No atonement theology in the Gospel of Luke

[PseudoPaul]

It's interesting, there seems to have been two competing eucharist traditions in early Christianity:

1) The familiar body/blood symbolism of the bread and wine (Paul and the author of Mark for instance are both guardians of this tradition, which seems to have elements in common with pagan mystery rites)

2) The eucharist tradition preserved in the Didache, which gives an altogether different interpretation of the bread and wine. Instead of representing the sacrificed body and blood of Jesus, they represent Jesus' Davidic line and the coming Kingdom of God on earth. This tradition is much more in keeping with the actual teachings of the historical Jesus.


https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/ ... st-ritual/

Yes! I remember being quite surprised by the Didache's Eucharist the first time I read it. I am not so keen on its Davidic focus, but it is, nevertheless, very interesting given the likely date of the document. I do not see the historical Jesus, if there was one, being Davidic as the builder from Galilee, but it must be the case that somewhere along the line stressing his Davidic lineage became important for a number of Christians.

Right, it's not even certain that Jesus claimed to be the messiah. But the emphasis on the Kingdom of God in the Didache's Eucharist is very much in line with the teachings Jesus.

Compare that to Paul and Mark's eucharist tradition - a retroactive interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' death. Definitely not something that comes from Jesus, but from his followers after his death.

Ultimately does the Eucharist go back to Jesus himself? Hard to say. But it strikes me that the Didache version (which is very Jewish rather than Roman) would at least go back to the people who actually knew Jesus and were most familiar with his teachings. The body/blood version we're more familiar seems more removed from the historical Jesus.

Joseph Smith tried to reconstruct "primitive Christianity" through revelation. It would be interesting to try to do that through a historical lens instead - it would be a tradition that doesn't much resemble either Mormonism or orthodox Christianity.

[huckelberry]

Right, it's not even certain that Jesus claimed to be the messiah. But the emphasis on the Kingdom of God in the Didache's Eucharist is very much in line with the teachings Jesus.

Compare that to Paul and Mark's eucharist tradition - a retroactive interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' death. Definitely not something that comes from Jesus, but from his followers after his death.

Ultimately does the Eucharist go back to Jesus himself? Hard to say. But it strikes me that the Didache version (which is very Jewish rather than Roman) would at least go back to the people who actually knew Jesus and were most familiar with his teachings. The body/blood version we're more familiar seems more removed from the historical Jesus.

Joseph Smith tried to reconstruct "primitive Christianity" through revelation. It would be interesting to try to do that through a historical lens instead - it would be a tradition that doesn't much resemble either Mormonism or orthodox Christianity.

PseudoPaul, Thanks for the Didache example. It has been a long time since I read that and was surprised reading it now on how distinctive the Eucharist description is. It sounds to be to be focusing on a connection to the Seder ceremony. I was thinking of that in terms of remembering the exodus as gathering of a people in renewal and new exodus from sin.

A connection developing with body and blood could have been linked to the Seder question of why are we doing this?

It might appear that early Christianity was still feeling around with various pieces of understanding looking for how they might fit together. It may be that the primitive Christianity is a moving target which might not be possible to pin down. There are of course quite a few people studying the question to try and clarify what was first believed.

Myself I think such observations might be helpful in continuing looking forward to better understanding , loosening the lock limited tradition might hold on people.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Yes! I remember being quite surprised by the Didache's Eucharist the first time I read it. I am not so keen on its Davidic focus, but it is, nevertheless, very interesting given the likely date of the document. I do not see the historical Jesus, if there was one, being Davidic as the builder from Galilee, but it must be the case that somewhere along the line stressing his Davidic lineage became important for a number of Christians.

Right, it's not even certain that Jesus claimed to be the messiah. But the emphasis on the Kingdom of God in the Didache's Eucharist is very much in line with the teachings Jesus.

Compare that to Paul and Mark's eucharist tradition - a retroactive interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' death. Definitely not something that comes from Jesus, but from his followers after his death.

Ultimately does the Eucharist go back to Jesus himself? Hard to say. But it strikes me that the Didache version (which is very Jewish rather than Roman) would at least go back to the people who actually knew Jesus and were most familiar with his teachings. The body/blood version we're more familiar seems more removed from the historical Jesus.

Joseph Smith tried to reconstruct "primitive Christianity" through revelation. It would be interesting to try to do that through a historical lens instead - it would be a tradition that doesn't much resemble either Mormonism or orthodox Christianity.

Great thread and post here.

The weakest point of Mormonism is its foundational claim that Mormonism is actually the religion that was practiced by the first Christians. Does anyone recall if any mopologists have ever tried to generate any theories of men in support of this doctrine? I don't recall ever seeing any during the time that was exiting Mormonism in 2005 and I did look for them. Instead, I came into contact with actual historical work about early Christianity being utterly different from not just Mormonism, but what modern-day Christians believe. That was the final collapse of my Mormon and Christian shelf. And once I learned about how Judaism is just a reconstituted Canaanite paganism, I was done believing in Abrahamic religions.

[Kishkumen]

Great thread and post here.

The weakest point of Mormonism is its foundational claim that Mormonism is actually the religion that was practiced by the first Christians. Does anyone recall if any mopologists have ever tried to generate any theories of men in support of this doctrine? I don't recall ever seeing any during the time that was exiting Mormonism in 2005 and I did look for them. Instead, I came into contact with actual historical work about early Christianity being utterly different from not just Mormonism, but what modern-day Christians believe. That was the final collapse of my Mormon and Christian shelf. And once I learned about how Judaism is just a reconstituted Canaanite paganism, I was done believing in Abrahamic religions.

That’s not an unusual trajectory. Of course, the history can be as much of a moving target as the religion. Mormonism is always changing, and historical interpretations are always evolving. The Mormonism today is not the Mormonism of 1844, and the historical understanding of today is not that of 1844 either. In any case, it’s a fun ride, and I am glad you are here sharing your experience.

[Kishkumen]

Joseph Smith tried to reconstruct "primitive Christianity" through revelation. It would be interesting to try to do that through a historical lens instead - it would be a tradition that doesn't much resemble either Mormonism or orthodox Christianity.

It would be an interesting intellectual exercise at the very least.

[PseudoPaul]

Joseph Smith tried to reconstruct "primitive Christianity" through revelation. It would be interesting to try to do that through a historical lens instead - it would be a tradition that doesn't much resemble either Mormonism or orthodox Christianity.

It would be an interesting intellectual exercise at the very least.

I suppose we'd have to distinguish between which set of teachings:

1) Jesus' kingdom of God message

2) James' law-keeping Christianity

3) Pauline Christianity

Three traditions that developed in the early first century, all of them a bit different, none of them much like any modern tradition.

And of course there were many other first century Christianities as well.

[PseudoPaul]

Right, it's not even certain that Jesus claimed to be the messiah. But the emphasis on the Kingdom of God in the Didache's Eucharist is very much in line with the teachings Jesus.

Compare that to Paul and Mark's eucharist tradition - a retroactive interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' death. Definitely not something that comes from Jesus, but from his followers after his death.

Ultimately does the Eucharist go back to Jesus himself? Hard to say. But it strikes me that the Didache version (which is very Jewish rather than Roman) would at least go back to the people who actually knew Jesus and were most familiar with his teachings. The body/blood version we're more familiar seems more removed from the historical Jesus.

Joseph Smith tried to reconstruct "primitive Christianity" through revelation. It would be interesting to try to do that through a historical lens instead - it would be a tradition that doesn't much resemble either Mormonism or orthodox Christianity.

Great thread and post here.

The weakest point of Mormonism is its foundational claim that Mormonism is actually the religion that was practiced by the first Christians. Does anyone recall if any mopologists have ever tried to generate any theories of men in support of this doctrine? I don't recall ever seeing any during the time that was exiting Mormonism in 2005 and I did look for them. Instead, I came into contact with actual historical work about early Christianity being utterly different from not just Mormonism, but what modern-day Christians believe. That was the final collapse of my Mormon and Christian shelf. And once I learned about how Judaism is just a reconstituted Canaanite paganism, I was done believing in Abrahamic religions.

There are definitely some stark differences between early Christianities and Mormonism

1) the first Christians didn't have formal leadership hierarchy or formal priesthood

2) the Holy Ghost seemed to be a power rather than a person for them

3) They believed in the annihilation of the wicked and didn't believe in an eternal soul, at least at first

4) They were divided on the law of Moses, but it was pretty widely believed that Jewish converts were to continue to follow the law

5) In Jesus' time at least there was no "church" - it was just a Jewish apocalyptic movement with an emphasis on voluntary poverty and non-violence

6) The view that Jesus was divine in some sense doesn't begin until after Jesus' death - and even then their Christologies were lower than Mormon Christology

7) There was a pretty widespread view that it was better to remain celibate than to marry - this was because of their belief in the impending eschaton

8) No marriage in the kingdom of God

9) Divorce and remarriage strictly forbidden, which also meant that by implication polygamy would have also been forbidden


Then again, orthodox Christianity is just as far removed from primitive Christianity as Mormonism

[Bret Ripley]

Joseph Smith tried to reconstruct "primitive Christianity" through revelation. It would be interesting to try to do that through a historical lens instead ...

When I first starting learning about Mormonism, my wide-eyed self was *very* surprised at the apparent lack of emphasis on patristics. I fully expected to find more of an effort to find hints of Smith's revealed version of Christianity among the writings (polemics?) of the early church fathers. (At least, that would be an important area of interest if I were an apologist.)

[Alphus and Omegus]

Great thread and post here.

The weakest point of Mormonism is its foundational claim that Mormonism is actually the religion that was practiced by the first Christians. Does anyone recall if any mopologists have ever tried to generate any theories of men in support of this doctrine? I don't recall ever seeing any during the time that was exiting Mormonism in 2005 and I did look for them. Instead, I came into contact with actual historical work about early Christianity being utterly different from not just Mormonism, but what modern-day Christians believe. That was the final collapse of my Mormon and Christian shelf. And once I learned about how Judaism is just a reconstituted Canaanite paganism, I was done believing in Abrahamic religions.

That’s not an unusual trajectory. Of course, the history can be as much of a moving target as the religion. Mormonism is always changing, and historical interpretations are always evolving. The Mormonism today is not the Mormonism of 1844, and the historical understanding of today is not that of 1844 either. In any case, it’s a fun ride, and I am glad you are here sharing your experience.

Yes, it's true Mormons are always shuffling things around. But I am curious if you or anyone else here has ever seen a mopologist attempt to provide any substance to the claim that early Christianity was really just secret Mormonism. I think it was a strong point to make among uneducated and rural American Protestants but nowadays, this seems so obviously wrong that they never talk about it in anything other than generalities of a "restored gospel."

[Chap]

Joseph Smith tried to reconstruct "primitive Christianity" through revelation. It would be interesting to try to do that through a historical lens instead ...

When I first starting learning about Mormonism, my wide-eyed self was *very* surprised at the apparent lack of emphasis on patristics. [...]

Yeah, in early 19th century upstate New York that was a really hot topic.

"Hey Joseph, did you remember to put a good dose of patristics in the cows' evening feed? It really helps raise their milk yield."
"Of course I did - and I've already been to the feed store to top up our reserves. They had a special offer on Origen this week!"