Restoration Of All Things

[Snow]

So we believe that there has been a restoration of ancient Christianity and everything else that is eternally true, prior to and outside Christianity. We therefore believe that the doctrines - the orthodoxy - we hold today are a restoration of the ancient Christian Church orthodoxy. However, prior to Constantine in the 4th century and the institutionalization of the church, I ask:

Was there any orthodoxy to restore?

The Gospels came late and Paul's letters aren't even that close to the time of Christ. Until the time that things were written down and widely diseminated, the gospel was conveyed orally, by word of mouth. Think how far off you can get even when things are written down and then multiply that by a very big number to imagine how far off oral traditions can get. Was there any coordinated, systematic belief system in place in the early ancient Church? What was restored? Something that may not have even been in place to any noticible extent to begin with....

[Tr2]

The Gospels came late and Paul's letters aren't even that close to the time of Christ. Until the time that things were written down and widely diseminated, the gospel was conveyed orally, by word of mouth. Think how far off you can get even when things are written down and then multiply that by a very big number to imagine how far off oral traditions can get. Was there any coordinated, systematic belief system in place in the early ancient Church? What was restored? Something that may not have even been in place to any noticible extent to begin with....

The gospels and Paul's letters are too late so the solution is to bring in writing that is centuries after them and think they are right? How does that work?

[srm]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 15 2004, 03:19 PM

So we believe that there has been a restoration of ancient Christianity and everything else that is eternally true, prior to and outside Christianity. We therefore believe that the doctrines - the orthodoxy - we hold today are a restoration of the ancient Christian Church orthodoxy. However, prior to Constantine in the 4th century and the institutionalization of the church, I ask:

Was there any orthodoxy to restore?

The Gospels came late and Paul's letters aren't even that close to the time of Christ. Until the time that things were written down and widely diseminated, the gospel was conveyed orally, by word of mouth. Think how far off you can get even when things are written down and then multiply that by a very big number to imagine how far off oral traditions can get. Was there any coordinated, systematic belief system in place in the early ancient Church? What was restored? Something that may not have even been in place to any noticible extent to begin with....

what was restored was priesthhood and thereby the ordinances of salvation.

[Jenda]

Snow, Paul's letters are the closest thing to Christ that we have. They are believed to have come within 10-20 years of His death. The gospels come later, closer to 70AD.

I agree with srm. It was the priesthood and ordinances that were restored. Along with a restoration of the truth of the gospel. All those things that were lost within the first 500 years of the Christian Church.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 15 2004, 03:19 PM

So we believe that there has been a restoration of ancient Christianity and everything else that is eternally true, prior to and outside Christianity. We therefore believe that the doctrines - the orthodoxy - we hold today are a restoration of the ancient Christian Church orthodoxy. However, prior to Constantine in the 4th century and the institutionalization of the church, I ask:

Was there any orthodoxy to restore?

The Gospels came late and Paul's letters aren't even that close to the time of Christ. Until the time that things were written down and widely diseminated, the gospel was conveyed orally, by word of mouth. Think how far off you can get even when things are written down and then multiply that by a very big number to imagine how far off oral traditions can get. Was there any coordinated, systematic belief system in place in the early ancient Church? What was restored? Something that may not have even been in place to any noticible extent to begin with....

It's interesting that the Old Testament Jews wrote down everything (or claimed to have written down everything) from the moment the words were written in the stone tablets. They made lots and lots of copies too. I wonder why the apostles didn't compile a list of all of Jesus' teachings and instructions and makes lots and lots of copies.

[Jenda]

In the OT times, there were people whose job it was to write down these things. They were called scribes. That is what Nephi's family were. The BoM makes it plain. I don't know if any of Jesus followers were scribes. If not, that would explain why his writings were never recorded. Maybe he chose on purpose not to have scribes, that way, everything must be taken on faith, which is what God wants. IMO.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 15 2004, 07:42 PM

In the OT times, there were people whose job it was to write down these things. They were called scribes. That is what Nephi's family were. The BoM makes it plain. I don't know if any of Jesus followers were scribes. If not, that would explain why his writings were never recorded. Maybe he chose on purpose not to have scribes, that way, everything must be taken on faith, which is what God wants. IMO.

I think I'd better brush up on my Book of Mormon reading. Where does it talk about Lehi being a scribe?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 15 2004, 07:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 15 2004, 07:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 15 2004, 07:42 PM

In the OT times, there were people whose job it was to write down these things.  They were called scribes.  That is what Nephi's family were.  The BoM makes it plain.  I don't know if any of Jesus followers were scribes.  If not, that would explain why his writings were never recorded.  Maybe he chose on purpose not to have scribes, that way, everything must be taken on faith, which is what God wants.  IMO.

I think I'd better brush up on my Book of Mormon reading. Where does it talk about Lehi being a scribe?

In I Nephi 1:1,2 it states

1 I, NEPHI, having been aborn of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.

2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

And in Chapter 3 and 4 it gives the story of Laban, who is Nephi's cousin, who is the keeper of the plates. It can be inferred from that that he was also the writer of the plates (or else, why would he have them?).

During the OT times, the only people who learned to write were scribes, and it was usually a family profession. So, if Laban was a scribe, and Nephi was a scribe, it stands to reason that Lehi was a scribe. I read a paper on this subject once, I would have to find it again so I can give a better reference.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 15 2004, 04:33 PM

The gospels and Paul's letters are too late so the solution is to bring in writing that is centuries after them and think they are right? How does that work?

BZZZZ!

No, sorry - and you so close to getting the point, but no.

[Guest curvette]

Thanks for the info Jenda. I guess we could reasonably conclude that Lehi was a scribe. We know that Jesus, Himself, could read. I would guess He could write too. I wonder why He didn't write down His teachings. (Of course, He was slightly busy teaching, healing, traveling, organizing, and confounding the Pharisees, etc.) Matthew was a tax collector, so we know he must have been literate. Maybe he was the only one of the apostles (with the exception of Judas and he wasn't much good after the betrayal.) That's not right though because Peter wrote letters and John wrote a couple of books. I'm just thinking and typing at the same time, and now I gotta go. I'll think on this some more. I'm still not convinced that none of the apostles could have had these things written down earlier on, but maybe they just were too busy in the early years. (and maybe they did write them down and they became lost.)

[Snow]

Originally posted by curvette@Mar 16 2004, 09:21 AM

We know that Jesus, Himself, could read. I would guess He could write too.

Unless you think that being an all-powerful, all-knowing god doesn't include all three R's: reading, riting, and rithmatic. Grammar school, even in Bethlehem, ain't what it used to be.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 15 2004, 07:42 PM

In the OT times, there were people whose job it was to write down these things. They were called scribes. That is what Nephi's family were. The BoM makes it plain. I don't know if any of Jesus followers were scribes. If not, that would explain why his writings were never recorded. Maybe he chose on purpose not to have scribes, that way, everything must be taken on faith, which is what God wants. IMO.

Hey, Jenda, so I quess we don't need the BoM afterall. All we need to do is believe there is such a thing? If God didn't think that getting someone to write something down was important, then why did he go to all the trouble of seeing that JS got the golden plates?

[Cal]

There is some evidence that Jesus' teachings were written down at the time they were given, and were LATER included in the narative of the gospels. If anyone wants the reference I will go look for it. I read the book a while back---It is called the Gospel of Q.

[Jenda]

The Q is what many scholars claim the book of Mark is, and many scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were derived from this manuscript as well, just modified to meet the needs of the specific audience they were sent to. One was meant for the Jews (Matthew), one was meant for the Romans and one was meant for the Greeks (don't know which is which).

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 16 2004, 06:51 PM

The Q is what many scholars claim the book of Mark is, and many scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were derived from this manuscript as well, just modified to meet the needs of the specific audience they were sent to. One was meant for the Jews (Matthew), one was meant for the Romans and one was meant for the Greeks (don't know which is which).

I've heard of the Q gospel. I'd be interested to know what modifications were made for the Greeks and Romans and why. Maybe they explain the customs of the Jews in a little more detail in case they were unfamiliar with them.

[srm]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 16 2004, 06:40 PM

There is some evidence that Jesus' teachings were written down at the time they were given, and were LATER included in the narative of the gospels. If anyone wants the reference I will go look for it. I read the book a while back---It is called the Gospel of Q.

Don't hold me to it (It's been a long time)...but if i recall they don't think that Q was significantly earlier than the other Gospels. Not from the time of Christ. The main theory speaks of oral traditions (pericopes) sp that were shared long before they were written down.

[Snow]

Q is only theoretical:

"Recent scholarship or, more correctly, recent rethinking of previous scholarship has brought an intriguing possibility to the table. Matthew, Mark and Luke are termed the Synoptic Gospels, so called because they generally agree on the details and timeline of Jesus' life, sometimes even using the same words to describe the same events. Because of this similarity, quite a few scholars posit that there was a previous collection of Jesus' sayings and works which all three gospel writers relied on when compiling their histories. This collection, as yet just a theoretical construct, has been given the name "Q" (short for Quelle, German for "source").

It's a tempting idea. Mark is regarded as the earliest gospel and hence closest to Q. Of the 661 verses in Mark, only 24 aren't quoted in either Matthew or Luke. Matthew and Luke occasionally disagree with Mark regarding Jesus' words or the order of events, but they never both disagree on the same point." (The Straight Dope)

[srm]

Q is only theoretical:

Of course...thank you for clarifying. I was assuming that everyone knew that.

"Recent scholarship or, more correctly, recent rethinking of previous scholarship has brought an intriguing possibility to the table. Matthew, Mark and Luke are termed the Synoptic Gospels, so called because they generally agree on the details and timeline of Jesus' life, sometimes even using the same words to describe the same events. Because of this similarity, quite a few scholars posit that there was a previous collection of Jesus' sayings and works which all three gospel writers relied on when compiling their histories. This collection, as yet just a theoretical construct, has been given the name "Q" (short for Quelle, German for "source").

It's a tempting idea. Mark is regarded as the earliest gospel and hence closest to Q. Of the 661 verses in Mark, only 24 aren't quoted in either Matthew or Luke. Matthew and Luke occasionally disagree with Mark regarding Jesus' words or the order of events, but they never both disagree on the same point." (The Straight Dope)