Another Gospel

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic-rcia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vicarious work for the dead is all over the Bible, BOM and the ECFs for that matter…

fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=10904&st=0

Second… It took God how many years to finally work out wether it was OK to eat meat or not. Why did Peter reverse Moses Decree?

Read Heb 6. How many previously “etenral unchanging statutes” where changed at the time of Christ?

References to the Apostasy and the church being taken from the earth is all over the bible.

Think Rapture… theres a seven year period where the chruch is “taken from the earth”.

Mormons beleive this already happened.
 
I do not accept FAIR or FARMS as even worthy of a reading.

I don’t think God had to “work out wether or not it was okay to eat meat”.

Christ came… that changed everything. The old covenant was fulfilled, the new one was begun. This is certainly explained in Hebrews. Read the whole book. No More Temple ordinances, levitical priesthood, or prophet. Jesus did everything PERFECTLY and PERMANENTLY.

NO example in the Bible of the entire church going away. (especially after Christ came)

I don’t think “rapture”, I’m not an evangelical. I doubt if the majority of LDS even think the “rapture” already occured. (irelvant to me if they do though)
 
40.png
Zakuska:
Second… It took God how many years to finally work out wether it was OK to eat meat or not. Why did Peter reverse Moses Decree?
Click to expand...
I go back to my view that the LDS God is a serial screw up. Christ was the completion of the ceremonial and theocratic law, why is that so difficult to understand?
 
No more temple Ordinances?

So what was Paul speaking too then?

1 Cor. 11: 2
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
No more Prophets?
Click to expand...
Hmm I guess we can rip these two from the Bible.

Rev. 11: 10
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

Rev. 11: 10
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

So where are all the prophets?

1 Cor. 12: 28
28 And God hath set some in the church, first aapostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, dgovernments, diversities of tongues.

1 Cor. 12: 29
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

1 Cor. 14: 29
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

1 Cor. 14: 32
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

1 Cor. 14: 37
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Eph. 2: 20
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief ccorner stone;

Eph. 3: 5
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Eph. 4: 11
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, epastors and fteachers;

James 5: 10
10 Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.

Hmm with all these “prophets” running around in the NT church… and the Christian Church has none? Somethings wrong with this picrture?!
 
that would be the ordinances of the church that Paul taught them. Eucharist, Baptism, reconciliation, holy orders, matrimony, confirmation, and unction.
 
40.png
majick275:
that would be the ordinances of the church that Paul taught them. Eucharist, Baptism, reconciliation, holy orders, matrimony, confirmation, and unction.
Click to expand...
Why are the women in these verses praying and “prophecying” with their head covered?

From what I understand the Catholic church has done away with the practice.

Yes Paul is refereing to temple ordinances. The only thing Christ did away with was sacrificing animals. The entire worship transformed but it wasn’t ended.
 
uh where are women prophets in the LDS church?

You are confusing the gift of the spirit prophecy describing prophets as opposed to the calling of THE prophet as in LDS doctrine.

Exactly what Temple ordinances do we see in the Bible (or the BoM) other than these sacrifices and the high priest going into the holy of holies both of which are no longer needed according to Hebrews.
 
You forget the men are “prophecying” with their head uncovered.

All members who have been indwelt by the spirit are prophets. Thats what Joels repeat of Moses wish was all about.

Remember the “prophet” in the LDS Church is the “President” of the body of Prophets.

Christianity claims no Prophets or prophecy. Except dead ones.

Read the book of Jacob in the BOM… you’ll see temple worship all over it. Including the Adam and Eve story presented there in.
 
Not so. Catholics fully recognize the gift of the spirit prophecy as described in the Bible. personal revelation is RCC doctrine. A president of prophets is not.Jesus established the church perfectly so that Hebrews 1:1 is true. We are led by god directly. He came to earth and established everyhting needed permanently.
 
Once again - no LDS members on this thread are willing to tackle the issue of the Great Apostasy head-on because it did not happen and they are impliedly conceding the lack of evidence to the contrary.

Zakuska simply writes:
40.png
Zakuska:
References to the Apostasy and the church being taken from the earth is all over the bible.

Think Rapture… theres a seven year period where the chruch is “taken from the earth”.

Mormons beleive this already happened.
Click to expand...
Even assuming - arguendo - that the bible references a falling away, where’s the evidence that the church was originally LDS and “fell away” into what is now “apostate” christianity? You seem to leap to the conclusion that because the Bible references a later falling away (never mind the lack of any evidence establishing that it has yet occurred OR that it was a total falling away) the LDS church is thereby established as the “restored” church. There’s a hole in that argument big enough to drive a truck through.

Additionally, I’m not quite sure of what LDS believe about the “Rapture” but it is my opinion that the “rapture” of the church in the way that you describe is a misinterpretation of some key passages in Scripture. The Catholic Church does not hold to such a belief. There are a couple of great books out there that review the Rapture from a Catholic perspective. One is Paul Thigpen’s The Rapture Trap, and another is Carl Olsen’s book, Will Catholics be Left Behind. Pre-Trib Rapture theory may be another great thread topic for discussing differences and similarities in Catholic and LDS beliefs, if you want to start a new thread on it, please let me know.
 
One LDS approach I’ve witnessed --when pressed on the Great Apostasy question-- is to point out that the Bible foretells apostasy. That dog won’t bark, as a careful reading of Robert’s earlier post illustrates.

A second approach I’ve witnessed involves arguing that the Church Fathers apparently favor a lot of LDS doctrines: baptism for the dead, creation ex materia (my spelling my be wrong, I’ll check later), Jesus as a ‘second god’ and so forth… They reason that there were a lot of viewpoints in early Christianity, and that the Catholic Church consolidated power and became corrupted sometime around Constantine. There’s no precise date for the apostasy.

Notice that it’s difficult to get any traction with this line of reasoning. There’s no specific doctrine, no specific event, that we can discuss… not even a serious consideration that the early church was Catholic. JS said there was an apostasy, and so there was. The evidence, in this backward line of reasoning, is that the LDS church is the restoration of the gospel. In other words, the conclusion is the evidence for the conclusion.
 
Nice post edmondhall. One comment - I thought the saying was: “That dog won’t hunt.” 😉
 
Actually I posit that No prophets and the lack of the Spirit of revelation constitutes proof of the Apostasy.

Christians stopped having prophets and revelation 2000 years ago.

Dan 11
17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

Gregory the great, corrupted the church.

Actually there is a precise date for the Apostasy and it was given by more than just LDS. Calvin Wesley and Luther all favored 570AD, so did many early LDS leaders. And so do I.

All the documentation including over 1500 years of bible comentary can be had right here:

whyprophets.com
 
40.png
majick275:
Not so. Catholics fully recognize the gift of the spirit prophecy as described in the Bible. personal revelation is RCC doctrine. A president of prophets is not.Jesus established the church perfectly so that Hebrews 1:1 is true. We are led by god directly. He came to earth and established everyhting needed permanently.
Click to expand...
Yet the structure he set up is missing in the RCC, No Prophets, No twelve Apostles, whats wrong the structure he built wasnt good enough so what did the arm of flesh do? Head Prophet is Biblical. Look at Moses. Pope is note.
 
It is also a thorny issue because the only way it (the lds church) can claim to be the restored Church alluded to in Revelations (which was the one restored at Christ’s second coming, btw), and more explicitly defined in mormon literature, and not the church of the Beast of both Revelation and mormon literature, is to insist that the “true” church died *prior to * the establishment of the RCC, thereby making the RCC the Church of the Abomination (which “historically” was to follow the basic (though in no way total) apostacy referenced, and then defeated by the “restored” church of Christ), rather than the CoJCoLDS, thereby cleaning up and hiding the resultant knowledge that they are the false church that is to rise in the latter days.

Yes, far better for them to avoid the issue than tackle something with such ramifications head on, especially when they, as a institution, cannot agree as to its historical particulars as no single position will give them the history that is required to actually support their position, beyond the basic skeletal assertion that there was a Great Apostasy (which most Protestants will blindly agree on without much deeper consideration as to its implications as the lds define it).

Afterall, if there was no Great Apostasy as claimed by the church, then their own “revelatory history” of the matter actually defines *Smith’s church * (the lds) as the Great & Ambominable Church as a historical fact, whose characteristics of its constituents are defined in the BoM by Lehi, and are exemplified by the arguments and a priori as posted by various lds here and elsewhere across these boards which reveal their determination to refuse Reason, or even actual conversation, to settle a point.

Smith being killed “primarily” because of his racial veiws a historical “fact” * indeed*… :rolleyes:
 
40.png
Zakuska:
Actually there is a precise date for the Apostasy and it was given by more than just LDS. Calvin Wesley and Luther all favored 570AD, so did many early LDS leaders. And so do I.
Click to expand...
I love it when Mormons give dates because it is so easy to disprove them when they do. Prior to 570AD every Catholic distinctive had been well defined. Actually, if you look at the writings of Justin Martyr (around 150AD) you will see every sacrament clearly spelled out. Ignatius of Antioc (110AD) on his way to martyrdom in Rome wrote epistles that clearly described the ecclesiastical structure of the Church, including peterine primacy. You have Athanasius (320AD) forcefully defending the orthodox view of the nature of God. The list goes on and on.

Like I said, I love it when Mormons give us a date because it is so easy to refute and they have to retreat to the tired “well, the Church went into total apostacy after the death of the last apostle”. Yet there is not a shred of evidence, so then the argument retreats to “well Joseph Smith sez so”
 
Who said anything about “primarily”? :rolleyes:

It was one of many reasons… He’s probably one of the only candidates for president who was assasinated prior to making it to the oval office.

(My US history is showing )
 
Did Isaiah “lead” the OT Church? Jeremiah? Daniel perhaps? John the Baptist? No, so then where do you get the idea (aside from Smith) that a “Prophet” must lead Christ’s church as its sole difinitive leader? There is not a single NT in the world that says Christ mandated it…

Also, was Paul, then, not an apostle in your veiw? he certainly was not one of the 12, but definitely considered himself an apostle. Yet, your insistence that there must be 12 Apostles means you cannot consider him to be one, as he would have been #13. But of course, such a point is moot, as your (LDS) concept of what an Apostle is is thouroughly distinct from what it was, and is accepted as by the RCC (and resulting sects as well).

Just because you are willing to accept definitions and positions that you feel support your beleifs, does not make them actually support or provide “evidence” for them.
 
40.png
arieh0310:
I love it when Mormons give dates because it is so easy to disprove them when they do. Prior to 570AD every Catholic distinctive had been well defined. Actually, if you look at the writings of Justin Martyr (around 150AD) you will see every sacrament clearly spelled out. Ignatius of Antioc (110AD) on his way to martyrdom in Rome wrote epistles that clearly described the ecclesiastical structure of the Church, including peterine primacy. You have Athanasius (320AD) forcefully defending the orthodox view of the nature of God. The list goes on and on.

Like I said, I love it when Mormons give us a date because it is so easy to refute and they have to retreat to the tired “well, the Church went into total apostacy after the death of the last apostle”. Yet there is not a shred of evidence, so then the argument retreats to “well Joseph Smith sez so”
Click to expand...
Except for the fact… they did all this with Human councils and without the arm of the Lord.
The councils are what helped tare the reflecting glass from the womans hand.

The Authority had been lost centuries prior when John disappeared from the scene.

The Councils where called because the head of the church had been cut off. Or should I say its feet. This is reflected in writings of the ECFs. And was the main reason the councils where called in the first place. The Apostasy did not happen over night as you wish that it did.

I love Athanasius. Did yoiu hear how he won the debate at Nicea? Here is his closing remarks: “If Christ is not very God, how can he make us what he is?”

Theosis was the doctrine that won the day… later councils declared the doctrine herectical. OOPS… .
 
Surely Zakuska; you cannot possibly be asserting that Smith was the result of a political assasination…

And when you use the argument for his racial beliefs as being the cause of his death as you did, you do implicitly, if not explicitly, state that it is your assertion that it was, in your veiw, the “primary” reason.

As with Casen, just because you engineer “wiggle room” into your misleading statements so as to provide plausible deniability in the case that you are later taken to task for your statements does not deny the implicit, deceptive and false, conclusion you were trying to create in the original posting.

Though your assertions of “historical fact” are laughable, I do know you are intelligent enough, as Casen is, to state your position clearly “up front” and honestly, were you to choose such, that such misunderstandings as you now wish to assert would not actualy happen. That you choose differently is indicative of far more important issues that pertain to your credibility as an apologist for your faith.

Has ZLMB died such a death that everyone is gradually migrating here? 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top