For LDS only...some tricky questions

[Clear]

POST THREE OF FOUR

THE DEPTH OF HISTORICAL INCONCEIVABLENESS DEEPENS WITH ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF TEXTUAL EVIDENCE WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND.

For example, it is NOT just PETER’S “writings” that we should find evidence of, but there should be writings generated ABOUT Peter the Bishop by others.

For examples:

A) The ROMAN’S themselves, in their administrative duties, would have written ABOUT Peter as a Bishop and mentioned something about their interactions and knowledge of him as a Bishop of the Christian Church there. What are the chances, given the record keeping ability of the Roman government, that THEY would have lost all such records concerning Peter as well as all church records be lost in all parts of the world where such records would have been sent?

Truth_Faith13 : IF you theorize that the Romans themselves would not have written about Bishop Peter, especially given the prominence he would have had, why would they not have written about him or what would have happened to ALL the vast records that would have accumulated.


B) The ENEMIES of Christianity would have written about Peter and the Christians just as others (such as Celsus) had done. for years. For example: Why would the ongoing Jewish and Pagan leaders continued complaining about “Peter and the Christians” have no records?

C) What are the chances that none of the historians, “small or large”, altogether avoided writing about Peter as the head of the Roman Church. It is inconceivable to me that some historian, either small or great, living near the time of Peter, a “bishop of Rome” would not have written about him. Josephus, who returned to live in Rome doesn’t mention Peter as Bishop of Rome, Tacitus doesn’t, Suetonius' knew Vespasian and he even he had access to the imperial archives (which presumably would have SOMETHING about Peter in them), yet his series of biographies (“Illustrious Men”) doesn’t mention Peter (though it included lesser poets and orators), If Plutarch mentioned Peter as Bishop, this part of his textual history did not survive. Did Peter, as a bishop, not rate enough importance for ANY historian? If he DID rate, then were ALL such records destroyed?

D) At least ONE of the members of the Roman congregation would have written about Peter in a personal diary or a secular text that at least MENTIONED a famous "Bishop" Peter. For example, we know so much about what early Christianity taught and was like, even about the early martyrdoms through the diary of Perpetua. She writes about her Bishop Optatus (who is certainly NOT a famous person). Why would no other members of the church in rome or in any other place, congregation or local, discuss Peter as their bishop in some extant diary entry or letter? Many, many personal experiences should have and would have been written by many literate individuals who would have access and dealings with Peter as a standing bishop.

I think I’ve oversimplified this description as it is even more complicated than this, but it introduces other historical issues that one must consider besides the simple issue of whether Peter himself wrote or did not write texts. It introduces some context as to why very prominent scholars would teach that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome for 20 years as Catholic tradition suggests.



THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT DID NOT RECEIVE NOR HAVE APOSTOLIC LEVEL RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY

The Roman Movement’s motive in claiming to having the authority of Peter were simple

There were many early Christian congregations in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, etc. In the centuries after the Apostles died. The Roman Religious movement historically, tried to distinguish themselves from other fellow schizmatics on the basis of at least two claims. They repeatedly claimed to have greater RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY and they claimed to have ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS.

These claims make things VERY simple historically.

IF the Roman congregation actually DID and DOES have authentic religious authority from God and actually DOES teach the authentic and original Christian traditions, then all other Christians not having authority from God and not possessing “original Christian traditions” should repent and turn toward roman catholic theology (as some early congregations did).

IF the derivatives from the Roman congregation DO NOT have authentic religious authority and DO NOT teach the authentic and original Christian traditions nowadays in any greater degree than any other of the various christianities, THEN claims based on special authority and original traditions are rendered moot (though OTHER claims may be valid) and we should look ELSEWHERE for religious authority and authentic christian theology (if those characteristics are what we are looking for...)

However, historically, The Roman Congregation bishops (popes) were never given any special religious authority over Christianity. Their authority was NOT καθολικοσ/“Catholic” or “universal “in any sense. καθολικος did NOT apply to the Roman Religious movement in 100 a.d.

Perhaps I can go on to discuss the attempt at achieving pre-imminence and also discussed the point that the Roman-derived theologies are not the same as original Christian traditions as the early Judao-Christians taught (some early traditions were changed by them, some new traditions were created and some of the old traditions are no longer taught by them). Thus, the organization that came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church and it’s early evolution as it became a pre-imminent organization was NOT the same as the church of Jesus Christ in Rome at the time of Jesus.

Even their doctrines were not “Catholic” or “universal”, but provincial in nature.


1) THE HISTORICAL CLAIM TO HAVE AUTHORITY, IT'S USE AND MISUSE

Anciently the claim to have “the Authority of Peter the Apostle” was used to attempt to trump the claim of other competing religious opinions. Eusebius, a century later, uses the claim to authority to improve the strength of his polemic against competing opinions, even clementine letters were created as proof of a "historical" transfer of this authority. However, later, these letters were shown to be faked. The use of this claim anciently is not so different than it's usage in modern disagreements

Authentic original Christian leadership in the original Christian movement differed from that of the Roman Catholic Church in important ways. For examples :

The original Christian religious movement was led by prophets under direct, divine inspiration whereas the Roman religious movement came to be led by theologian-philosophers. Tertulian himself describes the roman theology of his day as having lost the “power” while retaining merely the forms of godliness.

Once the “general” authority and guidance from Apostles was no longer available, the congregations turned to their highest remaining congregational office; that of their congregational Bishops. However, the type of guidance from a bishop of a congregation was NOT the same at all. Tertullian describes the distinction between authentic early Christianity and the type of Christianity the Roman theology had evolved into.

He says that both types of authority (apostolic level and bishops level) were good and necessary, but the higher one the earlier church had was no longer in the roman type of christian church.

The higher authority was apostolic and prophetic and its underlying genius was power; true and authentic “potestas”. In contrast, the later roman type of church, (according to Tertullian), could only set up a succession of bishops with discipline, “officium”, in the place of authentic “potestas”. (Tertullian , De Pudicitia 21, in PL 2:1077-80) He is describing the loss of "living, breathing guidance" in the form of living, on-going revelation.

The original Christian church had “imperium” that characterized it’s authority to create organization and doctrinal theology, while the later roman church had substituted “ministerium” , (a prescribed routine) instead. Again, the characterization is the doing of a thing “because it had been done” (i.e. a "routine") and a creation of doctrine and theology by the efforts of philosopher-theologians who are creating doctrine, rather than the revelation of doctrine by God through apostles and prophets who are delivering doctrines from their original source (God). The differences between the original Christian Church and the Roman Church begin to accumulate to the point that we have a very different organization. The two are not the same.

Revelation was the source of doctrine anciently, whereas in the later roman theology, the education, reason and logic of theologians became the necessary source for roman doctrines once they no longer had Apostolic and Prophetic sources for revelation. There were no more, Gnosis, tongues, and prophecy. “To James the Just and to John and Peter, the Lord gave the gnosis after his resurrection,” Clement said. “they gave it further to the other apostles, and the rest of the apostles in turn gave it to the seventy,” but what has always been missing was any legitimate historical account of its’ ever being passed on to the Bishops of Rome (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiatica 2.1.4, in PG 20:136) This is the problem that the evolving Roman organisation could never overcome.

Truth_Faith13 : If you think that this passing of authority happened and there are simply no appropriate period records for this, WHY do you think such records are absent and only records from later centuries came as “back claims” that this happened? Why no period records?

In the original Christian religious movement, the Spirit and revelation was the highest guide, whereas the Roman Christian movement were ultimately left with only texts and traditions and their personal and official interpretations of the texts. Matt 16:14-19 only tells us about authority given to Peter, and does not tell us Peter gave this special authority to Bishop Linus of the roman congregation. Matthew 16 does not, and never did give the Roman religious movement any authority. Instead, the Roman authoritative model was DIFFERENT than that of the early Christian religious movement.

For example : Tertulian describes “Enthusiasmus” as an original guiding principle of interpretation in the early Christian movement, which shifted to allegorical interpretation in the roman type of Christianity.

The congregational bishops were not given the authority of apostles because they did not do the work of apostles. Both Clement and Ignatius publically taught that they (as bishops) were not equivalent to the apostolic level of authority. It was only in the later roman theology that a position of bishop was created that claimed apostolic level of authority. The Roman position of “Bishop” borrowed the same name as the early position of “Bishop” in the original Christian movement, but the position was not the same at all. It had been changed to something else entirely. That sort of change is what makes up apostasy and the more elements that evolve away from the original organization, the greater the apostasy from the original.

post four of four follows

 

[Clear]

POST FOUR OF FOUR

WHEN JERUSALEM AND ANTIOCH HAD PRE-EMINENCE AND ROME WANTED PRE-IMMINENCE
Just as we all tend to feel our own religious views are the correct ones, it was only natural for the Roman Religious movement to feel the same and to desire to promulgate and proselyte its’ evolving version of Christianity. In order to “win out” over other versions of Christian worldviews, it needed to become the dominant doctrinal worldview and the most powerful proselyting organization if its doctrinal and administrative views were to compete and dominate other views. In context of AUTHORITY, the early Roman congregation felt the need to demonstrate superior ecclesiastical authority which they did not, in fact, have. The pressure to “create the fascade” of authority mounted until patriots of the roman congregation began manipulating textual history to this end.

1) Existing texts were changed to benefit and support the roman claims to pre-eminence.
For example : Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius in Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23, says, “The brother of the Lord, James, took over the church along with [μετα + genitive] the apostles.” (PG 20:197) This makes perfect sense that if all apostles died, the presiding authority James would remain the highest authority. The problem for Rome is that James took his authority to Pela with the Christian exodus (if those early Christian histories are correct). Yet Jerome translates this passage : “suscepit ecclesiam Hierosolymorum post [μετα + accusative] apostolos frater Domini Jacobus” –(Jerome De Viris Illustrtibus 2, in PL 23:639) p 32 – which translation changes James position, making him appear to be a successor to the apostles, (whom he did not succeed at all). Yet such corruption of history was necessary if they were to establish an apostolic succession through bishops.


2) NEW texts were created to support the emerging Roman Claims to pre-eminence.

For example : The text of “The Gospel of the twelve apostles” has Christ ordain Peter an “archbishop” though such an office did not exist until it was created centuries later. (Gospel of the 12 apostles, in PO 2:147) Yet, such manipulations and counterfeiting was necessary if one was to create a historical basis to justify the roman claim over the other congregations.

For example : According to the apostolic constitutions, when the church was being formally organized, a fictitious Peter suggested first of all ordaining a bishop in the presence of all the apostles, including Paul and James, bishop of Jerusalem – pouring all their united authority into one vessel, and then doing homage to him!. (Constitutiones Aposolicae 8.4-5, in PG 1:1069-76);

Another example are the Several letters of "Clement" containing counterfeit history were foisted on the other Christians. There are several versions of spurious letters supposedly written by the third bishop of Rome (Clement). In one fictional account Peter says of Clement : “I transmit to him [Clement] the power to bind and loose, etc.” (epitome de Gestis Sancti Petri 145; in PG 2:577).

Before this statement, the fictious Peter had always reserved these powers to himself. Yet the record tells us that “Linus” and “Cletus” already “sat on the great throne of Rome” BEFORE the fictitious Peter gives this power to Clement. Since neither Linus, nor Cletus had that authority, then the Peter's presidency of the church is something quite apart from the bishopric of Rome.

In each version of this letter, the fictitious Peter makes Clement promise that “… when I die you write a letter to James, the Lords brother, telling him how close you have been to me…Let James be assured that after my death the seat will be occupied by a man not uninstructed in nor ignorant of the doctrines and the canons of the church.” (ibid) as a justification for Peter not having simply dictated a letter to the other apostles, telling them that they, as apostles and prophets, now answered to a simple bishop (who was neither an apostle, nor a prophet).

Even these letters use the designation for James as “the ruler of the Holy church of Christians in Jerusalem AND of the churches…everywhere.” (ibid). The contradictions are rife in these counterfeits, such that they were discarded as illegitimate history very quickly. Instead of enhancing the claim to authority, they became an embarrassment as they revealed machinations that would not have occurred in the early Christian movement.


This story of bishop Clement duplicates the earlier (and better authenticated) story written by the same Clement of how Peter had already ordained Zaccaeus bishop of Caesaria. (homiliae Clementinae 3:60-72; in PG 2:149-57). This historian Carl Schmidt concluded that “the homilist created this section [homilae Clementinae 3.59-62] independently in order to fill in an emerging void caused by the loss of the original, disputed material.

In that account, Peter had already ordained Zaccaeus as the bishop of Caesarea (1); Zaccaeus had already mounted the throne of Peter (2); Zaccaeus had already been hailed by Peter as vicar of Christ (3) and Zaccaeus had already sat on the throne of Christ (4), which is, according to Peter, analogous to the judgment seat of Moses BEFORE Clement supposedly underwent the same process.

Though such letters do not represent authentic history, still, such attempts to create counterfeit history DO tell us much about the motives and methods of the Roman movement as well as its’ deep desire to gain pre-imminence by multiple means that would Not have been acceptable to the early Church of Jesus Christ. The two are not the same organisations.

Truth_Faith13 : If you think the falsification of historical records by the Roman Catholic organization was done for some reason that was legitimate, then tell us what this legitimate reason could be. If the succession of apostolic power was clear and uncontested, why was it necessary to falsify records and try to create a false history?


The Roman congregation was not the first or most ancient congregation but was simply one of many schisms from the earliest Christian congregation in Jerusalem. The roman congregations' bishop and his “successors” were not given greater authority than James, bishop of Jerusalem and his “successors”. The Roman congregation and the Christian doctrines created by the theologians associated with it became popular and pre-eminent, but they were never the “mother church”. Such dogmatic claims of being “the original church” were part of their struggle to gain pre-eminence and credibility for their theology and political position.

In saying all of these things, no one need suppose that I am saying that the roman motives were simply evil in attempting pre-eminence by such devices. I think the Romans wanted pre-eminence and power and influence just as we all want our personal theologies to gain pre-eminence and to be influential. I’m not saying that by doing these things, all of the Romans were trying to do evil things, I do not believe that, but I am simply that they are not historically correct claims. The organisation that became the rich and powerful Roman Catholic Church was not the same Church as the early Church of Jesus Christ. It's doctrines had evolved away from the original doctrine. It's policies that shifted towards the gaining of power and riches and the opression of individuals in the quest for worldly things were different than the Church of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church never gained the religious apostolic authority it claimed to have. These are all elements of apostasy that distinguished the later Roman Christian Organisation from the original Church of Jesus Christ.


Clear

φιειδρτζω

 

[Katzpur]

The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is a slightly modified version of an authentic early doctrine.

This is a point I've always found fascinating. While Purgatory and the Spirit World are not the same thing, it's not hard to see that they are related. The small amount of research that I've done on the subject clearly points to early beliefs that have much more in common with the LDS doctrine of the Spirit World than they do with the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. I see the evolution in Catholic doctrine as being clear evidence of an apostasy when viewed in light of the pseudepigraphical writings we have available to us.

 

[Clear]

Hi Katzpur :

Yes, I also find it fascinating. I think that the "older" churches such as the eastern orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the coptics, etc. tend to have much more doctrinal debris that came from earlier and authentic doctrines and earlier interpretations than the "younger" interpretations that originated in later centuries.

Thus, using Faith-Truth13s' parable of the pigs, it is not that the big bad wolf could not blow the house over. Rather, the the various houses were in disrepair, they were unkempt, their plumbing no longer worked, their electrical outlets needed repair, the windows were dirty and would not let light in, etc. The base structure would have still been recognizable and perhaps appear intact, from a distance. It is like old abandoned homes, from the outside, they may appear intact, until one looks inside at the missing wallboard and general deplorable condition that made them inhabitable, rather than the structure actually being "gone".

If the LDS knew the extent to which their own doctrines were woven into the earliest texts, I think, despite their belief in this principle of restoration, it would surprise them. For example, the LDS could take the Dead Sea Scrolls Enochian literature and use it to describe their own pre-creation existence without causing doctrinal ripples. The Catholics cannot do this because this is one doctrine that has been lost to them. However both the Catholics and the LDS could use early decensus literature and it would fit both parties well. Few Protestants could use it. Both the Catholics and the LDS could use the Talmud to teach lessons on cognisant spirits in the spirit world, but the Jehovahs Witnesses could not use this literature.

The point is that the restorationists can take from the broadest swath of earliest Judeo-Christian Sacred Literature and the themes would be quite familiar to them. Other christian movements cannot use much of it and some of them can hardly use any of the early interpretations at all.

The reason the restorationists can use early texts so easily and in such great amounts is that their doctrines have the most in common with the earliest interpretations. This means something important.


Katzpur, I think you would get a kick out of some of the Talmudic material on the dead and their communications with each other. One story describes the two funeral processions of two dead rabbis. The dead rabbis discuss who is to receive the honor of being carried across the bridge first. They are wonderful anecdotes that describe early beliefs.

Clear

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Clear,

I need to spend some time reading through your posts but I just wanted to say thank you for the time you take to respond so thoroughly!

I've had a quick read through and two things you have said have helped greatly!

First that it is not just an issue of Peter passing authority to Linus but of Peter being a "bishop of rome" at all. Secondly that while the "house" may still stand, it is unlivable. This in particular has helped me visualise your (meaning LDS) view point better.

I suppose the problem is that I don't have any knowledge of the early christian church, early writings, early church fathers etc. Therefore I'm having to take yours (and the Catholic's) word for it at the moment.

As an example, you talk about there being no writing from Peter, about Peter etc but the Catholic's say there is?

 

[Katzpur]

If the LDS knew the extent to which their own doctrines were woven into the earliest texts, I think, despite their belief in this principle of restoration, it would surprise them.

I'm always amazed at how few even care, but for those who have an interest in the subject, it is positively mind-blowing.

Katzpur, I think you would get a kick out of some of the Talmudic material on the dead and their communications with each other. One story describes the two funeral processions of two dead rabbis. The dead rabbis discuss who is to receive the honor of being carried across the bridge first. They are wonderful anecdotes that describe early beliefs.

Would it be possible for you to summarize?

 

[Katzpur]

I suppose the problem is that I don't have any knowledge of the early christian church, early writings, early church fathers etc. Therefore I'm having to take yours (and the Catholic's) word for it at the moment.

I don't know how much actual effort you would be willing to put into learning more about the early Christian Church. But, in the event that you would like to do some study of your own, I could highly recommend "Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity."

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I just wanted to mention something about my house analogy and the schisms. I still don't think the schisms by themselves prove that there was an apostasy to the point authority was lost and the house became "unlivable". I agree with the Catholic's on this as the LDS Church would then be in apostasy and have lost authority since you have the FLDS and RLDS etc plus you have members within the church who believe concepts that are not necessarily doctrine. BY himself wrongly instituted the priesthood ban due to misplaced culture prejudices. With fallible humans, schisms will happen. It doesnt mean that the original house has lost its authority.

However, if Peter didn't pass on his authority to Linus (or anyone else for that matter), wasn't the Bishop of Rome and doctrines have been added or changed considerably (in a church that claims public revelation has ended) then I agree, this would mean the Catholic Church isn't the original church and authority was lost which would require a restoration.

I've just got to work out if I believe this authority was lost given the information by yourselves and the Catholic's

 

[Jane.Doe]

I just wanted to mention something about my house analogy and the schisms. I still don't think the schisms by themselves prove that there was an apostasy to the point authority was lost and the house became "unlivable". I agree with the Catholic's on this as the LDS Church would then be in apostasy and have lost authority since you have the FLDS and RLDS etc plus you have members within the church who believe concepts that are not necessarily doctrine. BY himself wrongly instituted the priesthood ban due to misplaced culture prejudices. With fallible humans, schisms will happen. It doesnt mean that the original house has lost its authority.

I agree that the presence of schisms doesn't mean all are false. One still could be true.

But I do think the presence of other churches claiming direct Apostolic succession means that the Catholic church isn't automatically the one true church--- which many Catholics seem to automatically think. It could just as well be one of the Orthodox churches for example is the true successor tracing back to Peter, and those leaders excommunicated the Catholic pope.

 

[Katzpur]

I just wanted to mention something about my house analogy and the schisms. I still don't think the schisms by themselves prove that there was an apostasy to the point authority was lost and the house became "unlivable". I agree with the Catholic's on this as the LDS Church would then be in apostasy and have lost authority since you have the FLDS and RLDS etc plus you have members within the church who believe concepts that are not necessarily doctrine. BY himself wrongly instituted the priesthood ban due to misplaced culture prejudices. With fallible humans, schisms will happen. It doesnt mean that the original house has lost its authority.

I think you're right that the schisms themselves don't prove that there was an apostasy. You may have misunderstood our position in this regard. They are merely evidence that everything wasn't quite as "neat and tidy" as today's Catholics would have you believe. To hear them talk, there was just an orderly transfer of authority from Peter to Linus, and then it was pretty much smooth sailing until 1054, when the Eastern and Western Churches split. After that, the problems with dissent pretty much ceased until Martin Luther started stirring the pot. I wish I could remember where I read this (and Clear may be able to provide you with some definitive information on the subject), but it is my understanding that even by the end of the first century, there were literally hundreds of different Christian factions. Of these, Roman Catholicism eventually prevailed, but it was definitely a messy time in Church history. Beliefs that were once considered "orthodox" were later deemed to be "heresy" and visa versa. You've got to remember that it's the winners who write the history.

I've just got to work out if I believe this authority was lost given the information by yourselves and the Catholic's

You might want to look at some "unbiased" sources, i.e. books on early Christianity that were not written by either Catholic or LDS scholars. Otherwise -- and provided you're going to make your determination of which church to join by determining whether there was an apostasy or not -- it seems to me that you're going to go around in circles forever. It's never going to stop being a "he said/she said" kind of thing.

 

[Clear]

Clear said : "Katzpur, I think you would get a kick out of some of the Talmudic material on the dead and their communications with each other. One story describes the two funeral processions of two dead rabbis. The dead rabbis discuss who is to receive the honor of being carried across the bridge first. They are wonderful anecdotes that describe early beliefs."

Katzpur replied : "Would it be possible for you to summarize?"


Yes, I can provide some short examples from Berakhot in the Babylonian Talmud.

Mo’ed Qatan 25b, refers to a story about deaths and burials of Rabbah b. R. Huna and R. Hamnuna. Both were being “brought up to there” (presumably to Israel) at the same time. They came to a narrow bridge simultaneously and the spirits of the Dead Rabbis proceeded to argue with one another over who should cross the bridge first. After the matter was resolved. (R. Huna crossed first) A child nearby “opened [his mouth] in praise of the deceased”. The Talmud relates the words of the child since the eulogy had it’s own importance to the story. The separation of the soul from the world is described in violent language ("Robbed”). Though the soul is described as righteous, and God joyous at the arrival of this soul in the world beyond still, there was something about death that was lamentable. This sets the stage for further stories about trying to comfort the dead and not frustrate ("mock") them for no longer being alive.

In the Talmudic discussion regarding Death and Burial (Berakhot 17b-19b) it is made clear that the deceased were believed to know and to feel. They were believed to be sentient though the Jewish description is not as detailed as the LDS descriptions that closely parallel them. In fact many of the religious obligations the jews felt, were because the dead were sentient.

For example : Mishna Berakhot 3:1 announces a general exemption from religious obligations for the person whose dead relative lies unburied before him.

The many mitzvahs that surround the taking care of dead bodies and what is and is not allowed, often, have more to do with the opinion and feelings of the dead, than any effect they have on the living. For example, various acts normally considered religious obligations are prohibited in the cemetery because of their potential effect on the spirits of the dead. (e.g. making them more sad, or more frustrated, etc.)

For example :

A person should not walk in the cemetery with tefillin on his head And a Torah scroll on his arm, and read therefrom. And if he does so, He transgresses [the scripture which says], “He who mocks the Poor affronts his Maker” (Prov. 17:5)

David Kraemer, Professor of Talmud and Rabbinics explains that “Certain acts normally considered religious obligations are prohibited in the cemetery not because of an alternative obligation (as in the cases above) and not because of ritual impurity (as we might expect), but because the one who wears the tefillin in the presence of the buried dead as though “mocks the poor and affronts his Maker.” “The poor” is obviously understood to refer to the deceased. Performing religious obligations in his immediate presence is by extension called “mocking.” How are we to make sense of this fanciful interpretation – of the application of this verse to the deceased? There is only one reasonable answer: The deceased must know what is done in his presence and so, if he sees you doing what he can no longer do, you are unwittingly mocking him. Because this is true, we must be sensitive to how the deceased may feel. Our actions in the presence of the deceased should be directed by this sensitivity. “ “…the motivation is concern for the deceased. If we eat in his presence, bless in his presence, enjoy the pleasures of life of the living in his presence, we are being insensitive and foul, mocking him and affronting his maker. “

The same principle exists in many other examples in the Talmud.


R. Hiyya and R. Yonatan were out walking in a cemetery. The blue Fringe [=the ritual fringers, called zizt] of R. Yonatan was dragging. R. Hiyya said to him: Lift it, so that they [the dead] don’t say “Tomorrow they Are coming to be with us and now they mock us! He said to him: “And to they know this much? But is it not written, ‘And the dead Know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)?” He said to him: “If you have read, You have not repeated; if you repeated, you did not read a third time; If you read a third time, they did not explain it to you. ‘For the living’ Know that they will die’ – this refers to the righteous who are called Living even in their death…’And the dead know nothing’ – this Refers to the wicked who, even in their lives, are called dead…”


Since, the Talmud has previously expounded the Jewish position that the dead are cognizant, the current issue is how much the dead know about what is going on in the world of the living. The first point is that the dead can know of our actions and, thus through the reminder that they can no longer do what we are able to do, we feel regret and angst and frustration. Naturally R. Hayya refers to the scripture : “the dead know nothing” (often quoted by J. Witness theologians who offer their modern interpretation of this scripture which differs from the ancient interpretation ).

In this talmudic story, one must not “drag our fringes over their heads,” and thus remind the dead of the religious acts we can do but that they cannot. Then, to demonstrate what it is that the dead do know and what they do not know, other stories follow.

For example : The sons of R. Hiyya went out into the city. Their learning became too “heavy” for them and they took pains to recall it. One said to his fellow: “Does our father know of this pain?” The other said to him, “From where would he know? And isn’t it written, ‘His sons will become heavy and he does not know’ [Job 14:21]? The other responded to him: “And does he not know? And isn’t it written, ‘when his flesh is upon him [even after death] it will hurt and his soul will mourn for him’ (ibid., v.22)! And R. Isaac said, “The worm is difficult [painful] for the dead as a needle in the Flesh of the living.” [Thus, the logic follows that the dead do have knowledge] They say [in response, trying to defend the view of R. Yonatan], “they do know of their own pain; of the pain of others they do not Know.”

The stories leave us with some clarity and some confusion (which further stories must clear up). Thus far we are shown that the dead know certain things. Things of their own experience they may have awareness of, but of the experience of others, they may not have. (The restorationists and historians will here realize that the Talmud has not yet drawn on the concept of Sheol / Hades having different areas for different individuals who may have different knowledge levels…)

Another story that tries to demonstrate the types of knowledge that the dead may have and the type of knowledge of which they “know nothing”.

“It once happened that a certain pious person gave a dinar to a poor person on the eve of the New Year, during years of scarcity, and his wife became angry with him. He went and slept in the cemetery, and he heard two spirits [of the dead] speaking to one another. One said to the other: My friend, come, let us roam the world, and we will hear from behind the curtain [of heaven] what sort of punishment is voming to the world. Her friend said to her: I cannot, for I am buried in a mat of reeds. But you go and tell me what you hear.
She went and roamed and returned, and her friend said to her: My friend, what did you hear from behind the curtain? She said to her: I heard that anyone who sows seed during the time of the first rain, hail will destroy it. So he [the pious man who had overheard all of this] went and sowed during the time of the second rain. Everyone else’s crop was destroyed, but his was not.
The following year, this same pious man returned to the same cemetery and again took away good advice. His wife, amazed at his good fortune, asked him how this happened, whereupon he told her the whole story. Shortly thereafter, the wife got into an argument with the mother of the young woman who was buried in the reed mat, insulting her for permitting her daughter to be buried in such a fashion. News of this incident got back to her dead daughter so, the next year, when the pious man returned for information concerning the upcoming crop season, the spirits refused to talk. Aware that they were being overheard, they decided to keep quiet. “

The Talmudic logic as to HOW the spirits found out that the man was listening to them (since they "know nothing" of him listening to them) was through another living person, (who knew of argument between the two women), who had died and, as a dead spirit, then related this information to the two dead spirits.

In all of these stories, the Bavli Talmud confirms that the dead are cognizant and aware. The issues and questions then, concern what they know and how that knowledge is obtained. The LDS will realize that one mistake that the Talmudic stories make is that they do not seem to differentiate between spirits who inhabit “lower Hades” versus those in other areas of Hades/Sheol (since the conditions are different). The potential effect of the loss of this single principle is obvious and important.

In a similar way to Faith_Truth13s" admission she does not really know much about early Christianity, many of the Jews do not know about early Judaism and the Talmud and its version of the world of spirits ("spirit world")

Again, the basic point is, that restorationists can use early Talmudic parallels, early mishnas, early lectionaries, early versions of biblical books not in the “catholic canon”; they can use pseudoepigraphs, Dead Sea scrolls, nag hamadi libraries, oxyrhynchus and other Christian papyri, etc.to teach their doctrines with clarity. And the reason the ancient texts which, speak "from the dust" speak so clearly to the LDS more than non-restorationist theology is that the restorationist theology parallels and is more like like the earliest Judeo-Christian theologies.

See you Katzpur

Clear
φυτωεισιω

 

[Clear]

Truth_Faith13 said : "I still don't think the schisms by themselves prove that there was an apostasy to the point authority was lost and the house became "unlivable". I agree with the Catholic's on this as the LDS Church would then be in apostasy and have lost authority since you have the FLDS and RLDS etc plus you have members within the church who believe concepts that are not necessarily doctrine. "

1) You misunderstood the principle and your conclusion is illogical. Schism away from original doctrine does not mean the original doctrine becomes apostate (apo stasis = away from a condition/position). The original doctrine remains "original" and untainted. If the Jerusalem Church taught original doctrine and the Roman congregation split to teach a different and conflicting doctrine, then the roman congregation is a schism, an apostate, but Jerusalem would remain original and un-apostate (unless and until IT left the correct doctrinal position). By the same token, IF the Roman congregation remained "original" and "untainted" then any schismatic is apostate while the Roman congregation would remain "original" and "untainted". They would lose nothing.

DOCTRINAL schism is a separate issue than loss of priesthood AUTHORITY.

2) The principle of loss of apostolic authority affected all churches upon the death of the apostles. Linus, the Bishop of Roman congregation did not LOSE the apostolic authority of Peter. He was never given and never HAD the apostolic level of authority.

3) I also agree with you that to the degree that LDS individuals or the LDS church (or any church) veers away from correct doctrines or practices that are revealed from God, then this represents our own brand of apostasy for which we should repent. The LDS prophets have chastened the membership before.

Truth_Faith13 said : "I've just got to work out if I believe this authority was lost given the information by yourselves and the Catholic's"

No. You don't. You have plenty of time to study this out and you do not have to make any decisions until you feel you are informed and comfortable. You may feel perfectly justified in telling the LDS missionaries or Catholic friends to "back off" as you do what you think you should and study these things out in your own mind and heart.

You often come up with random questions that are not from your own heart, but are simply a question that others have given you. Inform yourself rather than depending upon what others tell you. Come up with your own honest question from your own heart.

In any case Truth_Faith13, I hope your journey is interesting and wonderful and joyful.

Clear

 

[Katzpur]

Truth_Faith, I've been doing a bit of thinking. While I think it's a really, really good idea for you to become well-informed about the doctrines of both Mormonism and Catholicism, I think that if you hope to ever be able to come to a decision you can feel good about, you're going to have to let the Holy Ghost play a bigger part in it than you may be doing with now. I don't know... You may be praying diligently about the matter every day; you haven't said, so I hope I'm not sounding like I'm trying to second-guess you. Your Catholic sources are going to try to show you that the Church Jesus Christ established never fell into apostasy, that in fact, it really couldn't have fallen into apostasy because He said it wouldn't. Your LDS sources are going to try to show you that the Church Jesus Christ established absolutely did fall into apostasy and that Jesus' words concerning "the gates of hell" not prevailing against it have been misinterpreted by the Catholics. What I think it's actually going to get down to is which side is able to present the most convincing evidence and, therefore, win the debate. Since I'm not seeing any of the Catholic responses, I have no idea who's actually "in the lead" right now. Maybe you're on the verge of coming back to Mormonism. Maybe you're on the verge of saying 'no' to Mormonism in a final and definitive way.

I just want to caution you to not make your decision on the basis of who's "winning the apostasy vs. no apostasy debate." The skill of the debaters is nothing in comparison to the skill of the Holy Ghost. In a post a few pages back, you said that you don't just want to pick a church based on whether it makes you feel good. You want to pick one on the basis of which one is true. As Peter learned, and as Christ saw that he had learned, the arguments presented by "flesh and blood" (i.e. mortal men) can only help you up to a point. After that, you simply need to go with what your heart tells you. I know that Jeremiah tells us, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Many people will quote this verse and tell you not to trust your heart. On the other hand, in Luke we read the story of the two men who walked with Jesus from Jerusalem to Emmaus, talking with him all the way and yet not recognizing him. Later, when they were having dinner with Him, they finally realized who they'd spent the day with, one of them said to the other, "Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" I've heard a lot of anti-Mormons in my day outright ridicule Mormons for speaking of this "burning in the breast." They refer to it cynically as "heartburn." It's not a literal burn, of course, and I've never personally felt a "burning," but when the Holy Ghost tells you something, you do feel it and it does feel good.

LDS Apostle, M. Russell Ballard, wrote a book a few years back called, "Our Search for Happiness." I'd say it was essentially directed at investigators like you. According to the subtitle, it was "an invitation of understand The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Near the end of the book he said, "Please don't let this opportunity to receive personal revelation pass. Consider what I've written here. Weigh it carefully. Measure it against the things you believe -- and the things you want to believe. Hold fast to all that you know to be true and add to that the fulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Take into account what you've felt as you've read these words. Then put it all to the ultimate test: Ask God. Listen for His answer with your heart, then respond to what you feel."

(By the way, he ends the book by saying, "Please feel free to contact me personally -- at 47 E. South Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150 -- if I can be of help, and I will do all that I can to help you learn and understand more fully our message to the world. After all, 'understanding' is what we were trying to accomplish back when we first started. God bless you, my friend!")

I hope you'll take his advice and mine. If you do, I believe you'll find the path you need to follow. And when you do, commit yourself to moving along it every day.

 

[Katzpur]

Clear said : "Katzpur, I think you would get a kick out of some of the Talmudic material on the dead and their communications with each other. One story describes the two funeral processions of two dead rabbis. The dead rabbis discuss who is to receive the honor of being carried across the bridge first. They are wonderful anecdotes that describe early beliefs."

Katzpur replied : "Would it be possible for you to summarize?"

Yes, I can provide some short examples from Berakhot in the Babylonian Talmud.

Wow! Fascinating!

 

[Clear]

Katzpur :

Yes, it is fascinating. I hope you realize that YOUR reaction is “Wow! Fascinating!” BECAUSE it has meaning to your restorational theology. The normal protestant may yawn and the Jehovah’s Witness may be very uncomfortable with this early doctrine.

Another difference is that the earliest doctrines not only make sense and parallel the restored theology, but the restored theology can add to and explain the early interpretations better than non-restorative Christian historians. For example :

But is it not written, ‘And the dead Know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)?” He said to him: “If you have read, You have not repeated; if you repeated, you did not read a third time; If you read a third time, they did not explain it to you. ‘For the living’ Know that they will die’ – this refers to the righteous who are called Living even in their death…’And the dead know nothing’ – this Refers to the wicked who, even in their lives, are called dead…”

This entire quote is speaking only of the dead. Thbose who are called “the living” and who are “righteous” and “the dead” who are “wicked”. The restoration of the model of Hades/Sheol having different areas, subject to different conditions, different levels of freedom, different responsibilities, etc. explains why some dead are unable to move about in the earth and know very little about what is going on while others in Hades/Sheol are able to move about, with greater freedom and with more knowledge.

References to these differences exist, but we tend to "read right over them". "You have put me at the bottom of the Pit, in the darkest places, in the depths". (Psalm 88:4-7) 213 12:354

Even the LDS youth understands the nature of the gulf placed between the dead based on their righteousness and their wickedness (as the Talmud recognizes), but the Jews and Christians have an incomplete model, such that they cannot make full sense of what is going on with seemingly “contradictory” statements. They can get close and it requires requires further clarifying anecdotes to create a add clarity to these principles.

While the LDS know exactly what I am speaking of when I speak of different “levels”, or “areas” in the spirit world that have different characteristics (based on morality), only the ancient Jews and ancient Christians and restorationists know what I am talking about. While the LDS reaction is a positive “Wow! Fascinating!” and can make insightful use of these sorts of data, most non-restorationist Christians who read this specific post will not even know what I am describing. The fact that ancient texts can “speak from the dust” clearly and understandably, to the LDS, means something profoundly important.

It is clear and objective evidence of a religious relationship that most LDS do not realize exists.


Good Journey Katzpur.


Clear
(so, hast du “The Arrival” gesehen? Ich habe er gesehen und glaube that er sehr Klug war.)
φυτωνεδρω

 

[Katzpur]

Katzpur :

Yes, it is fascinating. I hope you realize that YOUR reaction is “Wow! Fascinating!” BECAUSE it has meaning to your restorational theology.

Yes, that is absolutely why.

The normal protestant may yawn and the Jehovah’s Witness may be very uncomfortable with this early doctrine.

I think you're right again. Unfortunately, I think far too many Mormons may also yawn. I don't think most of them realize how significant these similarities really are.

So, hast du “The Arrival” gesehen? Ich habe er gesehen und glaube that er se Klug war.

Nein, ich habe er nicht gesehen. Ich muss es meiner Liste hinzufügen. Vielen Dank für die Empfehlung.

 

[Watchmen]

This is a point I've always found fascinating. While Purgatory and the Spirit World are not the same thing, it's not hard to see that they are related. The small amount of research that I've done on the subject clearly points to early beliefs that have much more in common with the LDS doctrine of the Spirit World than they do with the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. I see the evolution in Catholic doctrine as being clear evidence of an apostasy when viewed in light of the pseudepigraphical writings we have available to us.

Can you post your research? I'm interested to see how it points to early beliefs more in common with LDA doctrine than Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. Thanks!

 

[Watchmen]

I agree that the presence of schisms doesn't mean all are false. One still could be true.

But I do think the presence of other churches claiming direct Apostolic succession means that the Catholic church isn't automatically the one true church--- which many Catholics seem to automatically think. It could just as well be one of the Orthodox churches for example is the true successor tracing back to Peter, and those leaders excommunicated the Catholic pope.

Or, to True Faith's point, the FLDS or RLDS for that matter.

 

[Katzpur]

Can you post your research? I'm interested to see how it points to early beliefs more in common with LDA doctrine than Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. Thanks!

Most of my information comes from the book I recommended to Truth_Faith: Restoring Ancient Christianity by Robert Barry Bickmore. I've also heard some talks on the subject at FAIR Conferences (I attended six or eight times before they changed venues and left Salt Lake) over the years. My "research" is really just in collecting books on the subject. I have a few, but Bickmore's gets down to the early (1st and 2nd century pseudepigraphia) better than any of the others. Plus, Clear's posts on early Christianity have been very informative.

 

[Orontes]

I'm not sure Im fully seeing the doctrinal change yet (a Catholic would argue that the Trinity is in the Bible and having the authority, the Church would be able to define doctrines etc based on the Word that had been fully revealed. Having the authority woud mean no revelation would be required) but just to clarify something about the ecclesiastical change from an LDS perspective, is the Prophet also an Apostle?

Before I begin, you have several posters and posts in this thread. I would think this makes it difficult to both digest and engage. If my posts are taxing, I will withdraw. I also want to note: I have no animus toward Catholicism. There are several points of the faith I think are wonderful. I also believe Western Christianity owes much to what Roman Catholicism did over the centuries. I do not believe Roman Catholicism is to blame for the apostasy. I believe the apostasy had already occurred before the rise of Rome as a focus of faith. Further, I think the great minds we associate with Western Christianity were sincerely trying to preserve and foster the true as they understood it.


I mentioned three points tied into the claim of apostasy: loss of leadership, ecclesiastical change and doctrinal change on a fundamental level. You have chosen to look to doctrinal change, specifically the Trinity. I think you will agree the Trinity is a fundamental doctrine. The Trinity formula is the product of the Nicene Creed. It is certainly the case a Catholic could argue the Trinity is in the Bible, meaning the core of the formula derives from the Bible. As Jane Doe noted, a Calvinist will argue Calvinism is from the Bible, a Lutheran will argue Lutheranism is from the Bible. All sects do this. Unfortunately, assertion is not justification.

I will give two counters to your position, a textual and logical counter.

1) Textual critique:

If one wants to make a case for the Nicene Creed in the Bible, one needs to go to the heart of the creedal statement. This is the point that really defines the position and what the Fourth Century controversy that lead to the council was all about. The Creed asserts The Son is "one substance with the Father". The notion the Father and Son are one substance was the key point of contention and divided the three major groups of Bishops arguing a position at the Council. The textual issue is straight forward. Is there anywhere in the Bible that says the Son is one substance with the Father? The answer is no. The closest one gets to such is likely from John 17:20-23

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.​

The difficultly is the statement, the Son is the same substance with the Father is a metaphysical claim. An attempt to apply a metaphysical reading to Christ's prayer in John 17 would then entail the disciples also being metaphysically the same substance with each other, and also the same substance with the Son and Father. This would be problematic from an Orthodox Christian position. The central claim of the Nicene Creed is extra Biblical.

A natural question then would be, if the core of the Nicene Creed doesn't come from the Bible, where did they get the idea. I can explain this if you are interested.


2) Logical critique:

The claims of the Trinitarian position are irrational. I'll outline the view to demonstrate the point.

1) There is one God

2) The Father is God

3) The Son is God

4) The Father is not the same as the Son


The above four points are all claims from the Trinitarian position. They are incompatible when taken together. The history of Trinitarianism is a history of various minds trying to piece together the dilemma these four points present. It has led to a host of conclusions that have later been declared heresies. Logically, the trinity is unsound. Moreover, 95% or more of Christians would not be able to explain the trinity and were they to attempt to do so, would end up describing a view that was actually deemed heretical in the past. I've seen this repeated countless times. It is not a stance that lends itself to devotion. Rather, it is the attempt to understand a Hebrew God under a Greek metaphysical rubric, which is the product of the apostasy in a nutshell.