A paradox in "The Apostasy"

[jas84173]

I’ve come to realize a huge paradox in the apostasy that some groups such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed occurred following the death of the last Apostle John. I have tried asking and they can’t even seem to grasp the question or answer it with riddles that make no sense.

The paradox goes like this. If there was an apostasy, and the Church lost its priestly authority on earth, why in that case should any of these groups accept the Canon of the New Testament which was not formally set until 397 A.D.? Prior to this there was some consensus of which books were Inspired and most of the books in our New Testament were always accepted as genuine. But not all. Some books barely made the Canon of the New Testament and some books barely missed it. Eusebius in his Church History calls them “The antilegomena” or “disputed writings” were widely read in the Early Church and included the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache. The term “disputed” should therefore not be misunderstood to mean “false” or “heretical.” There was disagreement in the Early Church on whether or not the respective texts deserved canonical status.

Many other “texts” floated around but were never taken as genuine or seriously. The list is vast and anyone who knows New Testament Apocrypha knows that.

So, even if I were to agree with this apostasy theory, why then would I agree on the Canon of scripture the Church, trinitarian formula, chose in the late fourth century? If there was an apostasy wouldn’t they be wrong? How could they possibly have gotten it right? I’d actually have more respect for these groups who claim there was an apostasy if they went back and used a different list for the New Testament. It’s a paradox. If you believe the New Testament Canon which all of these groups do use , it seems they accept the Churches authority to defining what was the inspired word of God. This is a paradox and I am shocked no-one seems to point this out.

 

[ffg]

I’d guess this is a common point of discussion.

I brought this up with the last missionaries that swung by.

One them was considering the discussion, on the follow-up visit they brought ‘ex-catholic’ backup and didn’t want to talk unless I was ‘open’ to their POV.

At which point I had to ask them what was more open, thinking, discussing and hashing things out, or accepting blindly?

I think I’m off the list.

Or on an ‘avoid’ list now.

 

[adf417]

I’ve tried to have this same conversation before with JWs and all i get is headaches and :hypno:. For them to realize, or anyone for that matter, that humans had anything to do with a decision of the canon would mean they must question their faith. What they dont realize is the outcome is not as bad as what they have been duped into believing.

I say if the Catholic Church went apostate then we should all make every effort to burn every single copy of the 27 book NT in the world.

Peace!!!

 

[Reepicheep]

They aren’t there to discuss. They are there to convert you.

 

[venite_adoremus]

Their minds are made up. Don’t confuse them with facts.

 

[CourtingTex]

I’ve come to realize a huge paradox in the apostasy that some groups such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed occurred following the death of the last Apostle John. I have tried asking and they can’t even seem to grasp the question or answer it with riddles that make no sense.

The paradox goes like this. If there was an apostasy, and the Church lost its priestly authority on earth, why in that case should any of these groups accept the Canon of the New Testament which was not formally set until 397 A.D.? Prior to this there was some consensus of which books were Inspired and most of the books in our New Testament were always accepted as genuine. But not all. Some books barely made the Canon of the New Testament and some books barely missed it. Eusebius in his Church History calls them “The antilegomena” or “disputed writings” were widely read in the Early Church and included the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache. The term “disputed” should therefore not be misunderstood to mean “false” or “heretical.” There was disagreement in the Early Church on whether or not the respective texts deserved canonical status.

Many other “texts” floated around but were never taken as genuine or seriously. The list is vast and anyone who knows New Testament Apocrypha knows that.

So, even if I were to agree with this apostasy theory, why then would I agree on the Canon of scripture the Church, trinitarian formula, chose in the late fourth century? If there was an apostasy wouldn’t they be wrong? How could they possibly have gotten it right? I’d actually have more respect for these groups who claim there was an apostasy if they went back and used a different list for the New Testament. It’s a paradox. If you believe the New Testament Canon which all of these groups do use , it seems they accept the Churches authority to defining what was the inspired word of God. This is a paradox and I am shocked no-one seems to point this out.

The Apostasy began when the church organized by Jesus Christ did not function as he had created it to do so and in particular, no longer had authorized servants to advance the work of his church.

I submit that the main reason Joseph Smith went into the woods near his home in the spring 1820 was to find out which of the existing churches, including Catholicism, he should join.

Of course, he was told to join none of them, because they drew near to God and Christ with their lips, yet their hearts were far from them, teaching the commandments of men. The Apostasy clearly occurred centuries earlier, requiring a restoration (bringing back that structure that Christ had when he organized his church with apostles and prophets).

Further ---- Joseph Smith as I have noted did not go into the woods near his home in the spring of 1820 to create a church of his own making, despite how our critics firmly make clear in their false statements and views.

For the Catholics who contend the Apostasy did not occur, mainly on their view, that the gates had not prevailed on his church and the church is built on Peter ------answer this with a reply that is anything than the usual reply, making clear the Protestants have no footing to stand on because they broke from Catholicism.

The restored church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was necessary because the original church began by Jesus Christ himself years after his death had become corrupted and did not have the proper priesthood authority, which is important when acting in the name of God.

I am not arrogant in having a conviction of the truth of my church. That conviction came from the Holy Ghost.

 

[adf417]

I am not arrogant in having a conviction of the truth of my church. That conviction came from the Holy Ghost.

Greetings CourtingTex,

I asked you this question on another thread but there was no answer so allow me to ask here - What do you tell someone who says the same thing you stated above but becomes somtheing other than an LDS?

Peace!!!

 

[CourtingTex]

Greetings CourtingTex,

I asked you this question on another thread but there was no answer so allow me to ask here - What do you tell someone who says the same thing you stated above but becomes somtheing other than an LDS?

Peace!!!

I am happy they are whatever their faith maybe, including Catholics. Being a former Catholic, I am not longer loyal, yet I do not hate Catholics as people to the degree some do with a lot of hatred. That is not me

People can believe in Christ or nothing at all.

The Holy Ghost or lack of it in one’s life will have folks decide what road they are on and I will respect that of whomever.

 

[adf417]

I am happy they are whatever their faith maybe, including Catholics. Being a former Catholic, I am not longer loyal, yet I do not hate Catholics as people to the degree some do with a lot of hatred. That is not me

People can believe in Christ or nothing at all.

The Holy Ghost or lack of it in one’s life will have folks decide what road they are on and I will respect that of whomever.

Not sure but it sounds like you are saying th Holy Spirit can give different people different truths. If the HS told you the LDS church is the true church and the HS tells my brother the Espicapal church is the true church, how can they both be correct or how do we know either of you were in fact listening to the HS?

Peace!!!

 

[CourtingTex]

Not sure but it sounds like you are saying th Holy Spirit can give different people different truths. If the HS told you the LDS church is the true church and the HS tells my brother the Espicapal church is the true church, how can they both be correct or how do we know either of you were in fact listening to the HS?

Peace!!!

That is personal with each person. I know from my own experience, that after reading the Book of Mormon, being taught other gospel principles (beyond the Word of Wisdom, which I understood from LDS friends I had before I began my investigation of the church), studying and praying for answers to questions I had years ago the Holy Ghost confirmed to me what I wanted to know, being a Catholic at that time.

Confirmation through the Holy Ghost will be different for each person.

 

[jas84173]

That is personal with each person. I know from my own experience, that after reading the Book of Mormon, being taught other gospel principles (beyond the Word of Wisdom, which I understood from LDS friends I had before I began my investigation of the church), studying and praying for answers to questions I had years ago the Holy Ghost confirmed to me what I wanted to know, being a Catholic at that time.

Confirmation through the Holy Ghost will be different for each person.

So don’t lack any reason just if it feels good you agree with it. Okay I guess I’m a communist in that case because when I read the "Communist Manifesto " In college it made me feel great . Doesn’t mean I agree with.

Your answer didn’t answer the original post either. Why do you use a New Testament decided by the third council of Hyppo in 397 A.D.? Surely they couldn’t have been correct. If I believed in the apostasy I wouldn’tbelieve it was correct.

An apostasy did happen. In Mormonism. When 11 out of the 13 witnesses left the Church. Even the guy who helped Joseph Smith in his fraud, Oliver something left for a while. As far as I’m concerned an apostasy happened right there. Where the apostlesof Christ died for their Faith, the original members of your church left and was succeeded by men like Brigham Young who weren’t there in the beginning. That’s an apostasy!!

 

[CourtingTex]

So don’t lack any reason just if it feels good you agree with it. Okay I guess I’m a communist in that case because when I read the "Communist Manifesto " In college it made me feel great . Doesn’t mean I agree with.

Your answer didn’t answer the original post either. Why do you use a New Testament decided by the third council of Hyppo in 397 A.D.? Surely they couldn’t have been correct. If I believed in the apostasy I wouldn’tbelieve it was correct.

An apostasy did happen. In Mormonism. When 11 out of the 13 witnesses left the Church. Even the guy who helped Joseph Smith in his fraud, Oliver something left for a while. As far as I’m concerned an apostasy happened right there. Where the apostlesof Christ died for their Faith, the original members of your church left and was succeeded by men like Brigham Young who weren’t there in the beginning. That’s an apostasy!!

Folks can believe whatever they choose.

The issue of some of the witnesses, does not in my mind dismiss their chief purpose ---- they held in their hands the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated.

I have no concerns about the alleged acts that some folks claim about Joseph Smith — I have no credible evidence. He was the prophet of the Restoration. That is important to me.

 

[jas84173]

Folks can believe whatever they choose.

The issue of some of the witnesses, does not in my mind dismiss their chief purpose ---- they held in their hands the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated.

I have no concerns about the alleged acts that some folks claim about Joseph Smith — I have no credible evidence. He was the prophet of the Restoration. That is important to me.

It feels like scripture because it Is! Stolen! Look at these from the Deuterocanonical books or apocrypha which were in the 1611 KJV .

Deuterocanonical Book of Mormon (1830)
“We will assay to abridge in one volume… labouring to follow the rules of an abridgment… But to use brevity … is to be granted to him that will make an abridgement.” (2 Maccabees 2:25-31) “I make an abridgement of the record … after I have abridged the record… I had made an abridgement from the plates of Nephi… I write a small abridgement.” (1 Nephi 1:17, Words of Mormon 3, 5:9)
“They commanded that this writing should be put in tables of brass, and that they should be set … in a conspicuous place; Also that the copies thereof should be laid up in the treasury” (1 Maccabees 14:48-49) “And I commanded him … that he should go with me into the treasury … I also spake unto him that I should carry the engravings, which were upon the plates of brass” (1 Nephi 4:20,24)
“Then the king, in closing the place, made it holy … many men call it Nephi”. (2 Maccabees 1:34,36) “And my people would that we should call the name of the place Nephi; wherefore we did call it Nephi”. (2 Nephi 5:8)
“And it came to pass … I dreamed a dream by night” (2 Esdras 13:1) “And it came to pass … Behold, I have dreamed a dream” (1 Nephi 8:2)

 

[CourtingTex]

It feels like scripture because it Is! Stolen! Look at these from the Deuterocanonical books or apocrypha which were in the 1611 KJV .

Deuterocanonical Book of Mormon (1830)
“We will assay to abridge in one volume… labouring to follow the rules of an abridgment… But to use brevity … is to be granted to him that will make an abridgement.” (2 Maccabees 2:25-31) “I make an abridgement of the record … after I have abridged the record… I had made an abridgement from the plates of Nephi… I write a small abridgement.” (1 Nephi 1:17, Words of Mormon 3, 5:9)
“They commanded that this writing should be put in tables of brass, and that they should be set … in a conspicuous place; Also that the copies thereof should be laid up in the treasury” (1 Maccabees 14:48-49) “And I commanded him … that he should go with me into the treasury … I also spake unto him that I should carry the engravings, which were upon the plates of brass” (1 Nephi 4:20,24)
“Then the king, in closing the place, made it holy … many men call it Nephi”. (2 Maccabees 1:34,36) “And my people would that we should call the name of the place Nephi; wherefore we did call it Nephi”. (2 Nephi 5:8)
“And it came to pass … I dreamed a dream by night” (2 Esdras 13:1) “And it came to pass … Behold, I have dreamed a dream” (1 Nephi 8:2)

The purpose here is what regarding the Book of Mormon? The latest assault against another testament of Jesus Christ?

 

[adf417]

That is personal with each person. I know from my own experience, that after reading the Book of Mormon, being taught other gospel principles (beyond the Word of Wisdom, which I understood from LDS friends I had before I began my investigation of the church), studying and praying for answers to questions I had years ago the Holy Ghost confirmed to me what I wanted to know, being a Catholic at that time.

Confirmation through the Holy Ghost will be different for each person.

Thank you for your reply. Yes it is personal but surley you agree there can’t be two different right answers to the same question, in this case being two different churches expousing different truths. Wouldn’t you agree that least one of you, maybe both, has it wrong?

Peace!!!

 

[CourtingTex]

Thank you for your reply. Yes it is personal but surley you agree there can’t be two different right answers to the same question, in this case being two different churches expousing different truths. Wouldn’t you agree that least one of you, maybe both, has it wrong?

Peace!!!

My church and the missionaries are revealing the truth to the world, if they are interested in learning about it.

Now, I recognize the Catholics will say that is not the case ---- they have always had the truth so no need for another source to receive it ---- so how do they explain the answer that Joseph Smith was given when he went into the woods near his home to pray in the spring of 1820 (not to join any of the existing churches, including the Catholic church) from Jesus Christ?

The Holy Ghost confirmed this reality, the apostasy and brought happiness to me that I did not experience from Catholicism.

 

[adf417]

My church and the missionaries are revealing the truth to the world, if they are interested in learning about it.

Now, I recognize the Catholics will say that is not the case ---- they have always had the truth so no need for another source to receive it ---- so how do they explain the answer that Joseph Smith was given when he went into the woods near his home to pray in the spring of 1820 (not to join any of the existing churches, including the Catholic church) from Jesus Christ?

The Holy Ghost confirmed this reality, the apostasy and brought happiness to me that I did not experience from Catholicism./QUOTE]

Wait! You just did it again. So many non-LDS say the same exact thing and do not end up LDS.

Before we move on to your question about Joseph Smith, please, I beg you, answer the previous question - "wouldn’t you agree that at least one of you, maybe both, has it wrong?

Peace!!!

 

[CourtingTex]

CourtingTex;14873759:

My church and the missionaries are revealing the truth to the world, if they are interested in learning about it.

Now, I recognize the Catholics will say that is not the case ---- they have always had the truth so no need for another source to receive it ---- so how do they explain the answer that Joseph Smith was given when he went into the woods near his home to pray in the spring of 1820 (not to join any of the existing churches, including the Catholic church) from Jesus Christ?

The Holy Ghost confirmed this reality, the apostasy and brought happiness to me that I did not experience from Catholicism.

/QUOTE]

Wait! You just did it again. So many non-LDS say the same exact thing and do not end up LDS.

Before we move on to your question about Joseph Smith, please, I beg you, answer the previous question - "wouldn’t you agree that at least one of you, maybe both, has it wrong?

Peace!!!

I do not have it wrong. Someone else, I related how it probably was for them — of course I am not someone else or in their head.

Why some do not join my church — my guess they did not receive a confirmation through the Holy Ghost, the missionaries were nice and all, yet their loyalty rested elsewhere, particular Catholics who again and again and again, I read threads on the forums here where they came to their front door, they were allowed to come in (I find that interesting) — if Catholics had a conviction of what they profess, why would allow my church’s missionaries in at all?

 

[jas84173]

My church and the missionaries are revealing the truth to the world, if they are interested in learning about it.

Now, I recognize the Catholics will say that is not the case ---- they have always had the truth so no need for another source to receive it ---- so how do they explain the answer that Joseph Smith was given when he went into the woods near his home to pray in the spring of 1820 (not to join any of the existing churches, including the Catholic church) from Jesus Christ?

The Holy Ghost confirmed this reality, the apostasy and brought happiness to me that I did not experience from Catholicism.

Really? My girlfriend was a Mormon growing up and left and is now Catholic and she says it’s all a big sham. She was a missionary too. I’ll go with her.

 

[adf417]

adf417;14873768:

I do not have it wrong. Someone else, I related how it probably was for them — of course I am not someone else or in their head.

Why some do not join my church — **my guess they did not receive a confirmation through the Holy Ghost, **

the missionaries were nice and all, yet their loyalty rested elsewhere, particular Catholics who again and again and again, I read threads on the forums here where they came to their front door, they were allowed to come in (I find that interesting) — if Catholics had a conviction of what they profess, why would allow my church’s missionaries in at all?

…and you continue to spout exactly what every person i have posed this question to spouts and they are all of differing beliefs, hmmmmm!!! Im not wrong, they must be, its not me…

Untill you have a tangible answer to this conundrum you might be better off just stating it that way - that maybe i have it right and everybody has it wrong or just maybe i have it wrong, because you both cant have it right and there is no more reason why someone should believe you have the HS any more than the next person.

Peace!!!