A Treatise on the "Great Apostasy" (A Latter-Day Saints Teaching)

[RebeccaJ]

Jesus did not simply want to become one of us. Christ becoming mortal is clearly insufficient, as evidenced by his apostles, for even they did not understand him during his life time. If Christ becoming man is the extent of revelation to us then I boldly proclaim that he failed and never did and never will lead us to eternal life. But thankfully, such is not the case.

No, Christ intends something much more, he wants us to become one with him. This is his testimony on the Mt. of Olives, “And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. …That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thous has sent me” (John 17:19,21). And even then revelation will not end. For revelation is knowledge, and revelation is truth. And “what power shall stay the heavens? as well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints” (D&C 121:33), as well as many others who so seek it.

Please support your claim using the Bible and early historical Christian documents. Something written more than 1800 years later, pretending to have an alternate and unfavorable view of Jesus after the fact, isn’t supporting your claim. It is the claim itself.

 

[XuDan]

Please support your claim using the Bible and early historical Christian documents. Something written more than 1800 years later, pretending to have an alternate and unfavorable view of Jesus after the fact, isn’t supporting your claim. It is the claim itself.

The context of 121: 33 as used above, by Janderich, is something I question. The header of the chapter provides the context as follows: Verses 26-32 are about “Glorious revelations promised those who endure valiantly” (not used to support his claim) and verses 33-40 are “Why many are called and few are chosen.” (used to "support his claim) In this context it suggests that man’s own corruption, and “unrighteous dominion” are why few are chosen. But that even that won’t stop, or divert God from “providing further revelation.” It doesn’t speak to why we need more revelation, or to why Christ isn’t THE revelation.

Further, in the footnotes of the BoM, the cross references for 121:33 are as follows:
Daniel 4:35:

And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Daniel 12:4:

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Romans 8:35-39:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So, presumably these will be the verses Janderich will provide as “evidences.” I see only Daniel 12:4 as being relevant here, but only is we equivocate knowledge as revelation from God here, Which Janderich set up when stating: “For revelation is knowledge, and revelation is truth.” But even if we accept that revelation is knowledge of truth (adding in the second part of the statement), this only means that all revelation is knowledge of truth , but it does not mean that all knowledge of truth is revelation (A Venn diagram would help here). Therefore, taking Daniel 12:4 stating “knowledge” and equivocating it to mean “revelation”, would be in error.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I think what a Mormon who believes in the great apostasy has to explain is how corruption was so immediate and effective throughout the entire church that no trace of a viable Mormon theology can be found in the second century, except maybe general moral concepts, like an eternal procession of immortal gods stretching back to infinity or a God of Flesh and bone. Such distinctive teachings I reckon ought to have been taught at least once.

 

[XuDan]

I think what a Mormon who believes in the great apostasy has to explain is how corruption was so immediate and effective throughout the entire church that no trace of a viable Mormon theology can be found in the second century, except maybe general moral concepts, like an eternal procession of immortal gods stretching back to infinity or a God of Flesh and bone. Such distinctive teachings I reckon ought to have been taught at least once.

You won’t get this, as the deviant teachings that are the basis for LDS dogma come from “new” or “continuing revelation.” You’ll note that the “New and Everlasting Covenant” which established plural and eternal marriages is a new revelation. All of the doctrines layed out in the D&C are all new/continued “revelation.” They call themselves the “restored church” but there is nothing restored about it. The claim of restoration is to one point alone. They claim the authority of the priesthood was restored (as with the so-called apostacy, the authority of the priesthood was removed. That’s the story anyways. With this restoration of authority they went about and rebuilt the church, but instead of using that clunky old unfashionable architecture, they jazzed it up to be a contemporary church (yes I’m giving this narritive with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek). So in reality they practice “evolution” (so-to-speak). They would more accurately self identify as the "The Evolved Church) and eliminate the problem associated with identifying as “restored.”

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

You won’t get this, as the deviant teachings that are the basis for LDS dogma come from “new” or “continuing revelation.” You’ll note that the “New and Everlasting Covenant” which established plural and eternal marriages is a new revelation. All of the doctrines layed out in the D&C are all new/continued “revelation.” They call themselves the “restored church” but there is nothing restored about it. The claim of restoration is to one point alone. They claim the authority of the priesthood was restored (as with the so-called apostacy, the authority of the priesthood was removed. That’s the story anyways. With this restoration of authority they went about and rebuilt the church, but instead of using that clunky old unfashionable architecture, they jazzed it up to be a contemporary church (yes I’m giving this narritive with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek). So in reality they practice “evolution” (so-to-speak). They would more accurately self identify as the "The Evolved Church) and eliminate the problem associated with identifying as “restored.”

Are there doctrines that Mormons hold (which Christians exclude) but believe are present in the New testament and were taught by the disciples? Or would the Mormon just plead ignorance?

Also, if Mormons believe a new Priesthood was established with the apostles, in which the position of the apostles was to be handed down, that is successors to the apostolic positions of the twelve, how come the apostles never did this? How might you have answered that as a Mormon?

 

[RebeccaJ]

The context of 121: 33 as used above, by Janderich, is something I question. The header of the chapter provides the context as follows: Verses 26-32 are about “Glorious revelations promised those who endure valiantly” (not used to support his claim) and verses 33-40 are “Why many are called and few are chosen.” (used to "support his claim) In this context it suggests that man’s own corruption, and “unrighteous dominion” are why few are chosen. But that even that won’t stop, or divert God from “providing further revelation.” It doesn’t speak to why we need more revelation, or to why Christ isn’t THE revelation.

Further, in the footnotes of the BoM, the cross references for 121:33 are as follows:

So, presumably these will be the verses Janderich will provide as “evidences.” I see only Daniel 12:4 as being relevant here, but only is we equivocate knowledge as revelation from God here, Which Janderich set up when stating: “For revelation is knowledge, and revelation is truth.” But even if we accept that revelation is knowledge of truth (adding in the second part of the statement), this only means that all revelation is knowledge of truth , but it does not mean that all knowledge of truth is revelation (A Venn diagram would help here). Therefore, taking Daniel 12:4 stating “knowledge” and equivocating it to mean “revelation”, would be in error.

Does nothing to address the claim, “If Christ becoming man is the extent of revelation to us then I boldly proclaim that he failed and never did and never will lead us to eternal life.” And does not address a claim that the Apostles failed, and Jesus apparently to a Mormon view, wanted this failure. A sad view of Jesus, all around. Very sad.

But, he’s got a false understanding going of what is meant by Jesus is the fullness of Revelation. The event of the Incarnation, the Annunciation and Jesus born at Bethlehem, was the glorious beginning of this Revelation, but of course, is not the entirety of it.

Jesus is God’s Word, fully Revealed.

Beyond that, plucking one verse out of context from Daniel? Spurious at best, and misunderstood as well. The prophecy is sealed because it is ended, and sealing it means it cannot be changed, added to, or things removed from it. It is sealed, not concealed. It’s secret is revealed in Jesus Christ, who brings to pass the previous passages regarding the resurrection of the dead, the judgement of the wicked and the righteous, and the righteous will shine like the stars.

All fulfilled in Jesus Christ. NOT Joseph Smith.

The secret knowledge bit, is the gnosticism of Mormonism showing itself.

 

[XuDan]

Are there doctrines that Mormons hold (which Christians exclude) but believe are present in the New testament and were taught by the disciples? Or would the Mormon just plead ignorance?

Also, if Mormons believe a new Priesthood was established with the apostles, in which the position of the apostles was to be handed down, that is successors to the apostolic positions of the twelve, how come the apostles never did this? How might you have answered that as a Mormon?

The LDS would argue that as a result of the apostasy, a corrupt church obfuscated and distorted the true teachings of Christ and his disciples to a degree that it would be unrecognizable to them if they were to encounter it now. But through a a restoration of priesthood authority, a new covenant with God resulting in the continued guidance through a prophet that would be unbroken until the end of days - the church of Christ was restored.

In other-words they would mud sling the Catholic church, throw her under the bus, and claim succession for themselves. I recommend reading “A Marvelous work and a Wonder”, as it would outline this argument in far greater detail. But if you do, prepare to feel strong urges inclining you to beat your head upon the surface of something hard and flat. Sometimes it makes the brain hurt less than the reading. Sometimes it just makes it hurt more. Mileage varies.

 

[XuDan]

Does nothing to address the claim, “If Christ becoming man is the extent of revelation to us then I boldly proclaim that he failed and never did and never will lead us to eternal life.” And does not address a claim that the Apostles failed, and Jesus apparently to a Mormon view, wanted this failure. A sad view of Jesus, all around. Very sad.

But, he’s got a false understanding going of what is meant by Jesus is the fullness of Revelation. The event of the Incarnation, the Annunciation and Jesus born at Bethlehem, was the glorious beginning of this Revelation, but of course, is not the entirety of it.

Jesus is God’s Word, fully Revealed.

Beyond that, plucking one verse out of context from Daniel? Spurious at best, and misunderstood as well. The prophecy is sealed because it is ended, and sealing it means it cannot be changed, added to, or things removed from it. It is sealed, not concealed. It’s secret is revealed in Jesus Christ, who brings to pass the previous passages regarding the resurrection of the dead, the judgement of the wicked and the righteous, and the righteous will shine like the stars.

All fulfilled in Jesus Christ. NOT Joseph Smith.

The secret knowledge bit, is the gnosticism of Mormonism showing itself.

Bingo. The only thing the LDS church is a restoration of is Gnosticism.

 

[gazelam]

The secret knowledge bit, is the gnosticism of Mormonism showing itself.

Isn’t there a proverb or something about not throwing gnostic stones when living in a gnostic glass house? Theologian Edwin Hatch said the following about the doctrine of transubstantiation:

“it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.” Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 308.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Isn’t there a proverb or something about not throwing gnostic stones when living in a gnostic glass house? Theologian Edwin Hatch said the following about the doctrine of transubstantiation:

“it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.” Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 308.

Please provide the gnostic group being referred to and what year is being claimed this occurred. Also provide a gnostic source describing their belief about the Eucharist. My understanding of Gnosticism is, that the material was considered something that needs to shed, not something to be desired at all.

The Gnosticism of Mormonism appeared 1800 years after after the Resurrection. Hardly coinciding with the Church that Jesus established.

Both this Protestant quote you provided and Mormonism, ignore WHO instituted the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Jesus…that would be: Jesus.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Isn’t there a proverb or something about not throwing gnostic stones when living in a gnostic glass house? Theologian Edwin Hatch said the following about the doctrine of transubstantiation:

“it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.” Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 308.

I see you’ve been asked to back this claim up before, but still have not.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12787253&postcount=37

Maybe you just cut and paste it once in a while, just to see if someone will take it on face value this time?

 

[gazelam]

Please provide the gnostic group being referred to and what year is being claimed this occurred. Also provide a gnostic source describing their belief about the Eucharist. My understanding of Gnosticism is, that the material was considered something that needs to shed, not something to be desired at all.

The Gnosticism of Mormonism appeared 1800 years after after the Resurrection. Hardly coinciding with the Church that Jesus established.

Both this Protestant quote you provided and Mormonism, ignore WHO instituted the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Jesus…that would be: Jesus.

Perhaps I ought to take up ancient languages also so that I can confirm for everyone that the English translation of ancient Gnostic writings are accurate.

 

[gazelam]

I see you’ve been asked to back this claim up before, but still have not.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12787253&postcount=37

Maybe you just cut and paste it once in a while, just to see if someone will take it on face value this time?

What is this supposed to mean? That I’ve been exposed as not having taken the bait before? I’m sure I’ll trot this quote out again in the future and won’t take the bait then either. Being challenged repeatedly to provide original sources used by the professor to come to his conclusions does not diminish his message. Nothing is preventing you and others from doing the years of study needed to disprove the good professor and reporting back to the good folks at CAF.

 

[XuDan]

In other words, you’ve got nothing. No citation, no basis, nothing of verifiable and testable substance, zero, zilch, nada, null… Should we just take your word, at face value, that your unsubstantiated claim is true? You’ve been repeatedly asked for a reference, citation. or source. You are repeatedly unable (or is it unwilling?) to give it. You inability (or unwillingness) is evidence of lack of credibility. First, we don’t know that this alleged thing exists. Second, we are unable to read it for ourselves in context, to even verify that your perspicacity and thus understanding is accurate.

So, until you meet the challenge and provide your sources, then you have a claim without weight or credibility. Instead of adding to the discourse, it distracts. As the person who keeps throwing this out there, the burden of proof is on you. Until a time you provide the information that has been requested—again and again—I for one, will simply ignore and dismiss such a claim. It is not very convincing to make claims of a quote, without being able to back it up.

 

[Telstar]

Isn’t there a proverb or something about not throwing gnostic stones when living in a gnostic glass house? Theologian Edwin Hatch said the following about the doctrine of transubstantiation:

“it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.” Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 308.

Why would the Catholic Church ever adopt anything from Gnosticism, if it’s clear from reading anything from the ECFs that it’s one of the most prominent heresies mentioned by them, which the Church fought so hard to eradicate from the minds of the early Christians? If you read the entire page from the link provided, below, you can clearly see that the Catholic Church would never even consider taking any beliefs from them.
Refutation of Gnosticism

From the first Gnosticism met with the most determined opposition from the Catholic Church.

The last words of the aged St. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy are usually taken as referring to Gnosticism, which is described as “Profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called [antitheseis tes pseudonomou gnoseos — the antitheses of so-called Gnosis] which some professing have erred concerning the faith”. Most probably St. Paul’s use of the terms pleroma, the æon of this world, the archon of the power of the air, in Ephesians and Colossians, was suggested by the abuse of these terms by the Gnostics. Other allusions to Gnosticism in the New Testament are possible, but cannot be proven, such as Titus 3:9; 1 Timothy 4:3; 1 John 4:1-3.

 

[XuDan]

What is this supposed to mean? That I’ve been exposed as not having taken the bait before? I’m sure I’ll trot this quote out again in the future and won’t take the bait then either. Being challenged repeatedly to provide original sources used by the professor to come to his conclusions does not diminish his message. Nothing is preventing you and others from doing the years of study needed to disprove the good professor and reporting back to the good folks at CAF.

So it’s that you’re unwilling. Have fun with your “secret knowledge.”

 

[Arandur]

Bingo. The only thing the LDS church is a restoration of is Gnosticism.

This may seem harsh or uncharitable, but I think this statement is a bit of an insult to Gnosticism. Gnosticism, as I understand it, had more philosophical consistency to it. And while there were many variations, only a few of the most common elements are really picked up by Smith – the beliefs in secret knowledge (and inner circles, then, of “revelation” and authority therefrom), and the idealizing of the spirit over the flesh – except that Smith slips up on that point occasionally.

Also, I wouldn’t want people to be mislead to think that Mormonism is the return of Gnosticism – and therefore maybe there were those who held the same beliefs in the early Christian years, just under the banner of Gnosticism.

Instead, the distinctive doctrines of Mormonism can’t be found, by and large, but Gnosticism had its own set of ideas.

And yes, the Gnostic hatred of the flesh would seem to solidly preclude the idea of Transubstantiation. Any Gnostic worth his salt would hate that idea and think it quite the opposite of what should be happening. Gnostic “Christians” tried to deny the Incarnation any way they could, and looked with horror upon the idea of actually getting stuck back in a body at the Resurrection.

 

[Stephen168]

Isn’t there a proverb or something about not throwing gnostic stones when living in a gnostic glass house? Theologian Edwin Hatch said the following about the doctrine of transubstantiation:

"it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ. The fact that they were so regarded is found in Justin Martyr.“ Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 308.

What is this supposed to mean? That I’ve been exposed as not having taken the bait before? I’m sure I’ll trot this quote out again in the future and won’t take the bait then either. Being challenged repeatedly to provide original sources used by the professor to come to his conclusions does not diminish his message. Nothing is preventing you and others from doing the years of study needed to disprove the good professor and reporting back to the good folks at CAF.

Edwin Hatch was a a puritan type who lived when the Catholic Church was reestablishing itself in England after being outlawed for centuries. Meaning he was very anti-Catholic and his writings show it. It was also during this period of time the Joseph Smith invented the Mormon Church.

It seems to have been a time of anti-rational thinking (philosophy) which Mormons still teach today. I can understand why Mormon’s like to quote 19th century men like Edwin Hatch to support their 21st century teachings.

Edwin Hatch seems to be trying to link the biblical belief that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ to Justin Martyr who was a philosopher. The problem with Edwin’s claim is the the belief is in the New Testament and Ignatius explained it the same way years before Justin Martyr.

I think Mormons are just cherry picking Edwin Hatch because much of what he has to say would be against current Mormon teaching also; like secret temple rituals and the requirement for special “authority” to perform a baptism.

 

[zaffiroborant]

This is what I found from Hatch and his reference to Martyr, I, don’t think JM said what Hatch said.

308 X. THE INFLUENCE OF THE MYSTERIES

of the Gnostic societies or associations, had been on the
practices and ceremonies of the Church. 1

But beyond matters of practice, it is among the
Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt
to realize the change of the elements to the material
body and blood of Christ. The fact that they were so
regarded is found in Justin Martyr. 2 But at the same
time, that the change was not vividly realized, is proved
by the fact that, instead of being regarded as too awful
for men to touch, the elements were taken by the com
municants to their homes and carried about with them
on their travels. But we read of Marcus that in his
realistic conception of the Eucharistic service the white

1 For the Eastern custom, see Cyril Hier. Catech. Myst. ii. 3, 4,
p. 312 : the candidate is anointed all over before baptism with exor
cised oil, which, by invocation of God and prayer, purifies from the
burning traces of sin, but also puts to flight the invisible powers of
the evil one. Cf. Ayiost. Const, vii. 22, 41, iii. 15, 16; the Coptic,
Constitutions, c. 46 (ed. Tattam), cf. Boetticher s Gr. translation in
Bimsen s Anal. Ante-Nic. ii. 467; Clem. Recog. 3. 67; Chrys. Horn.
6. 4, in Ep. ad Col. xi. 342, aAet^erai coWc/D ot a^A^rcu et s orraStov
e/x/^o-ojuevoi, here also before baptism and all over ; Dionys. Areop.
Eccles. Hier. 2. 7 ; Basil, de Spir. Sand. 66, vol. iv. 55. For earlier
Western as distinct from Eastern thought on the subject, cf. Tert. de
bapt. 6 and 7 ; de resurr. carnis. 8 ; adv. Marc. i. 1 4 ; Cyprian, Ep.
70. For the later Western usage, introduced from the East, see Cone.
Rom. 402, c. 8, ed. Bruns. pt. ii. 278 ; Or do 6, ad fac. Catech. in
Martene, de ant. eccl. rit. i. p. 17; Theodulfus Aurel. deord. bapt. 10;
unction of the region of the heart before and behind, symbolizing the
Holy Spirit s unction with a view to both prosperity and adversity
(Sirmond, vol. ii. 686); Isid. Hisp. de off. eccl. 2. 21 ; Catechumens
exorcizantur, sales accipiunt et unguntur, the salt being made ut eorum
yustu condimentum sapitntice pp.rcipiant, neque desipiant a sapore Christi
(Migne, Ixxxiii. col. 814, 815); Cses. Arelat. serm. 22.

2 Apol 1. 66.

UPON CHRISTIAN USAGES. 309

wine actually turned to the colour of blood before the
eyes of the communicants. 1

Thus the whole conception of Christian worship was
changed. 2 But it was changed by the influence upon
Christian worship of the contemporary worship of the
mysteries and the. concurrent cults. The tendency to
an elaborate ceremonial which had produced the magni
ficence of those mysteries and cults, and which had
combined with the love of a purer faith and the tendency
towards fellowship, was based upon a tendency of human
nature which was not crushed by Christianity. It rose
to a new life, and though it lives only by a survival, it
lives that new life still. In the splendid ceremonial of
Eastern and Western worship, in the blaze of lights, in
the separation of the central point of the rite from com
mon view, in the procession of torch-bearers chanting
their sacred hymns there is the survival, and in some
cases the galvanized survival, of what I cannot find it in
my heart to call a pagan ceremonial ; because though it
was the expression of a less enlightened faith, yet it was
offered to God from a heart that was not less earnest in
its search for God and in its effort after holiness than
our own.

1 ap. Hipp. 6. 39.

2 Tert. ad Scop. 2, holds that sacrifice may consist of simple prayer.

66. This food we call Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate by God’s word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.819 For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, thus handed down what was commanded them: that Jesus, taking bread and having given thanks, said, “Do this for my memorial, this is my body”; and likewise taking the cup and giving thanks he said, “This is my blood”; and gave it to them alone.820 This also the wicked
287
demons in imitation handed down as something to be done in the mysteries of Mithra; for bread and a cup of water are brought out in their secret rites of initiation, with certain invocations which you either know or can learn.

You can read Hatch’s The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church…Here
And all of Justin Martyr’s First Aplogy…Here

 

[Tarquin]

… Being challenged repeatedly to provide original sources used by the professor to come to his conclusions does not diminish his message.

Respectuflly, it does do so. An assertion without evidence or support is just blathering. Truth is accompanied by evidence of some sort.

Surely Hatch gave some details about the evidence he found that “it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ” along with details about when that process “appears for the first time” among Christians (non-Gnostics). If he gave the instances where he found the first appearance among the Gnostics, and the instance where he found the first appearance among the non-Gnostic Christians, that can be checked by readers, and studied and responded to.

Nothing is preventing you and others from doing the years of study needed to disprove the good professor and reporting back to the good folks at CAF.

No, of course not. Not generally speaking. However, you were not asked to disprove him, and it is possible that any here who might wish to disagree with him would at least need to know what it is they are disagreeing with. The simple assertion requires some substantiation - evidence, examples, citations. You were asked for those. Surely you can provide those. Then, anyone who wishes to “disprove” Hatch can address the specifics of a claim rather than a bold, unsubstantiated statement.

You do not need to do years of study on this single book you chose to quote from to support your position. In this particular book that convinced you Hatch had arrived at a correct conclusion, what was the evidence he gave that did convince you his conclusion was correct - that it was first among the Gnostics rather than in the traditional Church that “an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ”?