M
mfbukowski
Guest
Yeah but golly heck
how is a guy supposed to win a debate when you can’t tack them down on this stuff? And they talk about Mormon doctrine being all over the place!
- Status
how is a guy supposed to win a debate when you can’t tack them down on this stuff? And they talk about Mormon doctrine being all over the place!
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Prodigal, there you go again. You really need to read this stuff before you just start shooting off your mouth. Pardon my directness, but I’m just sick of it.Hello mfbukowski,
NewSeeker brings up a very good point here. I’ve heard several Mormons date the apostasy during the first century and I’ve always brought up the fact that the canon of the Bible wasn’t defined until about 400 AD. That alone seems to indicate that Mormons accept a Bible from an apostate Church, if their claim is true.
Most estimates dating authorship of the books of the Bible date 22 books to be written after 50AD, with the last book of the Bible being written between 90 and 100AD.
This leads me to think you have contradicted the Mormon claim of a great apostasy in two ways, by dating it at around 50AD. My understanding of the apostasy is the Church became so corrupt it lost all truth and caused the priesthood to be invalidated. Knowing the apostles were the primary priests of the Church, I’d be interested in seeing your explanation of the following.
I apologize if these questions are considered to be straying from the topic of thread. I am only asking these questions in response to the quoted poster’s claims.
- I seem to remember you stating the Church lost all authority after the death of the final Apostles, because of the great apostasy. Wasn’t 50AD prior to the death of any or the majority of Apostles?
- If the great apostasy occurred around 50AD, wouldn’t that make, not only the canon definition of the Bible but, the authorship of the New Testament to be post apostasy?
It was NewSeeker who said this stuff about 50AD, and I just agreed with him
That was way back on post 170, and I said I was just agreeing with him at least 3 times.
It could have been 50 AD or 100 AD but I don’t think much after that. Talk to these guys like BigDawg who really know a lot more about history than me.
You want to talk philosophy, I’m your man. History, fergetaboutit. Nobody knows what really happened in any historical event as far as I am concerned. All of history is as seen and analyzed by human beings, and you know how much you can trust THEM!
“History” = “His Story”.
And we always know there are always at least two sides to any story.
History is a rotten way to seek religious truth
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
S
Snow
Guest
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
The point I was making is, during this 50 year span was the time the majority of the New Testament was being written. It is believed St. John wrote Revelations around the time of 90 to 110 AD. As we know the Apostles did not die all at once, it was through this 50 year span that they did die.
I’ve seen your assertions that the apostasy occurred after the death of the final Apostle. It just seems to me that you’re quick to take every opportunity to state an apostasy occurred without thinking it through.
I’ve also seen your statements about, belief over history. You have suggested that history cannot be trusted, even documented history. Your own belief in the Mormon Church is based on “history”. Yes, I understand you believe it to be true, but your private revelation did not lead you to the Mormon Church. You learned of the Church first and then had this revelation it was true, to you.
Our stories are similar, except my “revelation” led me to the Catholic Church. Even though I’m not historian, I have cemented my faith in the Church through research.
I look at what others say and do more research. Because it is my desire to worship God as He wants to be worshipped. One’s faith can never be complete. In that I mean one’s faith is strengthened each passing day, until we pass.
I don’t condemn you for basing your belief on faith. I just ask that you not condemn Catholics for basing their belief on faith and history. To us, it’s common sense to use both. For whatever reason, some of us are like that. We are the type people you are not going to convince that something occurred without proof or reasoning that touches us.
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi Prodigal,I apologize if these questions are considered to be straying from the topic of thread. I am only asking these questions in response to the quoted poster’s claims.
- I seem to remember you stating the Church lost all authority after the death of the final Apostles, because of the great apostasy. Wasn’t 50AD prior to the death of any or the majority of Apostles?
- If the great apostasy occurred around 50AD, wouldn’t that make, not only the canon definition of the Bible but, the authorship of the New Testament to be post apostasy?
Let me help out mf, here. A typical LDS theory of the apostasy might go something like this:
- By 50-ish, the seeds of apostasy were growing in the Church. Paul was warning of the impending apostacy, and various factions (Judaizers, proto-gnostic docetists, anti-nomians, and so on) were causing divisions. Still, new apostles, like Paul and Barnabas, were being called, and so “apostolic authority” continued.
- By 110-ish, the last Apostles are gone, and no new Apostles are being called. Thus, “apostolic authority” is gone. There are local leaders left, but none of them have any clear authority over the others.
- By the mid-second century, there is still no clear central authority, and the gnostics are coming out of the woodwork. They can claim they have revelations secretly given by the Apostles, and there are no Apostles left to contradict them! The main body of Christians defends itself with claims that the bishops carry on the Apostolic authority, so your best bet is to stick with the bishops of those congregations that were founded by the Apostles. (Rome is put up as the main example, because Jerusalem has been destroyed, and both Peter and Paul were involved in the founding of the Roman church.)
- By the mid-third century, the Roman church is starting to parlay it’s reputation as the apostolic church par excellance into claims that Peter, the chief Apostle, actually gave his primacy to the bishop of Rome. This is mostly ignored, especially in the East, but Papal power continues to grow.
- By the fifth century, any vestiges of priesthood authority must now be gone. The Church is completely nationalized. Simony is rampant.
N
NewSeeker
Guest
History cannot prove religious truth, but a careful review of the available evidence helps us learn which religious leader is most likely to have been making something up. We may never have all the answers from history about 1st century Christianity. There is so little surviving evidence that a definitive consensus will likely always be out of reach.
The origins of Mormonism, on the other hand, are well documented. Joseph Smith had the great fortune (or misfortune, depending on your point of view) to have founded a religion in the modern era and to have made specific claims that can be tested empirically. There is no corroborating evidence to support the claims of the BoM that Nephite/Lamanite civilization ever existed. The Book of Abraham was not written by Abraham “by his own hand” upon papyrus as Joseph claimed, but was a mistranslation of an ordinary Egyptian funeral text by a country bumpkin who pretended to have a knowledge of hieroglyphics. Joseph made the whole thing up; both books were a figment of his very fertile imagination. Given the evidence, the only way someone can can continue to believe in Joseph’s prophetic calling is to rely on wishy washy “warm fuzzies” and burning bosoms. It’s easy to have faith that the Catholic Church was founded in the first century since there is zero disconfirming evidence to the contrary. It’s easy to scoff at Joseph Smith’s claims about Nephites and Abraham since there is plenty of disconfirming evidence to the contrary. On both counts, he made the whole thing up.
NS
The origins of Mormonism, on the other hand, are well documented. Joseph Smith had the great fortune (or misfortune, depending on your point of view) to have founded a religion in the modern era and to have made specific claims that can be tested empirically. There is no corroborating evidence to support the claims of the BoM that Nephite/Lamanite civilization ever existed. The Book of Abraham was not written by Abraham “by his own hand” upon papyrus as Joseph claimed, but was a mistranslation of an ordinary Egyptian funeral text by a country bumpkin who pretended to have a knowledge of hieroglyphics. Joseph made the whole thing up; both books were a figment of his very fertile imagination. Given the evidence, the only way someone can can continue to believe in Joseph’s prophetic calling is to rely on wishy washy “warm fuzzies” and burning bosoms. It’s easy to have faith that the Catholic Church was founded in the first century since there is zero disconfirming evidence to the contrary. It’s easy to scoff at Joseph Smith’s claims about Nephites and Abraham since there is plenty of disconfirming evidence to the contrary. On both counts, he made the whole thing up.
NS
N
NewSeeker
Guest
Yes, history is edited by the victors. Yes, Catholicism evolved in a way not supported by the traditional, pious view. Yes, the centralization of papal authority was not established until centuries after Jesus’ death. But the weight of the evidence is clear: the church that developed out of the Apostles’ teaching was indeed Catholicism. There were no proto-Mormons. There was no endowment ceremony in the first century, no Melchizedek priesthood in the Mormon mode, no temples, no First Presidency. Joseph Smith made the whole thing up and his followers project the Mormon model back in time when there is no evidence beyond lame parallelisms to support the effort.
NS
NS
N
NewSeeker
Guest
This is evidence of individual apostasy, not a total apostasy and loss of priesthood.
There’s no clear evidence Paul was “called” in the Mormon mode. Rather, the evidence suggests Paul received his vision and perceived that he was called directly by the Lord and called himself an apostle thereafter.
You assume the necessity of “apostolic authority”, just as Catholics assume the reality of apostolic succession through the bishops. The limited evidence supports either claim.
This sounds a lot like early Mormonism, with gradual centralization of power under Joseph Smith in response to claims of others to receive revelation through their own peepstones. Either way, it seems the Spirit guiding human agents toward centralization of power for the sake of truth is a consistent theme in God’s plan. This is hardly evidence of a total apostasy.
Yes, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the main body of Christians comes to view the importance of a central authority to fight heresy and comes to view Rome, as the see of Peter, as the locus for that authority.
True. But then, perhaps this was the work of the Spirit, using the flawed humans at hand to preserve the Church from fragmentation and heresy (see above). Human beings are inherently sinful and power-grasping . The Spirit must work with such material. And let’s not forget that the LDS church’s own history is whitewashed; like all human institutions, the LDS church also promotes a sanitized official version of origins for the sake of spreading the faith. Again, this is hardly evidence of a total apostasy.
This is the central claim of the Mormon theory of a Great Apostasy. But there is zero evidence to support the claim. The argument assumes the necessity of apostolic succession and there is no clear evidence beyond Mormon assertions that God intended it that way.
True. Hardly surprising given the times, when separation of church and state were unthinkable. It also reminds me of Brigham Young’s theocratic kingdom in Utah.
True. But the Church always was (and still is) a place where saints and sinners live side by side.
NS
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I understand your position or thoughts on the subject. Respectfully, I reject that view. Apostles were men, which means they were mortal and not designed to live forever on earth. I believe through the Bishops of Rome, the apostolic succession was passed on.
I pointed out the apostasy witnessed by the Lord Himself. See John 6:66. This apostasy did not invalidate Jesus, nor did it remove His power.
To say the apostasy was so devastating as to remove the Church’s authority it to believe it was a completed evil, yet throughout threads on these forums Mormons refer to ex-Mormons as apostates, which would indicate an ongoing process…a never ending process. My point is, there could be apostasies, but I don’t believe any apostasy or other act of “man” can overcome an all powerful God or His promises.
To contend that the apostasy took place prior to the books of the New Testament being written or prior to the canon of the Bible being defined around 400AD, invalidates the Bible, which we all believe to be God Inspired. To be God inspired, there had to be God’s power involved. Just as God had power to inspire and protect scriptures, He had power to protect the Church Christ created.
Catholics believe there is no limit to God’s power. Catholics believe Christ was the fulfillment of things. That is Christ is the final word, which does not change.
In short, I feel to state repeatedly with certainty that, “There was an apostasy”, yet offer no sources whatsoever has appearances to be an ad hominem statement for the purposes of inflamming Catholics. To us it seems to cast doubt on the divinity of Christ.
I’m not saying all Mormons have done this, but there are the few who do. I do respect your approach as you articulate that the above Mormon beliefs are an LDS “theory” that “might” go something like this.
**Eph 3:21 To him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus, unto all generations, world without end. Amen. **
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi Prodigal,
That’s fine. In fact, I’m grateful for your efforts to keep the tone of the conversation civil. That’s pretty atypical around here. (Or just about anywhere on the Internet.)
Again, I’m fine with that. I just don’t think the historical records offer nearly as much support for this position as some of the posters here try to claim.
That’s true. But neither did Jesus run after them, begging them to stay. They were not ready to accept what Jesus had to say, and so he let them go their own way.
That is not what it means from our point of view. The Book of Mormon says, “For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true” (Alma 29:8)
We believe God withdraws his revelation and authority in situations where the people cannot sustain it. Sure, he could force his will on people, but that’s not his MO. Therefore, he still makes sure that some portion of his word is taught in every nation and culture–as much as can take hold in that soil.
That’s what we believe happened during the Apostles’ time. They planted seeds that would grow and flourish in Western Culture, but they also planted seeds that were rejected, because the ground was too hard.
I’m sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument. If we believe that most of these documents are inspired, what do we care if the Catholics put together a collection that MOSTLY resembles our own? We’re glad of it! We think it is evidence that God’s hand is over all people, even where the Church does not formally exist.
Yeah–our understanding of it only “develops”. Also, don’t you believe that God “allows” all kinds of things to go on that aren’t “ideal”? I mean, why did it take hundreds and hundreds of years before the Aborigines of Australia even heard of Christ? Why wouldn’t God make sure that his Church exists all the time in all places? Apparently, both Mormons and Catholics have to say that God has his reasons, and maybe our ideas about those reasons will be pretty similar.
What do you mean, “offer no sources whatsoever”?
We point out a number of NT verses predicting an impending apostasy, and you guys say, “Yeah, but the Son of Perdition sitting on God’s throne in the Temple could have meant something other than a complete takeover of the Church organization.”
We point out that there is no real evidence for the Papacy in the second century, and you keep trotting forward “traditions” that contradict each other, don’t really address the question of a papacy, or are rather late after the fact.
We point to early Christian groups that believed many things very similar to conspicuously Mormon doctrines, and you say, “Yeah, well some people always fall away from the truth, and anyway, our understanding of doctrine can develop over time.”
I understand that you interpret these things differently than us, but the fact is that they can legitimately be used as evidence for our point of view. And then people like you come along claiming that none of it exists!
Get it through your head. There are always multiple ways to interpret evidence–especially historical evidence. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist unless it constitutes absolute proof.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I too, appreciate your efforts.
I think, and am open to correction, that Mormons consider the Book of Mormon also inspired scriptures. Of course, I believe you know the Catholic opinion of that. Were there multiple changes to that book? Are future changes also possible? How do Mormons reconcile adding “inspired scriptures” to the inspired scriptures of the Bible?
I’ve read and heard what non-Mormons have said, that’s why I’m asking you, to get the answers straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.
**Rev 22:18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book.
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book. **
See this might be where confusion lies. While stating there was an apostasy, Mormons say God did not abandon people for 1800 years. We’ve been told that there have always been holy people all through the ages. These are people that God did not have to force His willl upon. Why couldn’t He have worked through them?
I’m not sure of something here. You say, “what do we care if the Catholics put together a collection that MOSTLY resembles our own?” Which own are you referring too? Another version of the Bible or the Book of Mormon? I ask, because what you say, “Catholics put together…” happened prior to other versions of the Bible or Book of Mormon. It seems it would be easier to cause resemblances with the later writings.
Yes, but remember this train of thought can go two ways. I don’t want to elaborate, I think you understand what I’m saying. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if we thought both of us were “right”.
I have conceded that there were apostasies and heresies spoken about in the New Testament and will also concede there are writings of the early Church fathers that address heresies. Where we differ, is the fact that we believe no apostasy or act of “men” was sufficient as to cause Christ’s word to be contradictory. Contradictory, according to our interpretation. (Not trying to start another fire here.)
There were many writings by non-Christians that acknowledged Christ’s existence, some writings were unfavorable. Because those type writings exist, is why we believe had a great apostasy occurred, there would be evidence.
B
BDawg
Guest
There have been changes to the Book of Mormon text–almost all punctuation and grammar issues. There are a few (I can count them on one hand) I can think of that could have been interpreted in multiple ways within Mormon thought, so the wording was changed slightly as a clarification of which meaning was preferred.
We also have other books of scripture, and we have no problem with the idea of adding more revelations to those, from time to time.
My point was that we believe the Bible is inspired, and we have no problem with the idea that the Catholics collected it together around 400 AD. As long as the documents were written by bona fide prophets, then the issue of their inspiration doesn’t seem to us to have much to do with who decided to collect them together. We actually have some differences with the Catholics about what should and should not have been included, so it’s not like we are attributing some kind of infallible judgement to Catholic Councils by MOSTLY agreeing with their choices.
Tell me, what is “this book” that John was talking about? If you say the Bible, then are you aware that Bible scholars don’t even think the Revelation was the last book of the Bible to be written? 1, 2, and 3 John, and possibly the Gospel of John were written afterward.
Obviously, this a typical (for ancient literature) warning to scribes who copy the Revelation not to mess around with the text. It wasn’t a prohibition against any further prophecy and inspired literature.
If I interpreted that passage the way you seem to, I would be a Sadducee, claiming that only the books of Moses are valide.
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2).
So does this prohibit all the subsequent prophets from adding to the word of God? Does it prohibit Jesus from deprecating some of the commandments in the Law of Moses?
Our answer is that he did work through them. In all cultures, at all times, even places and times where Christianity did not exist as such.
I wasn’t talking about the Book of Mormon, etc. I was talking about the Bible. Apostles and prophets wrote the individual books. People at different times and places (including Catholics) put together collections of these books. We are grateful, and use one of the standard collections, even though we don’t think it’s absolutely perfect.
Therefore, I don’t have any idea why the fact that the Catholic Church put together a collection of inspired writings around 400 AD would have any bearing on whether Mormons should think there was an apostasy, or not.
I’m not sure what you are saying here.
Like what? People accusing each other of being apostate? There was plenty of that in the ancient Christian documents. What other kind of documentation could you hope to find?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I’ll be honest and thought he was writing about the book of Revelations. I’m just not sure how much in line Mormonism is with Protestantism.
Again, I fail to see the need to provide scriptures because of interpretational differences, but I believe Christ to be the fulfillment of all things, therefore the age of prophets ended with Him, in my opinion. But this does bring another question to my mind. Why does the Mormon Church reject writings of the early Church fathers or the many other writings that were rejected by the Catholic Church, prior to the apostasy, as inspired?
This train of thought is confusing. We believe scriptures to be God inspired, without error. I’ve heard Mormons state scriptures were God inspired but, it appears to be with a caveat.
If there had been a great apostasy in the first century, it seems to contradict that statement by accepting the canon of the Bible from a totally corrupt, apostate Church, with no authority, as Mormons claim. Something we have not discussed, or I missed, is the fact that the canon was defined by the interpretations of those Doctors of the Church. While you accept the Bible, you reject the interpretations from the Church.
Really? I almost copied and pasted it back in.
Yes, the Bible and writings of the early Church fathers addresses apostasies and heresies, which were the acts of “men”. We don’t believe any act of men could cause Christ’s promises of “…even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” or “And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” to be invalidated.
Eph 3:21 To him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus, unto all generations, world without end. Amen.
Apostate accusations exist in the present time. Yet, those who call people apostates reject the idea that apostasy has been great enough to cause a total corruption of their Church.
Had a great apostasy occurred, someone would have documented it. As you acknowlege apostates and heretics early on, someone would have used a great apostasy against the Church.
Act 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood.
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi Prodigal,
I’m not sure what you are saying. Protestants often quote those verses to Mormons when they want to prove that the Bible is absolutely complete, and there can’t be any further public revelations. I thought that’s what you were trying to say. But if John was just writing about not adding to or taking away from the Revelation, then the argument falls flat.
If the “age of prophets” ended with Christ, why did the New Testament church have prophets after Christ died?
Because we don’t judge them to be completely inspired.
That’s true. For us, God speaks to fallible human prophets, and they give their best rendition to us. We are given the gift of the Holy Spirit, and are meant to learn how to receive the revelations of God, as well, and to learn to discern truth from error. If God gave us prophets whose every word is infallible, nobody would learn to live by faith, and most people would just want to blindly follow the prophet, rather than thinking and communing with God themselves. God’s purposes for people would be frustrated.
When you say you think the scriptures are “infallible,” what do you mean? There are no errors of any kind? Or is it that there are no errors of particular classes?
But we don’t believe it was “totally corrupt” and apostate. It had no authority, it is true, but we believe it still was used by God to give some portion of his word to the people. And so it does not contradict OUR view of the apostasy. It only contradicts caricatures of our view.
We accept the books of the Bible (except the Song of Solomon) as inspired because we believe they were written by inspired prophets. When we come across other writings that we believe were written by inspired prophets (like the Book of Mormon, the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, and so on,) we feel perfectly free to add them to our canon without asking any Doctors of the Church for permission. When we believe that any of the books of the Bible that these “Doctors” accepted, but that we do not believe were inspired (like the Song of Solomon) or that have sustained heavy enough corruption not to be that useful (like the Apocrypha,) we feel perfectly free to reject them.
So you see, we don’t accept the judgments of the “Doctors of the Church” as authoritative about anything. Not the canon. Not anything else. Sometimes we may agree with them, even though we don’t see their writings as authoritative, but we agree with lots of people about lots of different topics.
Neither do we. We just interpret those promises differently than you. For instance, we take “the gates of Hades” to mean “the gates of Hades,” instead of “the worst imaginable evil,” or whatever.
Since we believe that the Church has always existed, and will always exist, we have no problem with this, either.
Exactly. So if there had been a “total” apostasy, we would expect to find everyone accusing each other of apostasy, not realizing that they were all right.
Paul documented it in a prophecy. See 2 Thess. 3.
Anyway, I don’t understand your point. Use what against the Church? People did accuse other Christian factions of being apostate all the time. How would you “document” a loss of authority from God, aside from prophecies like Paul’s?
Your examples of historical documentation are extremely weak. You say that some contemporaries wrote about Jesus. Soooo…what? Does this provide evidence that Jesus existed? Yes. Does it provide evidence that he was the Messiah? No. You point to old lists of the bishops of Rome. Does this provide evidence that Rome had bishops back into Apostolic times? Sure. Does it provide evidence that Peter gave the keys of the kingdom to the bishops of Rome? No.
In fact, we don’t find anyone claiming such a thing for well over 100 years after the Apostles were gone.
Now, it seems to me that we have a much greater right to expect to find some kind of explicit documentation of a transfer of authority than an apostasy. In a transfer of authority, everyone is supposed to know who is in charge. In an apostasy, nobody is left in charge, so who is going to write it up?
S
Snow
Guest
S
Snow
Guest
Apparently you labor under the impression that whining about The Book of Mormon or The Book of Abraham or Joseph Smith somehow relates to “the gates of hell,” the topic of this thread. Only a person with no ability to argue the merits of the topic tries to change the subject.
By the way, I barely skimmed your post but spotted 6 demonstrably untrue claims. I wonder how many I could find if I tried.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I wasn’t sure if Mormons and Protestants agreed on the subject. I assume you know enough about Catholicism to know we believe an infallible decision was made on the definition of the canon at the Coucil of Trent 1556, in face of the of the errors of the reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.
So, with the above stated, Mormons actually accept the canon as defined by Martin Luther. Isn’t the King James Version the preferred Bible by Mormons?
Christ was the fulfillment of the prophecies.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
Coincidently, the Catholic Church determined they were not inspired defining the canon.
Scriptures are Holy Spirit inspired and inerrant. Reader interpretation on the other hand, is not.
I’m sorry, it still sounds like your trying to have it both ways. If the Church wasn’t totally corrupt, it has to have the possiblity of not losing it’s authority.
Are you sure that’s the passage you mean? If so, I’d say the interpretational differences are in the way. This is no way a prophecy of a “great apostasy” or a prophecy of the Church losing it’s authority.
Jews were accused of killing the Messiah. Many, were converting to Christianity. Pharisees and Scribes were losing power through the conversions. Surely they would be vindicated if they could show Christ to have made a false prophecy like a Church built upon rock.
Romans tried to completely wipe out Christianity. Julian the Apostate, misunderstood Christ’s prophecy about the destruction of the Temple to mean the Temple would never be rebuilt. He tried, unsuccessfully, to rebuild the Temple. Surely a apostasized Church of such great magnitude would have been used by them.
Christians faithful to the teachings of the Apostolic Church would surely have made it know that the rest of the Christian world had apostazied.
Why do history books tell us of all the major splits; Arianism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, but tell nothing about a total apostasy? Many schisms are addressed, but there is no mention of the greatest schism of all.
Whether they were friends of the Church, enemies or impartial towards the Church, someone would have challenged the Church’s claim to teach the truth. There’s nothing…
The problem lies with the accuser, my friend. To convince us there was a great apostasy, so great as to corrupt the Church to the point it lost it’s ability to teach truth, you are going to have to produce evidence.
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi Prodigal,
Sorry, but you’re still making very little sense.
Look, just because we agree with others about various things, that doesn’t mean we consider their judgments authoritative. We agree with Catholics about some things. And Protestants. And Muslims. And Jews. And Hindus. Why is this significant at all, in a discussion like this?
Now, in my opinion, this is a real mistake in the Bible. The two verses clearly contradict one another. Would you agree? Or do you want to try and defend the Bible as absolutely “inerrant.”
This makes absolutely no sense.
Sorry, but you’re still making very little sense.
Yes, but we don’t believe the Song of Solomon was inspired, so we don’t completely follow Martin Luther’s judgment on the matter, either.
Look, just because we agree with others about various things, that doesn’t mean we consider their judgments authoritative. We agree with Catholics about some things. And Protestants. And Muslims. And Jews. And Hindus. Why is this significant at all, in a discussion like this?
Amazing.Coincidently, the Catholic Church determined they were not inspired defining the canon.
Let’s make a case study here. When Acts describes Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus, it says that the people traveling with Paul “stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7). But later in Acts, Paul is quoted as saying that they “saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9).
Now, in my opinion, this is a real mistake in the Bible. The two verses clearly contradict one another. Would you agree? Or do you want to try and defend the Bible as absolutely “inerrant.”
We also believe the Hindu religion is not totally corrupt. And yet, we amazingly don’t believe they operate under God’s priesthood authority.
The passage says there will be an apostasy in which the Son of Perdition sits in the temple of God, pretending to be God. In many passages, Paul called the Church the Temple of God. So it seems to me a pretty clear prophecy of authority being usurped in the Church.
Here’s the thing. What if the Jews or Romans started harping on the Christians for being “apostate”? Why would any Christians, or anyone else, pay any attention to Jews or pagan Romans making charges of apostasy? Who are they to judge? If you were to start telling me that Mormonism was now apostate from its roots, I would laugh at you. What do you know about it?
This makes absolutely no sense.
Like I said, they were all accusing each other of apostasy, and they were all right.
We are not talking about a “split.” We are talking about a general apostasy. History does record great changes in Christian doctrine and practice over those centuries. That’s what you would expect if there were an apostasy.
Huh? EVERYONE was challenging Christianity. Christian groups were challenging EACH OTHER. You seem to have no grasp of the history of that era, whatsoever.
Well, you can’t convince people who are unwilling. I feel like I’ve done my job to highlight for impartial readers the fact that your reasoning is flawed, however. I’ll let you have the last word, and move on.
- Status