32 through roughly ch 40 you will quickly notice that Clement was concerned with church order and vaguely mentions the Jewish priesthood (mentioning the Levitical priesthood) as an example of such order and urges the Christian church to imitate that ordeliness. Clement does NOT claim that the Christian church maintained a Levitical (aka Aaronic) priesthood at all.

Richard's source appears to be the kind of shallow ****ysis that so characterizes LDS apologetics. A source such as Origen or Justin simply mentions a priesthood, and suddenly LDS proclaim that this is support for the LDS "restoration" of the Old Testament priesthoods. But again, a careful reading will show that they are not providing any support whatsoever for anything of the kind.

thank you

-BH

.

[HickPreacher]

NRAJEFF cites--

From this time they [those gifts of the Spirit] almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has been vulgarly supposed) "because there was no more occasion for them," because all the world was become Christian. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause was, "the love of many," almost of all Christians, so called, was "waxed cold." The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine his Church, could hardly "find faith upon earth." This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church -- because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left.

(The More Excellent Way Sermon 89
text from the 1872 edition - Thomas Jackson, editor)

This sound a lot like what non-Utah Mormons say about Utah Mormons though. Sounds like a cultural condition that was confused with a spiritural condition.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by maklelan

.

First off, right out of the gate, you address Bob's person rather than his argument.

"Don't be a hypocrite, Bob."

"...petty and personal insults."

"No one is fooled by your false sense of piety."

That's text book ad hom.

Defend your religion.

[Richard]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by BrianH

One of the things I noticed about this "fascinating info" is that, if it is intended to support the claim of the LDS "restoration" of the Old Testament priesthood, it is false and/or misleading.

Typical Brian, "false and or misleading" So Brian states, but without any proof, facts or evidence to show otherwise.

First of all, the fact that there were "priests" in portions of the early church is hardly support for the Mormon claim of a "restored" Levitical priesthood. The simple fact is that the Greek and other Eastern Orthodox churches have a continuous priesthood tradition dating back to the first century. The Roman church has a similar tradition, so it appears that the CHRISTIAN priesthoods were never "lost" such that they needed to be "restored".

So it is traditional, please relate and compare the duties of these Orthodox Church Priests with historical OT Priest and Priesthood.

The Bible repeatedly speaks of a priesthood authority outside of Jesus both before and after His resurrection, with John describing such callings just prior to the second coming.

So that portion of Richard's citation is simply irrelevant and to the extent that it is presented as support for the claims of Mormonism, it is misleading. Again the office of "priest" is not any evidence of a MOMRON priesthood. In fact, it clearly reflects the Orthodox and Catholic priesthood tradition.

Early Christian authors insisted too that high priests, prophets, bishops, elders, priests, and deacons with authority persisted among the Christians.
Doubters desire to deny a formal priesthood, which seems to arise mostly out of theological necessity Brian, rather than historical or biblical evidence.

Secondly, Richard's source is simply wrong if he claims that Clement describes a Levitical priesthood in the Christian church. Its not clear that this is what he is saying in the first place, but if it is, he is simply wrong. A careful reading of 1 Clement will show that the claim that Clement "divides the priesthood into High Priests, Priests and Levites" is false. If you read 1 Clement ch 32 through roughly ch 40 you will quickly notice that Clement was concerned with church order and vaguely mentions the Jewish priesthood (mentioning the Levitical priesthood) as an example of such order and urges the Christian church to imitate that ordeliness. Clement does NOT claim that the Christian church maintained a Levitical (aka Aaronic) priesthood at all.

Good answer Brian, Richard is simply wrong. Then you kind of fudge with saying it is not clear. Do the research and prove me wrong, Brian.

Richard's source appears to be the kind of shallow ****ysis that so characterizes LDS apologetics. A source such as Origen or Justin simply mentions a priesthood, and suddenly LDS proclaim that this is support for the LDS "restoration" of the Old Testament priesthoods. But again, a careful reading will show that they are not providing any support whatsoever for anything of the kind.

Well Brian, historically and Biblically you have to accept one of two positions, either the authority continued, unbroken, or the authority was lost and a restoration was needed or necessary. It is quiet clear Biblically, a proper transfer of authority is of key importance within the Old and NT.

1 AND in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. 2 Then the twelve called the mul***ude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. 5 ¶ And the saying pleased the whole mul***ude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: 6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.(Acts 6:1–6).

Richard

[Bob Betts]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

Thanks for that fascinating info, Richard. For a while, I have been wondering why it seems like the orthodoxy have never compared their churches--in doxy and praxy--to the original church that Jesus established. I have to ***ume that there are sincere Christians out in the world who honestly wish to find, and join, the church that comes the closest to the original. (Why would any Christian NOT want to do that?) So I think it would be useful and common sense for the "united" world of modern Christendom to publish a list of all churches within its "tent," and rank each church according to how close it is to the original, so people will know and will be able to make informed decisions. So far, I have not been able to find such a list. Why would anyone fear such info being made public? It stands to reason that it's not a giant tie for 1st Place--some churches are going to be closer to the original in doctrine and ordinances, while others are going to be farther away from it. So why not compile rankings so the average Christian can make an informed decision when deciding which to join?

You think it would be common sense for someone to stand in judgment over all Churches, to rank them. So, every Church that is ranked below #1...how do you think they would react to somebody publicizing such a list? Now, I would ***ume that the one who makes the list will belong to the Church which he thinks is #1, so every Church that he lists below his Church, is going to be justifiably offended, and ask, "Who does he think he is"?

Why don't YOU, Jeff, rank the 200 LDS denominations, and tell us which ones are #2 and below, since you will no doubt rank yours as the #1 'church' closest to the first century Church. Then, publicize it and see if any of those other LDS denominations might just raise an objection or two.

If this is an idea that you think is common sense, and you want to place yourself in the position to makes such judgments, then go ahead and be the brave soul who incurs the wrath of all those other LDS sects that you place your 'church' above.

Guess what I think of your "common sense" idea?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Bob Betts

You think it would be common sense for someone to stand in judgment over all Churches, to rank them. So, every Church that is ranked below #1...how do you think they would react to somebody publicizing such a list? Now, I would ***ume that the one who makes the list will belong to the Church which he thinks is #1, so every Church that he lists below his Church, is going to be justifiably offended, and ask, "Who does he think he is"?

Originally Posted by Bob Betts

Why don't we just allow God to rank them, why does Bob keep thinking we are behind the judging process. In fact I believe God has communicated that list already Bob.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.'" (Joseph Smith History 1:18-19)


Offended that God has spoken? and accused all that they teach for doctrines the commandments of man.

Why don't YOU, Jeff, rank the 200 LDS denominations, and tell us which ones are #2 and below, since you will no doubt rank yours as the #1 'church' closest to the first century Church. Then, publicize it and see if any of those other LDS denominations might just raise an objection or two.

There is only one that has the copyright to all the LDS Scriptures Bob. So why worry, all the rest have to teach from Gods only true Church and doctrine, The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS.

If this is an idea that you think is common sense, and you want to place yourself in the position to makes such judgments, then go ahead and be the brave soul who incurs the wrath of all those other LDS sects that you place your 'church' above.

Guess what I think of your "common sense" idea?

Common sense has nothing to do with it, find the one and only Church that Preaches, Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. What does common sense have to do with it? Oh, yea Bob, we also taught Plural Marriage at one time. Interesting, we also find that in the OT times. Great comparison of doctrine.

Peace good buddy.

Richard.

[BrianH]

BH>>One of the things I noticed about this "fascinating info" is that, if it is intended to support the claim of the LDS "restoration" of the Old Testament priesthood, it is false and/or misleading.

R>Typical Brian, "false and or misleading" So Brian states, but without any proof, facts or evidence to show otherwise.

Had you bothered to actually READ the rest of what I said, BEFORE submitting to your ususal knee-**** reaction to mock, belittle and ignore, you just might have noticed that I DID proceed to offer some facts that make this point clear. I have trouble understanding why you are virtually FORCED by some compulsion to p**** out my rather mundane observations before you can actually comprehend the entire thought.

BH>>First of all, the fact that there were "priests" in portions of the early church is hardly support for the Mormon claim of a "restored" Levitical priesthood. The simple fact is that the Greek and other Eastern Orthodox churches have a continuous priesthood tradition dating back to the first century. The Roman church has a similar tradition, so it appears that the CHRISTIAN priesthoods were never "lost" such that they needed to be "restored".

R>So it is traditional, please relate and compare the duties of these Orthodox Church Priests with historical OT Priest and Priesthood.

I would if that was the point I am making. Please go back and read the text you just responded to and try to understand what I am saying. I am NOT saying that there is any comparison between the Levitical priesthood and the priests that ministered in some early Christian churches. In fact, I am making quite the opposite claim.

The Bible repeatedly speaks of a priesthood authority outside of Jesus both before and after His resurrection, with John describing such callings just prior to the second coming.

Yes indeed. No disagreement there. The problem is, it does not speak of a LEVITICAL priesthood in the Christian church.

BH>>So that portion of Richard's citation is simply irrelevant and to the extent that it is presented as support for the claims of Mormonism, it is misleading. Again the office of "priest" is not any evidence of a MOMRON priesthood. In fact, it clearly reflects the Orthodox and Catholic priesthood tradition.

R>Early Christian authors insisted too that high priests, prophets, bishops, elders, priests, and deacons with authority persisted among the Christians.

Again all true. But they NEVER speak of an operating "LEVITICAL" (aka "Aaronic") priesthood in the Christian church. The priesthood tradition of the Eastern Orthodoxies and the Catholic church continue to this day, and NONE of them even pretend to be the "Aaronic Priesthood".

Doubters desire to deny a formal priesthood, which seems to arise mostly out of theological necessity Brian, rather than historical or biblical evidence.

Well you will have to take that up with someone else because I do not have any problems with a formal priesthood. The problem I am addressing here is the Mormon claim to have supposedly "restored" the Aaronic Priesthood in the Christian church.

BH>>Secondly, Richard's source is simply wrong if he claims that Clement describes a Levitical priesthood in the Christian church. Its not clear that this is what he is saying in the first place, but if it is, he is simply wrong. A careful reading of 1 Clement will show that the claim that Clement "divides the priesthood into High Priests, Priests and Levites" is false. If you read 1 Clement ch 32 through roughly ch 40 you will quickly notice that Clement was concerned with church order and vaguely mentions the Jewish priesthood (mentioning the Levitical priesthood) as an example of such order and urges the Christian church to imitate that ordeliness. Clement does NOT claim that the Christian church maintained a Levitical (aka Aaronic) priesthood at all.

R>Good answer Brian, Richard is simply wrong. Then you kind of fudge with saying it is not clear. Do the research and prove me wrong, Brian.

I wonder what exactly your reading disorder is. Why is it that you ignored the REST of what I just said. Let me help you try to understand this. The only portion of your little copy-paste effort that even mentions the LEVITICAL priesthood (likely from a book that you never even read) is a reference to 1 Clement. Your source has either ignorantly or deliberately misrepresented what Clement was talking about. I would encourage you to actually go to the source material and READ 1 Clement 40 for yourself instead of ***uming a comment about it is correct. If you DO manage to put forth this effort, you will easily see that Clement was NOT saying that there was a LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD in the Christian church. Rather, he is talking about church order and showing how God had established such order in the Jewish temple practices. He is using that as an EXAMPLE of the order to which he is exhorting them, he is NOT saying that there was a Levitical priesthood in the Christian church.

BH>>Richard's source appears to be the kind of shallow ****ysis that so characterizes LDS apologetics. A source such as Origen or Justin simply mentions a priesthood, and suddenly LDS proclaim that this is support for the LDS "restoration" of the Old Testament priesthoods. But again, a careful reading will show that they are not providing any support whatsoever for anything of the kind.

R>Well Brian, historically and Biblically you have to accept one of two positions, either the authority continued, unbroken, or the authority was lost and a restoration was needed or necessary. It is quiet clear Biblically, a proper transfer of authority is of key importance within the Old and NT.

While I am tempted to dispute your claim that it is "quite clear Biblically" that a proper "transfer of authority is of key importance" within the NT ('cuz I don't think that is clear at all), I will refrain, because that is not the point I am making. The point I am making is that the LDS claim of having "restored" the Aaronic Priesthood as part of their "restoration" of the Christian church is false, since there was no Aaronic Priesthood in the Christian church to begin with. In fact, not only was there no such priesthood in the Christian church, having one would have run contrary to the teaching of the Book of Hebrews 7-8 which clearly describes the purpose of the OT priesthoods (and in particular the duties of the sacrificed that God used to define the very purpose of the Aaronic priesthood) as being SYMBOLIC, and is not completed and totally fulfilled by Christ himself, thus obviating the need for the OT priesthood altogether.

As for your excerpt from Acts and your point about transfer of authority being represented by the laying on of hands ...well, you should know that this simple act is in no way unique to the Mormon church. And again, this is not the point I am debating here to begin with. I am challenging the claim that the LDS church "restored" the Levitical priesthood. Read God's own definition of the Levitical priesthood (Lev 1-10), and see if the LDS "Aaronic Priesthood" even begins to come close to obeying the commands that God gave to define this office.

Thank you

-BH

.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Bob Betts

You think it would be common sense for someone to stand in judgment over all Churches, to rank them.

---How can such an idea NOT be commonsensical? Consumer Reports evaluates the claims regarding competing products, and ranks them according to how well they actually live up to their claims and how much of a value they are. The rankings can range from very good to poor. If it's important for shoppers of vacuum cleaners to have access to such comparative info--on VACUUM CLEANERS--it seems to me that it would be much more important for Christians shopping for the best church, since gospel-related and salvation-related matters are a bit more important than rug-cleaning matters. Or am I wrong? I sense fear coming from your response. What have you to fear?

So, every Church that is ranked below #1...how do you think they would react to somebody publicizing such a list?

----Probably not with glee. Possibly with anger, resentment, jealousy, and spite. Hopefully with some introspection and a desire to fix the issues that resulted in them being more distant from original Christianity.

Now, I would ***ume that the one who makes the list will belong to the Church which he thinks is #1, so every Church that he lists below his Church, is going to be justifiably offended, and ask, "Who does he think he is"?

--Why would you expect the comparative evaluations to be done in such a biased, subjective way? Is that what you have come to expect from mainstream Christian churches? Why wouldn't you expect it to be run the way consumer products are tested and ranked--by a 3rd party who owes nothing to any of the compe***ors, and who is agreed by them to be the arbiter? If the country can have Consumer Reports for appliances, why can't it have Christian Church Reports for churches?

Why don't YOU, Jeff, rank the 200 LDS denominations, and tell us which ones are #2 and below, since you will no doubt rank yours as the #1 'church' closest to the first century Church.

---Because I am biased towards the one to which I belong, and obviously if I thought another was superior in all the categories that matter, I would belong to THAT one. So I would not be a credible judge.That's why.

Guess what I think of your "common sense" idea?

--I think it terrifies you. I think you want to pray that Christendom never thinks of doing my idea, because then the cat would be out of the bag, and your church--which you have little confidence would be ranked at the top--would lose any members with common sense who find the published rankings persuasive.

[alanmolstad]

the Bible has not changed in what it says.
But so many people over the ages have disagreed with what the Bible means.

The core of what the church taught in the beginning is the same as what I believe now.
But on many side issues what we believe now is very different.

So we can NOT attack the church and say that the whole thing is "FALSE" just because on a side issue we disagree with some guys who are now long dead.

And, we cant add to the Bible , or teach new ideas that were not included in the faith that was once for all given.



So this means that I can come out with an idea about how to understand the story of how Jesus walked on the water
But I can not come out and claim that I have received a new teaching from God, where I contradict the bible about Jesus walking on the water.


So on side issues I feel free to disagree with others in the church and in history.
But on the core teachings I am in agreement.....