Either Catholics or Mormons have it right...

[Jim_Dandy]

Zerinius, Joseph Smith has fed you (and others) pure Bull-oney. For the sake of your soul, study the history of early Christianity and the Bible and learn the Truth. A good place to start is the *Founding of Christendom *by Warren Carroll, Ph.D., a Columbia-trained. peer-reviewed. authentic, accredited historian. It covers the period before the birth of Christ to the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. It includes the period of the alleged *‘Great Apostasy.’ * The New Testament and the Bible had not yet been formed.

You still haven’t explained how it is possible for an alleged ‘apostate Church’ to give birth to the infallible Bible. And to deny that the Catholic Church gave birth to the Bible is to deny history. An infallible book requires an infallible teacher. Do you claim that Mormonism is infallible? That the LDS interpretation of the Bible is infallible?

Jim Dandy

 

[KathleenGee]

They refuse history, but accept novelty.

 

[Todd520]

You still haven’t explained how it is possible for an alleged ‘apostate Church’ to give birth to the infallible Bible. And to deny that the Catholic Church gave birth to the Bible is to deny history. An infallible book requires an infallible teacher. Do you claim that Mormonism is infallible? That the LDS interpretation of the Bible is infallible?

Jim Dandy

Jim, The Holy Spirit gave birth to the NT through the Apostles.

It’s prideful to exagerate your role and try accept credit for things not accomplished. You appear to imply Catholic authorship, when in fact OUR COMMON CHRISTIAN ancestors were just proficient at making copies. Again, the Holy Ghost through the Apostles was the author.

I think history makes a strong case for the Catholic Church not being infallible.

 

[zerinus]

You still haven’t explained how it is possible for an alleged ‘apostate Church’ to give birth to the infallible Bible.

I thought I just explained in the previous post, and in earlier posts, why the Catholic Church didn’t “give birth to the Bible”.

 

[SteveVH]

This whole idea of private revelation vs. public revelation is moot. Did the prophets who came to Antioch from Jerusalem, and prophesied of a famine in the land (Acts 11:27-30), prophesy publicly or privately? Or when the prophet named Agabus prophesied that if Paul went to Jerusalem, he would be bound and imprisoned, did he prophesy publicly or privately? That is just a cop out. A church that cannot receive public revelations cannot receive private ones either. It is the sign of an apostate religion that declares the canon of scripture closed, and that there will be no more “public revelations”. Nobody has the right to deny God the right to speak to His people publicly or privately, through the proper channels whom He has appointed, if He so chooses. Only those who are not His authorized ministers, and therefore through whom God cannot speak, would have a vested interest in making such a declaration.

As far as Mormonism is concerned, “public revelation” does not change established doctrine. That is just your excuse. Mormonism has never disavowed polygamy as legitimate practice when approved by God. But our theology also tells us that we should obey the law of the land; and when the constitutional court declared the ruling constitutional, the Church obeyed the law of the land.

“History” tells us that the Jews have the greatest right to boast that they “gave is the Bible,” and it is to their credit that they don’t make that boast. If you really want to give God the credit for giving us the Bible, you should be willing to give due credit to the people through whom He chose to give it, which were the Jews. That is where the primary credit goes. If the Catholic Church deserves any credit for the Bible (and it does, for preserving it), it is to a much smaller degree than those through whom it came.

I have always believed that Joseph Smith was so ignorant of the history of the Church that he thought he could pull a fast one because he believed that, as we go back through the misty past to 2000 years ago, no one really knows what happened. He could make up anything, such as the “Great Apostasy” which then would require new revelation. And he was off and running. To bad for poor old Joe. The history of Christianity is very well documented and makes the entire notion of a Great Apostasy, and by extension, the “new revelation” of Mormonism, ludicrous. You must deny history itself, otherwise Mormonism falls apart in a hurry.

 

[zerinus]

I have always believed that Joseph Smith was so ignorant of the history of the Church that he thought he could pull a fast one because he believed that, as we go back through the misty past to 2000 years ago, no one really knows what happened. He could make up anything, such as the “Great Apostasy” which then would require new revelation. And he was off and running. To bad for poor old Joe.

You got that wrong again. Joseph Smith didn’t start with the Apostasy, and end up with a new revelation. He started with a revelation first, and then he discovered there had been an apostasy. Joseph Smith was just 14 years old when he had his first vision; and he didn’t go to the woods to start a new religion. He went there to inquire of the Lord to know which church was right, to know which church to join. It was the Lord that then told him that none of the churches were right, thus confirming that there had been an Apostasy.

Joseph Smith didn’t say, “Christianity has apostatized, therefore let’s start a new religion”. It was the Protestants who did that. That is why they went wrong, because they tried to start a new religion without God’s authorization. If there was an Apostasy, which there was; only God can start a new, true religion. Man has neither the power nor the authorization to do it. And that is the strength of Mormonism, because it was stated by God, not by man. It is the “stone cut out of the mountain without hands” that Daniel prophesied about (Daniel 2:45; D&C 65:2), that is destined to fill the whole earth. That is Mormonism for you!

The history of Christianity is very well documented and makes the entire notion of a Great Apostasy, and by extension, the “new revelation” of Mormonism, ludicrous. You must deny history itself, otherwise Mormonism falls apart in a hurry.

I think I have already answered that in my posts and in my Blog. There is no need to go over that ground again.

 

[SteveVH]

You got that wrong again. Joseph Smith didn’t start with the Apostasy, and end up with a new revelation. He started with a revelation first, and then he discovered there had been an apostasy. Joseph Smith was just 14 years old when he had his first vision; and he didn’t go to the woods to start a new religion. He went there to inquire of the Lord to know which church was right, to know which church to join. It was the Lord that then told him that none of the churches were right, thus confirming that there had been an Apostasy.

I didn’t say he was stupid, I said he was ignorant. Of course he would piece the story together to make it as believable as possible, at least in his mind. The problem is that his story doesn’t jibe with history, which is my point. He just disregarded it. As you have heard a thousand times, there is not a shred of historical evidence supporting the “Great Apostasy”. This didn’t bother Joseph because he was unaware of the volumes of history that refute his claim.

 

[KathleenGee]

My intuition tells me that Joseph Smith knew nothing about the Catholic Church except the prejudice that as present in those times.

 

[zerinus]

I didn’t say he was stupid, I said he was ignorant.

He was neither stupid nor ignorant; but a great prophet of the Lord.

Of course he would piece the story together to make it as believable as possible, at least in his mind.

You are free to believe that of course; I can’t stop you. But I believe you are wrong.

The problem is that his story doesn’t jibe with history, which is my point. He just disregarded it. As you have heard a thousand times, there is not a shred of historical evidence supporting the “Great Apostasy”.

I have already answered that in my Blog. There is no need to add any more to it.

This didn’t bother Joseph because he was unaware of the volumes of history that refute his claim.

He didn’t need to be aware of volumes of history, because God had told him what he needed to know.

 

[Stephen168]

He didn’t need to be aware of volumes of history, because God had told him what he needed to know.

What Smith claimed is wrong (not historical), so either Smith made it up or God lied to Joseph Smith. I believe Smith made it up.

 

[SteveVH]

He was neither stupid nor ignorant; but a great prophet of the Lord.

I, of course would disagree. I don’t believe he was a prophet at all, unless you call a false prophet a prophet.

You are free to believe that of course; I can’t stop you. But I believe you are wrong.

Thank you. I do believe it.

I have already answered that in my Blog. There is no need to add any more to it.

Zerinus, I have no interest in reading your blogs nor having to pick through them in order to find an answer to a question I have asked on this forum. If my questions are not worth your time to answer, then just say so. Otherwise maybe you can cut and paste whatever you feel is relevant in your blog and copy it here.

He didn’t need to be aware of volumes of history, because God had told him what he needed to know.

Ah. Why didn’t I think of that? It is the same answer I received from a local Mormon bishop who told me he didn’t need to know history; he had the testament of Joseph Smith. What a cop out. He didn’t want to know history because the Mormon claim falls apart when read in the light of that history. It is avoided like the plague.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus, I have no interest in reading your blogs nor having to pick through them in order to find an answer to a question I have asked on this forum. If my questions are not worth your time to answer, then just say so. Otherwise maybe you can cut and paste whatever you feel is relevant in your blog and copy it here.

I thought I had already given you a link somewhere in one of these threads, and you had read it. But if you haven’t, here it is.

Ah. Why didn’t I think of that? It is the same answer I received from a local Mormon bishop who told me he didn’t need to know history; he had the testament of Joseph Smith. What a cop out. He didn’t want to know history because the Mormon claim falls apart when read in the light of that history. It is avoided like the plague.

Maybe you are the kind of person who wouldn’t believe what God would tell him; but Joseph Smith did, and so do I! That does not mean that we don’t need to study history; it means that when God tell us something is true, we don’t need a second opinion to confirm His words.

 

[SteveVH]

I thought I had already given you a link somewhere in one of these threads, and you had read it. But if you haven’t, here it is.

Cute.

Maybe you are the kind of person who wouldn’t believe what God would tell him; but Joseph Smith did, and so do I!

That must be it, zerinus.

 

[zerinus]

Cute.

I am glad you liked it.

That must be it, zerinus.

I guess you know best!

 

[mackbrislawn]

The problem with that is that if anybody, or a group of people, deserve credit for “giving us the Bible,” that credit rightly goes to the Jews, because they were the ones who over many centuries of prophetic tradition, starting from Moses all the way down to Jesus and His Apostles, actually wrote, composed, and “gave us” the Bible. Jesus came in the same prophetic tradition as the Old Testament prophets. Oddly enough, when that prophetic tradition ends with the Jews and reaches the Gentiles, it stops! It comes to an end. I think there is something amiss when this upstart, the Gentile church, which fails to perpetuate that prophetic tradition and is only the beneficiary of it, suddenly claims to have “written” or “given us” or even “compiled” the Bible. The text of the Bible was well established before the Catholic Church (if there was even such a thing as a “Catholic Church” in those days), decided to do anything about it, if it can be said that it did anything about it at all.

Sure, Jewish people wrote the scriptures. Both the OT and the NT, but what is the point being made of this?

I’m not so sure that the text of the Bible was established before the Christian church came along. The text, the books to be included, was still in a state of flux well into the Christian era. It is said the Jews formally adopted their canon about 90 AD at the council of Jamnia, and that part of their reason for rejecting certain books is because the Christians were using those books.

“The Gentile church which fails to perpetuate that prophetic tradition.” Huh? According to current Jewish belief, that prophetic tradition ceased well before the Christian era. It is Christian belief, not Jewish, that Jesus was a prophet and the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit. It is a Christian belief that Jesus was the final revelation, so of course there would be no more prophets! Therefore it is quite reasonable that the Gentile church doesn’t perpetuate that “prophetic tradition.” Hence, there is nothing amiss. However, that doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit is not present and guiding the Church subsequently.

Yes, certainly the Christian church is the beneficiary of the Jews, and the OT is part of that benefit.

Who gave us the Bible? Leaving aside the question of the earliest origins of scripture, we know from simple history that the Catholic Church gave the Bible to western Europe. This is an important point, because most of us here owe their origins to western Europe, and our belief in the Bible to western Europe. You must realize, whether or not the early Christian church was the Catholic Church or not, the Church in western Europe was the Catholic Church. And the people of western Europe, including the Reformers, came to a belief in the Bible, the OT and the NT, via the Catholic Church. Plus, the physical scriptures themselves were preserved and copied and transmitted through the centuries to western Europe by the auspices of the Catholic Church.

So, yes, for us here on this forum, the Catholic Church gets credit for giving us the Bible.

 

[Javl]

The problem of where the Bible came from has been answered many times in other threads on CAF. But, one problem that has never been answered ( truly and satisfactorily ) has been that of the Mormon Claim of the “Great Christian Apostacy”.

Mormons claim that in time down through the ages Christians strayed and eventually apostacized from the true Church that Jesus founded. The claim is also made that much of the Bible has not been translated or interpreted properly and that many errors have been introduced into it. I ask how is this so? What reference do they have to make this claim? If the answer is Joseph Smith and the “Book of Mormon”, then I ask how come many passages in the BoM contain Biblical passages from the King James version of the Bible and includes all grammatical, translation, and theological errors that appeared in the KJV?

Also, The God, Trinity, and Jesus that Mormons believe in is not the same God, Trinity, and Jesus that all Christians from the beginning believe(d) in as explained and propounded in the Bible. For if they were the same then they would understand and believe Jesus words when He said that He would be with His Church always and that He would protect it from the malices and snares of the devil and it would be guided in all truth until the end of time by the Holy Spirit. I believe Jesus and NOT Joseph Smith and the Mormons.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Madaglan]

You got that wrong again. Joseph Smith didn’t start with the Apostasy, and end up with a new revelation. He started with a revelation first, and then he discovered there had been an apostasy. Joseph Smith was just 14 years old when he had his first vision; and he didn’t go to the woods to start a new religion. He went there to inquire of the Lord to know which church was right, to know which church to join. It was the Lord that then told him that none of the churches were right, thus confirming that there had been an Apostasy.

Joseph Smith didn’t say, “Christianity has apostatized, therefore let’s start a new religion”. It was the Protestants who did that. That is why they went wrong, because they tried to start a new religion without God’s authorization. If there was an Apostasy, which there was; only God can start a new, true religion. Man has neither the power nor the authorization to do it. And that is the strength of Mormonism, because it was stated by God, not by man. It is the “stone cut out of the mountain without hands” that Daniel prophesied about (Daniel 2:45; D&C 65:2), that is destined to fill the whole earth. That is Mormonism for you!

I think I have already answered that in my posts and in my Blog. There is no need to go over that ground again.

According to Islamic tradition, Mohammed went to a cave to meditate and pray. It was there that he received revelations. According to the revelations inscribed in the Quran, both Jews and Christians teach falsely. According to the Quran, Jesus did not die on the cross.

How is Mormonism really different from Islam (or any other religion based on private revelation) in its inception? Both begin with an individual who claims to have received personal revelation from God, revelation that implies or states directly that all the religions have departed from the Truth.

Why is Joseph Smith credible while Mohammad is not?

Also, Emanuel Swedenborg, several decades before the time of Joseph Smith, claimed to have his own series of revelations, which essentially told him the same thing: that the Nicene Christians got it all wrong, etc. Why didn’t God direct Joseph Smith to join his church?

Just some thoughts.

P.S. Muslims could just as well if not better appropriate Daniel’s verse. Muslims are all over the world now–in the Middle East, Asia, Oceania, Europe, and now North America.

 

[Madaglan]

Who gave us the Bible? Leaving aside the question of the earliest origins of scripture, we know from simple history that the Catholic Church gave the Bible to western Europe. This is an important point, because most of us here owe their origins to western Europe, and our belief in the Bible to western Europe. You must realize, whether or not the early Christian church was the Catholic Church or not, the Church in western Europe was the Catholic Church. And the people of western Europe, including the Reformers, came to a belief in the Bible, the OT and the NT, via the Catholic Church. Plus, the physical scriptures themselves were preserved and copied and transmitted through the centuries to western Europe by the auspices of the Catholic Church.

So, yes, for us here on this forum, the Catholic Church gets credit for giving us the Bible.

The Western Church used the Septuagint early on. There were old Latin translations preceding St. Jerome’s time (late 4th century). The Vulgate prepared by St. Jerome was disseminated throughout Europe by the Benedictine monks, who made hand-written copies of this version.

The Eastern Churches passed down the Septuagint Old Testament and the New Testament in the koine Greek. Similar biblical traditions are found amongst the Syriac Christians (targums/Peshitta).

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mormons can’t, or won’t, comprehend that their teachings are the innovations, not the Catholic (Universal) Church.

 

[ParkerD]

According to Islamic tradition, Mohammed went to a cave to meditate and pray. It was there that he received revelations. According to the revelations inscribed in the Quran, both Jews and Christians teach falsely. According to the Quran, Jesus did not die on the cross.

How is Mormonism really different from Islam (or any other religion based on private revelation) in its inception? Both begin with an individual who claims to have received personal revelation from God, revelation that implies or states directly that all the religions have departed from the Truth.

Why is Joseph Smith credible while Mohammad is not?

Also, Emanuel Swedenborg, several decades before the time of Joseph Smith, claimed to have his own series of revelations, which essentially told him the same thing: that the Nicene Christians got it all wrong, etc. Why didn’t God direct Joseph Smith to join his church?

Just some thoughts.

P.S. Muslims could just as well if not better appropriate Daniel’s verse. Muslims are all over the world now–in the Middle East, Asia, Oceania, Europe, and now North America.

Madaglan,

The most important thing that one needs to understand if thinking about Mormonism and Joseph Smith and making comparisons, is that Mormonism ties directly to Biblical teachings in every respect. As you noted, the Quran doesn’t do that. So one can certainly dismiss any similarity as merely a deception, since God allows counterfeits and deceptions to happen if one’s motives are impure and if they don’t look to the source of truth for their inspiration.

Mohammed would have needed to adhere to the principles for gaining truth in his day, just like anyone else–and not depart from Biblical truth. That completely disqualifies a possible comparison of the two.

Just because Swedenborg made an attempt and felt inspired, doesn’t mean he gained authority to establish a true church. That is why the OP statement stressed authority as a necessary component to be looked at.

The prophecy of Daniel is still in the early stages of being fulfilled on the earth. It’s a great thing to watch unfold…

Happy Thanksgiving!