Dave Bartosiewicz (former Catholic; former LDS; former Evangelical; currently Eastern Orthodox [who wants to take bets on what his next religion will be?]) has a new video where he attempts to critique Latter-day Saint theology and Scripture:
Quick Nugget Series: Mormons teach Jesus came many times
Bartosiewicz argues that, as Jesus appeared the Nephites in the Book of Mormon, to Joseph Smith in 1820 in the First Vision (as well as other appearances in this Dispensation, such as Jesus appearing to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple [see D&C 110]), this is inconsistent with the New Testament, such as Acts 1:10 and Heb 9:28.
In Bartosiewicz's perspective, these texts teach that, after the ascension, the very next time Jesus would appear on the earth it would be his Second Coming (read: his parousia, coming in glory), and ergo, the Book of Mormon and early LDS history is contradicted by New Testament eschatology. Let us examine this in detail.
Bartosiewicz vs. Eastern Orthodox Eucharistic Theology
Quick Nugget Series: Mormons teach Jesus came many times
Bartosiewicz argues that, as Jesus appeared the Nephites in the Book of Mormon, to Joseph Smith in 1820 in the First Vision (as well as other appearances in this Dispensation, such as Jesus appearing to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple [see D&C 110]), this is inconsistent with the New Testament, such as Acts 1:10 and Heb 9:28.
In Bartosiewicz's perspective, these texts teach that, after the ascension, the very next time Jesus would appear on the earth it would be his Second Coming (read: his parousia, coming in glory), and ergo, the Book of Mormon and early LDS history is contradicted by New Testament eschatology. Let us examine this in detail.
Bartosiewicz vs. Eastern Orthodox Eucharistic Theology
Firstly, it should be noted that taking the absolutist view of these texts that he does, it would result in a contradiction of his Eastern Orthodox theology. In EO Eucharistic theology, when consecration happens (at the epiclesis), the totality of Jesus (body, blood, soul, and divinity) is rendered substantially present by the EO priest. Furthermore, any wafer/host that is not consumed during the celebration of the Eucharist continues to remain the whole, substantial Jesus (the same as Catholic theology but contra the Lutheran view that the “Real Presence” ceases outside the celebration of the Lord’s Supper). So, in effect, Jesus is rendered present, each and every day, substantially, in EO Churches worldwide, and is substantially present in receptacles such as Tabernacles in thousands of EO Churches worldwide, too. That being the case, Dave will have to tell us how many millions of times the EO Church has caused Jesus to return to the earth without any of them being the “Second Coming”?
Lest anyone think I am misrepresenting EO Eucharistic theology, the following is an EO priest and theologian discussing EO Eucharistic theology (viz. that it is a propitiatory sacrifice and Jesus is substantially present, similar to Roman Catholic theology, albeit without the later metaphysical terminology of Transubstantiation, accidents, and substance):
The Elements of Bread and Wine are “changed” into the Body and Blood of Christ. This sanctification of the Elements is called change, transelementation, and depends mainly on the meaning of the words of Scripture: “This is my body”, and “this is my blood”. These words of Christ do not mean “my body” is present in the Bread, and “my blood” is present in the Wine. In reality the Elements of Bread and Wine become in substance the very Body and very Blood of Christ These words of Christ signify the actual “change” of the Elements rather than the co-existence of visible and invisible parts . . . The institution of the Holy Eucharist as Sacrifice took place on the Cross. Christ is the Sacrificer and the Sacrifice, for He offered His very Body and Blood to God the Father for the remission of the sins of the world. Christ instituted Holy Eucharist as Sacrifice in the two Elements, bread and wine, presenting explicitly the mystic separation of the Body from the Blood. This institution manifests Holy Eucharist as Sacrifice, for “Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat: this is my body’. and he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for may for the forgiveness of sins’”, Mt. 26:26-28. These words of Christ were spoken in the present tense and declare that this Sacrifice is ever-present—the bloodless Crucified-sacrifice . . . This is the very belief of the Church from the very beginning and is verified by an Ecumenical Synod: “The lamb of God is placed on the Holy Table, He Who lifted the sin of the world and is offered by the officiators of God as blood sacrifice” . . . The institution of the Holy Eucharist as the remembrance of the Crucified-Sacrifice is a re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. However, it is not merely a reflection of the historical fact; it is a real Sacrifice inasmuch as Christ is present in the Eucharist. Both the Sacrificer and the victim is Christ Himself, on the Cross and in the Holy Eucharist. The former wrought the salvation of man; the latter, wrought man’s personal appropriation. The Sacrifice of the Eucharist is offered in remembrance of the Passion of Christ, and bears all the elements of every sacrifice: victim, sacrificer, purpose, destruction or change of what is offered. The Sacrifice in the Eucharist is a re-enactment of the Sacrifice on the Cross inasmuch as Christ is present in the Eucharist, accomplishing on earth what He accomplishes in heaven. The Eucharist brings forth the same fruits as the Cross, the source of divine Grace and all spiritual gifts. This Sacrifice, which is the propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead, is simultaneously a sacrifice of praise and intercession. (Rev. George Mastrantonis, A New-Style Catechism on the Eastern Orthodox Faith for Adults [St. Louis, Miss.: The OLogos Mission, 1969], 123-24, 127-28, 128-29; emphasis in original)
The New Testament and multiple "comings" of Jesus post-ascension
The New Testament itself teaches that, even after the ascension (Acts 1:10-11; cf. Acts 3:19-21), Jesus descended from heaven to earth. One example would be Acts 23:11 where Christ descended from heaven to stand next to Paul and to comfort him:
And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
That such an appearance was a physical appearance, not a visionary, ephemeral experience by Paul or that Jesus’ “standing” is a metaphor can be seen in the following scholarly commentaries:
11. The following night the Lord stood at Paul’s side and said, “Keep up your courage! In a dream during the night after his being returned to Roman custody, Paul again sees the risen Kyrios (recall 18:9), who appears to him and encourages him in his trial. The Lord stands by him, as did Ananias (22:13), as a measure of support. (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 31; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1998], 730)
Paul’s worst apprehensions of what might happen to him at Jerusalem looked like being fulfilled. Where now were his plans for carrying the gospel to the far west, and visiting Rome on the way? He might well have been dejected and despondent after the events of these two days. But on the night following the abortive appearance before the Sanhedrin, the risen Lord appeared to him as He had done at critical moments before, and bade him cheer up: he had borne witness to Him in Jerusalem (a reference this, no doubt, to this speech at the top of the steps to the crowd in the temple court), and he would live to bear witness similarly in Rome. This assurance meant much to Paul during the delays and anxieties of the next two years, and goes far to account for the cam and dignified bearing which seemed to mark him out as a master of events rather than their victim. (F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts [The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977], 455)
11) Up to this time Paul had had only the divine intimation that he would be bound (a prisoner) and placed into the hands of Gentiles in Jerusalem, and this prophecy had been fulfilled. Now further light falls on his path.
Now on the following night the Lord, having stepped up to him, said: Continue to be of good cheer! For as thou didst testify the things concerning me in Jerusalem, so it is necessary for thee to testify also in Rome.
The present imperative need not imply that Paul was downhearted. It was not because “Paul never needed Jesus more than now” that the Lord appeared to him, ἐπιστάς, came suddenly upon him. This was only the second night of his confinement, and he was the last man to lose courage quickly. The Lord is now adding more light of prophecy and doing so not through others but in his own person. The imperative θάρσει, “continue to be of good cheer (comfort, courage),” looks forward to the long imprisonment ahead of Paul. A spirit, as full of energy as his, might not hold up under such long inactivity as the weary months dragged along, and the clouds did not once lift. The Lord is fortifying him in advance for that. He would very often lean on what the Lord himself now reveals to him. (Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (p. 940). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.)
In this video, Bartosiewicz proves, not a problem with Latter-day Saint theology and Scripture, but his ignorance of the Bible and even his new-found EO theology.
For previous responses to Bartosiewicz, see the listing of articles at: