Apostles And Prophets

[prisonchaplain]

I know that Mormons often wonder why most modern Christian churches do not have the offices of apostle and prophet within their churches. I stumbled upon a rather substantial discussion of this at my fellowship's official page. As Snow would say, "Happy reading."

http://ag.org/top/beliefs/position_papers/...es_prophets.cfm

[Traveler]

I know that Mormons often wonder why most modern Christian churches do not have the offices of apostle and prophet within their churches. I stumbled upon a rather substantial discussion of this at my fellowship's official page. As Snow would say, "Happy reading."

http://ag.org/top/beliefs/position_papers/...es_prophets.cfm

Thank you for your input. Much of what is given in the article is based on a “old school” of thinking about the bible, scriptures, the organization of the early church and how all these things should be interpreted.

However, we have an entire library of documents that include scripture and explanation of what was really meant by certain terms in the marvelous (and divine inspired find?) of the Dead Sea Scriptures and other scrolls. But Christian scholars have tried to discredit this find be calling them the result of an obscure group of Jews called Essens. This is a debate I would love to have with anyone well informed. That aside I will leave the following thought:

Paul was converted to Christianity on his way to a place called Damascus. He had a document signed by the high priests (Jews) of the temple at Jerusalem. He intended to gather some Christians to be disciplined when he returned to Jerusalem with them. For most of 2000 years Christians thought that Paul was on his way to the city of Damascus in Syria which is two Roman provinces away from Jerusalem.

To attempt to take Roman subjects from one Roman province to another Roman province to be punished by the law, Paul would need Roman authority or, pending of who he ticked off, Paul could be put to death. I very much doubt that Paul was that stupid. I do not think he was on his way to Syria. Guess what the place out by the Dead Sea was called in the days of Jesus? Would you believe Damascus? Paul would not need Roman authority for getting Christians from there.

Consider this: The manuscripts in Damascus that have been found could have been the exact same scriptures and documents that Paul studied from for two years (a requirement in the Damascus Document!).

We know Paul did not study the Bible and what we have in the Dead Sea Scrolls explain a lot about questions of how the kingdom (church) would be organized by the Messiah. In a way I intend to though a wrench into the old traditional way of interpreting things. The Dead Sea Scrolls are much closer to being the very scriptures used by Jesus and the Apostles than what we have in the Bible today.

Here is another thought – the most quoted book of scripture by Jesus and his apostles in all of the New Testament is not even in the Bible. I wonder why? Could it be because Christians did not need it – or did not what it any more than they wanted a quorum of 12 priests after the order of Melchizedek (the significance of 12 priests after the order of Melchizedek is explained in the DSS, but you will not find a reference to this in the recommended article)

The Traveler

[Guest Syble]

Again nicely done Traveler! How interesting it is to see things from an opened and updated point of view.

During Christmas we have a tradition of putting together a puzzel of a thousand pieces. Sometimes a piece will seem like it fits but something, very minute, will make it so it doesn't completely feel right, yet some of us try to make it fit out of desperation.

I see these efforts among many in and out of the church doing this with gospel teachings and church history. But when the right pieces come together, there is that feeling of completeness, rightness that is affable and sets one at peace.

This is how your post made me feel. Thank you.

[Jason]

We know Paul did not study the Bible...

What are you talking about? Of course he studied the Old Testament. Perhaps you should clarify that Paul didn't study the New Testament because it didn't exist during his lifetime.

[prisonchaplain]

Thank you for your input. Much of what is given in the article is based on a “old school” of thinking about the bible, scriptures, the organization of the early church and how all these things should be interpreted.

However, we have an entire library of documents that include scripture and explanation of what was really meant by certain terms in the marvelous (and divine inspired find?) of the Dead Sea Scriptures and other scrolls. But Christian scholars have tried to discredit this find be calling them the result of an obscure group of Jews called Essens. This is a debate I would love to have with anyone well informed. That aside I will leave the following thought:

Paul was converted to Christianity on his way to a place called Damascus. He had a document signed by the high priests (Jews) of the temple at Jerusalem. He intended to gather some Christians to be disciplined when he returned to Jerusalem with them. For most of 2000 years Christians thought that Paul was on his way to the city of Damascus in Syria which is two Roman provinces away from Jerusalem.

To attempt to take Roman subjects from one Roman province to another Roman province to be punished by the law, Paul would need Roman authority or, pending of who he ticked off, Paul could be put to death. I very much doubt that Paul was that stupid. I do not think he was on his way to Syria. Guess what the place out by the Dead Sea was called in the days of Jesus? Would you believe Damascus? Paul would not need Roman authority for getting Christians from there.

Consider this: The manuscripts in Damascus that have been found could have been the exact same scriptures and documents that Paul studied from for two years (a requirement in the Damascus Document!).

We know Paul did not study the Bible and what we have in the Dead Sea Scrolls explain a lot about questions of how the kingdom (church) would be organized by the Messiah. In a way I intend to though a wrench into the old traditional way of interpreting things. The Dead Sea Scrolls are much closer to being the very scriptures used by Jesus and the Apostles than what we have in the Bible today.

Here is another thought – the most quoted book of scripture by Jesus and his apostles in all of the New Testament is not even in the Bible. I wonder why? Could it be because Christians did not need it – or did not what it any more than they wanted a quorum of 12 priests after the order of Melchizedek (the significance of 12 priests after the order of Melchizedek is explained in the DSS, but you will not find a reference to this in the recommended article)

The Traveler

I normally do not leave entire posts with my responses, but I wanted to make sure people knew what I was referring to with this summary. If I interpret this correctly, you are saying the following:

1. There are extrabiblical manuscripts (writings near the time of the New Testament writings that did not make the canon of Scripture) that more accurately reflect the church practices and beliefs of the church than our Bibles do.

And, if so, you may also be suggesting that #2. The Bible as we have it now--meaning the 66 books that make up the Old and New Testament--is not what God intended for us to have as canon?

[Traveler]

I normally do not leave entire posts with my responses, but I wanted to make sure people knew what I was referring to with this summary. If I interpret this correctly, you are saying the following:

1. There are extrabiblical manuscripts (writings near the time of the New Testament writings that did not make the canon of Scripture) that more accurately reflect the church practices and beliefs of the church than our Bibles do.

And, if so, you may also be suggesting that #2. The Bible as we have it now--meaning the 66 books that make up the Old and New Testament--is not what God intended for us to have as canon?

All of the books of the Old Testament are represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls with one exception that is open to speculation as to why. In addition all of the Old Testament books have at least 2 versions – something very troubling to the Jews concerning the Torah. The fact that the books were maintained in multiple versions is a very new concept in our time concerning sacred revelations but anciently 2 versions were considered critical. (See Genesis 41:25 and 32)

Interestingly, the Old Testament era book most quoted in the New Testament is missing from modern versions. Perhaps the real reason it is missing is because there are no complete and accurate copies in existence. But from what we have we know a couple of things about this book. We know for example that the scholars that claimed that this book was plagiarized from the New Testament are false because the fragments found among the DDS predate Jesus and the NT by 300+ years. It also means that Jesus and the apostles thought this book was important enough to copy it word for word in their teaching.

Isaiah tells us that G-d reveals things to man “line upon line upon line”, and “precept upon precept upon precept”. I submit to you my friend that G-d is not one to shove and force things upon people that do not want it or what they already have. Jesus told his disciples that he spoke in parables so that only those that wanted to understand would be enlightened by his sayings.

I believe that for most part the reason there are only 66 books in the Bible is not because Christians have all that G-d wants to tell them (I believe it was Paul that said there is not enough room to write all that should be written) but because they have all or more than they want and refuse to accept anything else – even if it once existed as sacred scripture. Most non-LDS Christians I have conversed with are very adamant about this idea concerning scripture – They will have no more of such sacred kind of things, regardless of reason or divine desire to enlighten and they make up all kind of excuses to justify it. Which is fine by me – if they do not want it I will not argue the point. But for me I wish for and pray daily for more and openly welcome anyone that will join with me or allow me to join with them in this quest.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

[All of the books of the Old Testament are represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls with one exception that is open to speculation as to why. In addition all of the Old Testament books have at least 2 versions – something very troubling to the Jews concerning the Torah. The fact that the books were maintained in multiple versions is a very new concept in our time concerning sacred revelations but anciently 2 versions were considered critical. (See Genesis 41:25 and 32)

The reference is to two dreams that the Pharoah had about the upcoming famine in Egypt. The point: When God really wants to emphasize a matter he repeats himself--or relays the point from two different approaches or stories.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, though. Are you suggesting that for each of the 39 Old Testament books there are 39 additional counterparts--additional books that might have the same level of inspiration as those we already have?

Interestingly, the Old Testament era book most quoted in the New Testament is missing from modern versions. Perhaps the real reason it is missing is because there are no complete and accurate copies in existence. But from what we have we know a couple of things about this book. We know for example that the scholars that claimed that this book was plagiarized from the New Testament are false because the fragments found among the DDS predate Jesus and the NT by 300+ years. It also means that Jesus and the apostles thought this book was important enough to copy it word for word in their teaching.

The fact that Jesus, the disciples and Paul may have quoted some relevent material from a well-known extrabiblical writing does not mean that the book should therefore be canonized.

I believe that for most part the reason there are only 66 books in the Bible is not because Christians have all that G-d wants to tell them (I believe it was Paul that said there is not enough room to write all that should be written) but because they have all or more than they want and refuse to accept anything else – even if it once existed as sacred scripture. Most non-LDS Christians I have conversed with are very adamant about this idea concerning scripture – They will have no more of such sacred kind of things, regardless of reason or divine desire to enlighten and they make up all kind of excuses to justify it. Which is fine by me – if they do not want it I will not argue the point. But for me I wish for and pray daily for more and openly welcome anyone that will join with me or allow me to join with them in this quest.

This really is a new topic--though I see the connection. My argument would therefore be the same in both cases: To convince greater Christianity that writings should be added to the Scriptural canon, after a nearly 2000 year period of nothing being added, requires a substantial burden of proof. And, this is not a matter for individual laity to decide. It took Pentecostals about 40 years to convince evangelicals to even let them in the door, and another 60 for us to earn a place of respect in theological academia. Over time the larger Christian family saw at least the plausiblity of our "innovations." Rather than bemoan those who are "willfully blind," make the case...with patience and persistence.

[Guest Monica]

Aren't they supposed to fit where they should have always fit?