An EV comments on the ongoing struggle between Catholics and LDS.

[SteveVH]

I disagree. We have our own formula for baptism. That fact that we don’t follow your formula simply means we are not Catholic. By your deinition the Apostle Paul would not be a Christian since your definition of the Trinity did not exist until 325 AD.

Not true. Doctrines were not invented at the the Church councils. They were more clearly defined in order to refute heretical notions that were becoming widespread. They more clearly defined what had already been believed by the Church since the beginning. The ECF’s writings testify to the fact that the Trinitarian formula was already in place prior to 325 AD. I will be happy to document this for you when I have a little more time, if you wish. We certainly have the command of Jesus to “go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. That was in 33 AD. There was nothing unclear or ambiguous about this command. Why would you think the early Church would not follow it?

 

[dianaiad]

Not true. Doctrines were not invented at the the Church councils.

Well, that is the question, isn’t it? Our claim is that they, well…were.

They were more clearly defined in order to refute heretical notions that were becoming widespread.

Our position is that they were the heretical notions…but since the leaders of that time believed them, they won out. Hence the ‘notion’ we have of a great apostasy.

They more clearly defined what had already been believed by the Church since the beginning.

Except that there isn’t anything that shows that ‘they’ were, Steve.

The ECF’s writings testify to the fact that the Trinitarian formula was already in place prior to 325 AD. I will be happy to document this for you when I have a little more time, if you wish.

I, personally, would love to see such documentation…from before the death of the last of the original apostles. That is the point at which everybody agrees that public revelation ceased. I pick that point because a: it is a point of agreement, and b: since public revelation ceased, any new, different, or variations upon old doctrine would HAVE to be an invention of man. I don’t demand strictly biblical writings; apocryphal work will do–but it must be dated to BEFORE everybody agrees that public revelation ceased. That would be pre 70-90 AD, I believe.

We certainly have the command of Jesus to “go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. That was in 33 AD. There was nothing unclear or ambiguous about this command. Why would you think the early Church would not follow it?

The very early church did. So did the later church, in more or less the fashion Jesus had in mind. The question is…were they teaching the same gospel Jesus taught while doing so?

In a very basic sense, yes…but in some very important senses, we claim—nope.

 

[SteveVH]

Well, that is the question, isn’t it? Our claim is that they, well…were.

Claim what you want Diana, but that is all you have, a claim.

Our position is that they were the heretical notions…but since the leaders of that time believed them, they won out. Hence the ‘notion’ we have of a great apostasy.

We’ve covered this ground several times. Again you make the claim with no evidence to back it up. You can show no doctrines in place in the early Church that can be shown to have changed after the death of the last Apostle, nothing. Please give me a doctrine found in Sacred Scripture (the Bible, not BoM) or in Tradition that was later changed by the Catholic Church and please base this on some type of evidence, not just a claim.

Except that there isn’t anything that shows that ‘they’ were, Steve.

I, personally, would love to see such documentation…from before the death of the last of the original apostles. That is the point at which everybody agrees that public revelation ceased. I pick that point because a: it is a point of agreement, and b: since public revelation ceased, any new, different, or variations upon old doctrine would HAVE to be an invention of man. I don’t demand strictly biblical writings; apocryphal work will do–but it must be dated to BEFORE everybody agrees that public revelation ceased. That would be pre 70-90 AD, I believe.

Public revelation ceased because we received the fullness of revelation in the person of Jesus Christ. You already know that. This does not mean that God stopped communicating with His Church. Indeed, He does so on a daily basis. You will not accept the writings of the ECF’s because they wrote after the death of the last Apostle, even though they refer to beliefs which have always been in place. You are asking me to prove something that does not need to be proved. The fact that a belief is more clearly defined does not mean it is being invented. I realize that you must believe this in order to support your position but you have no real basis for that belief. You must show that we, at some point, did not follow the command of Jesus Christ to baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, which command was given in 33 AD. In addition, you would have to show that the doctrine of the Trinity was understood differently from apostolic to post-apostolic times.

The very early church did. So did the later church, in more or less the fashion Jesus had in mind. The question is…were they teaching the same gospel Jesus taught while doing so?

In a very basic sense, yes…but in some very important senses, we claim—nope.

Again, you"claim". Please provide evidence that the “later” Church did not teach the same gospel.

 

[mtolympus]

To believe in “the same biblical Christ” you must believe that Jesus is one in being with the Father because in John 10:30, Jesus says, “I and my Father are one.” The “one” means one in number, not just in purpose. If you believe in something different, then there is a serious flaw in your theology, since the Jesus you claim to believe in said the exact opposite of what you say you believe. Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6). So if Jesus says something it is the truth. So when Jesus relates the truth to you and you reject it in favor of something that is not the truth, then you have chosen to believe a lie. Simple. Now see John 8:44.

Jesus tells us exactly what he mean when he said “I and the Father are one.”

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 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 thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17:20-22)

“That they may be one, even as we are one” So, unless apostles were told to become one single being it is you that has a flaw in your theology. I don’t want to be rude but I guess this means that the rest of your paragraph alies to you, including John 8:44. You said it not me.

 

[SteveVH]

I, personally, would love to see such documentation…from before the death of the last of the original apostles. That is the point at which everybody agrees that public revelation ceased. I pick that point because a: it is a point of agreement, and b: since public revelation ceased, any new, different, or variations upon old doctrine would HAVE to be an invention of man. I don’t demand strictly biblical writings; apocryphal work will do–but it must be dated to BEFORE everybody agrees that public revelation ceased. That would be pre 70-90 AD, I believe.

I will give you quotes from some of the ECF’s that establish belief in the Trinity by the early Church. It is never spoke of as something new.

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
“O Lord God almighty… I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever” (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
“For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water” (First Apol., LXI).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. “In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever” (n. 7; PG 5.988). “We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.’ Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.” (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons. “The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: …one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all…’” (Against Heresies X.l)

**Tertullian **(160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. “We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation… [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity. “If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority… There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father” (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
“For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit.” (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
“Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification…” (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

 

[Todd520]

Thanks for the references Steve
Out of all the quotes, only one functionally supported the Catholic Trinity (3 persons, 1 Nature/Being) over the LDS veiw (3 persons, 3 beings)

I will give you quotes from some of the ECF’s that establish belief in the Trinity by the early Church.

**Tertullian **(160-215). They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

 

[mtolympus]

The Nicene Creed was not the beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity as Catholics know it. That doctrine began with Jesus Christ himself before he was even crucified, as evidenced by Scripture.To say otherwise is to call Jesus a liar, which he is not. What you misunderstand is the purpose of the Nicene Creed. Heresies had popped up which, like your religion, said that Jesus was someone or something different than who and what he said he was. The Creed was written out as a defense of the Faith against heresy, that all the Church would understand the Trinity, the central Mystery. Up until that time the Church had no need to have a creed. The need to combat heresy and misunderstanding meant the Creed was needed. So they wrote it all down. But just because they put pen to paper then does not mean that they did not believe it before. Your assertion holds no water. They believed it the whole time, and only had cause to write it down years later in order to defend the Faith. Refer to 1 Peter 3:15.

If you have your own baptismal formula, that is fine, since you are a completely different religion anyway, and not Christian. But you should not assert that you are Christian.

 

[mtolympus]

Even though I may not agree with your doctrine, I believe that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and sincerely tries to follow his teachings is a Christian. "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God."My dispute is only with those who arrogently decide for themself who is and who is not a Christian.

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. 28:19-20) Latter-day Saints follow these instructions of Jesus to the letter. I would like someone to show me something in the Nician Creed that clearifies these words of Jesus that makes Catholics Christians and Latter-day Saints non Christians.

 

[mtolympus]

Not true. Doctrines were not invented at the the Church councils. They were more clearly defined in order to refute heretical notions that were becoming widespread. They more clearly defined what had already been believed by the Church since the beginning. The ECF’s writings testify to the fact that the Trinitarian formula was already in place prior to 325 AD. I will be happy to document this for you when I have a little more time, if you wish. We certainly have the command of Jesus to “go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. That was in 33 AD. There was nothing unclear or ambiguous about this command. Why would you think the early Church would not follow it?

Of course the early church (33 AD) followed the intructions of Jesus found in Matthew 28 just as Latter-day Saint do today. So, what I want to know is what happened after 33 AD that makes Latter-day Saints non-Christians? But remember anything that happened after 33 AD that makes LDS non-Christian will also make the Apostle Paul a non-Christian.

 

[JHow]

If we use the bible as our common reference, most baptisms appear to have been done in the name of Jesus only:

• Acts 8:15-16: “Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)”
• Acts 10:48: And he [Peter] commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."
• Acts 19:4-5: “Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Some were done in the name of the Trinity: Matthew 28:19: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

**Net, Net, most ** early followers of Jesus were probably baptized in his name only.

How can you make a statement about the relative proportions of people baptised based on mentions in the NT? Are you giving the citations equal weight and trying to say that 75% used the “Jesus name only” and 25% were Trinitarian? You can’t possibly deduce from this how many were baptised under what formula, and that’s if you accept that the citations in Acts mean a “Jesus name only” forumla. And that’s assuming that you totally discount Mathew in which Christ is speaking.

 

[Todd520]

How can you make a statement about the relative proportions of people baptised based on mentions in the NT? Are you giving the citations equal weight and trying to say that 75% used the “Jesus name only” and 25% were Trinitarian? You can’t possibly deduce from this how many were baptised under what formula, and that’s if you accept that the citations in Acts mean a “Jesus name only” forumla. And that’s assuming that you totally discount Mathew in which Christ is speaking.

You are right, I was making a point about the inconsistency in the baptisimal formula but I don’t know how many were actually baptized soley in the name of Jesus, etc.

I do believe all christian denominations today follow the same formula (including LDS).

 

[PaulDupre]

How can you make a statement about the relative proportions of people baptised based on mentions in the NT? Are you giving the citations equal weight and trying to say that 75% used the “Jesus name only” and 25% were Trinitarian? You can’t possibly deduce from this how many were baptised under what formula, and that’s if you accept that the citations in Acts mean a “Jesus name only” forumla. And that’s assuming that you totally discount Mathew in which Christ is speaking.

In the Catholic Church, the Gospels are given preemminence, and the words of Jesus himself are more important than the words of any apostle.

Jesus said baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, so that’s what we do.

 

[SteveVH]

Of course the early church (33 AD) followed the intructions of Jesus found in Matthew 28 just as Latter-day Saint do today. So, what I want to know is what happened after 33 AD that makes Latter-day Saints non-Christians? But remember anything that happened after 33 AD that makes LDS non-Christian will also make the Apostle Paul a non-Christian.

First of all, the most basic principle of Christianity is that it is monotheistic. LDS is not monotheistic. You believe in more than one God; at a minimum, three Gods, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Your comment that "anything that happened after 33 AD that makes LDS non-Christian will also make the Apostle Paul a non-Christian." is nonsensical, at least to me.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point. Did Paul believe something different than his contemporaries in the Church? Did he believe LDS doctrine which didn’t even exist until roughly 150 years ago?

What happened after 33 AD that makes LDS non-Christian is that the LDS church created doctrines that conflict with the most basic doctrines which are recognized as “Christian” by the rest of the world. The LDS core doctrines concerning the nature of God, in fact, are so far removed from Christian doctrine that they have carved out their own niche in the world of religions. As stated before (maybe in another thread) the Catholic Church does not even consider LDS doctrine to be heretical. It is considered another religion altogether.

 

[absitinvidia]

Even though I may not agree with your doctrine, I believe that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and sincerely tries to follow his teachings is a Christian. "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God."My dispute is only with those who arrogently decide for themself who is and who is not a Christian.

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. 28:19-20) Latter-day Saints follow these instructions of Jesus to the letter. I would like someone to show me something in the Nician Creed that clearifies these words of Jesus that makes Catholics Christians and Latter-day Saints non Christians.

The definition of the Trinity, as explained in the Nicene Creed, and accepted by Christians the world over, is rejected by the LDS movement. The LDS movement has a misconseption regarding the Trinity, and therefore has a misconception of the very identity of Jesus Christ, the initiator of the sacrament. You believe the Trinity are three separate gods, when they are in reality one God. Therefore, declaring your faith in this triple godhead is not the same as declaring faith in the Holy Trinity. Using the verse you do in support of your claim means that you do not yet understand the full import of what it means to declare faith in Jesus Christ. If I tried to explain it, it would take an entire book at least. Scripture is replete with references to the Trinity being one God and not three. And it’s all easy to find and in plain English for people to understand. When taken as a whole, Scripture supports what we are telling you and absolutely defeats the LDS claim. The Nicene Creed put it together in one prayer so you can remember it and explain the Faith coherently. The Creed is not an invented doctrine, but a summary of what already existed.

Furthermore, you believe that this godhead and man are substantially the same. This is not so.

One of the four necessary components of a valid sacrament is proper Intent. Not only the recipient but the minister of the sacrament of baptism must intend that the recipient be baptized as the Church baptizes. But both the recipient and the minister in the case of LDS baptism intend something else, as evidenced by the belief declared in three separate gods, instead of the one God of Christianity. You cannot baptize in the name of God who says you shall have no other gods besides him if you believe in three gods. It doesn’t work that way.

I commend anyone who wants to follow the teachings of Jesus. And I believe that God looks kindly on those with a sincere heart who are misled, and will judge accordingly. However, technically speaking, the LDS baptism is invalid and does not make you Christians. And before you think this is arrogance on my part, this was a declaration by the Catholic Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, not just little ol’ me.

If you want to understand more about the Nicene Creed, the best source is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which has an entire section that discusses the Creed clause by clause to explain the Faith, along with a catechist, who can answer any questions.

If you truly want to be Christian, and I believe you do, then belief in at least the basics of the Faith is a prerequisite. I recommend, in light of your obvious desire to be Christian, that you seriously and legitimately reevaluate what the LDS have told you in light of authentic Christian teachings.

God has prepared a place for you in his Kingdom…come home.

 

[dianaiad]

Claim what you want Diana, but that is all you have, a claim.

Yes…and that’s all you have, as well. Both claims are based upon evidence that one believes…and the other does not.

We’ve covered this ground several times. Again you make the claim with no evidence to back it up.

I need no other ‘evidence’ than this: we both agree that public revelation ceased after the last of the original apostles died. My 'claim" is based upon the fact that there is absolutely nothing in scripture to show that it was supposed to…and in fact, it DID continue after the death and resurrection of Jesus, even to the replacement of Apostles, who received revelation and guidance for the churches over which they presided.

If it did continue, then it was supposed to. Since there is no evidence that it was ever supposed to stop (and certainly no reason for it to stop) then the fact that it DID stop is evidence enough that something went wrong.

All you have to do is show me some evidence that public revelation was supposed to stop at such and such a point, or for such and such a reason. I would prefer that you find something that isn’t hopelessly circular, like claiming that public revelation was to cease at the death and resurrection of Jesus, considering that most NT scripture is a direct result of revelation received after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

You can show no doctrines in place in the early Church that can be shown to have changed after the death of the last Apostle, nothing.

Sure I can; added stuff, certainly, like infant baptism, celibate priests, celibate nuns, papal infallibility, purgatory (and all the stuff that goes with it) the idea of prayers to Saints and to Mary for intercession…none of that is found in the NT, y’know. You DON’T have apostles, you certainly don’t have public revelation (which was an integral part of the very early church…)

Please give me a doctrine found in Sacred Scripture (the Bible, not BoM) or in Tradition that was later changed by the Catholic Church and please base this on some type of evidence, not just a claim.

Public revelation. You don’t have it. You guys even admit you don’t have it. The very early church did.

Public revelation ceased because we received the fullness of revelation in the person of Jesus Christ.

I asked you not to get all circular regarding this. We received that 'fullness of revelation in the Person of Jesus Christ," certainly…but then He went on to hand OUT public revelation, in spades. HE became the source of it; His walk on the shore with His apostles; His appearance to His mother at the tomb; His revelations and instructions to HIs apostles later: Paul’s experience on the Road to Damascus; Peter’s experiences in prison:what IS all that, if it’s not public revelation? We wouldn’t know anything about Jesus at all if His followers did not receive public revelation after His death and resurrection.

You already know that. This does not mean that God stopped communicating with His Church.

YOU guys claim that He did, Steve. Nobody is claiming that God stopped answering personal prayer, or that individual Christians were not guided by the Holy Spirit; that’s a very different discussion. We are not claiming anything that y’all do not also claim: public revelation ceased. Shoot, you acknowledge that, yourself, later in this post, with a very circular explanation of why it did.

Indeed, He does so on a daily basis.

You are claiming that public revelation continued?

You will not accept the writings of the ECF’s because they wrote after the death of the last Apostle, even though they refer to beliefs which have always been in place.

Ah, but they don’t.

You are asking me to prove something that does not need to be proved.

It does to me, if you want me to accept it.

The fact that a belief is more clearly defined does not mean it is being invented.

I’m sorry, but those things on the list I gave you were absolutely invented. There is no reference to, say…celibate nuns…in the NT. No reference to baptizing infants, or to prayer to Saints for intercession with God. NOTHING about praying to Mary for intercession. I do understand that y’all are not worshiping Mary or Saints; this isn’t about me trying to claim that you do something you do not do. This is me claiming that there is absolutely nothing in scripture that refers to intercessory prayer to Saints…or to Mary. So…that’s a change. since you claim that there was no public revelation to justify it, then what?

I realize that you must believe this in order to support your position but you have no real basis for that belief. You must show that we, at some point, did not follow the command of Jesus Christ to baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, which command was given in 33 AD. In addition, you would have to show that the doctrine of the Trinity was understood differently from apostolic to post-apostolic times.

No I don’t. I presented my evidence. You need to address that, not move goal posts.

Again, you"claim". Please provide evidence that the “later” Church did not teach the same gospel.

 

[dianaiad]

I will give you quotes from some of the ECF’s that establish belief in the Trinity by the early Church. It is never spoke of as something new.

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
“O Lord God almighty… I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever” (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

OK, how in the world does THAT support your version of the Trinity over our version of the Godhead?

Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
“For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water” (First Apol., LXI).

OK…same question…

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. “In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever” (n. 7; PG 5.988). “We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.’ Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.” (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

same question…

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons. “The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: …one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all…’” (Against Heresies X.l)

same question…(referring to the quotes given here, anyway)

**Tertullian **(160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. “We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation… [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity. “If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority… There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father” (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
“For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit.” (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
“Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification…” (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

Excuse me, but what was the date range I gave you, again?

 

[LongJourney]

There is no reference to, say…celibate nuns…in the NT.

Diana, this point, in particular, is evidence that you have not thoroughly read the NT, particularly the Epistles.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, this point, in particular, is evidence that you have not thoroughly read the NT, particularly the Epistles.

Indeed? Would you care to share the precise verses which deal with celibate nuns, convents, etc.?

 

[LongJourney]

If you choose to not read the Bible, that is your problem. If I post those scripture references, you will challenge their meaning as coming from my mind. Therefore, I will leave it for a while and see if someone else chimes in on this important subject of Catholic female dedicated celibacy, which is contrary to many Mormon teachings.

 

[JeanMichel]

Diana, this point, in particular, is evidence that you have not thoroughly read the NT, particularly the Epistles.

Diana, please do a search of the New Testament for “virgin” and note the context of the verses listed. It may take reading about each of them in full.

It certainly does not state they were nuns, but it does say these were women who maintained their virginity to remain close to the Spirit. To me it is easy to cast these women as proto-nuns or the forerunners of what later became recognized as nuns.

There were also examples of males that maintained their virginity in exchange to a dedication to God and to holiness.

It is easy to miss when reading the NT. You really would need a seeking mind to identify these passages as fitting the terminology of “nuns”. This form of living martyrdom did not really begin until the third century.