R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Well, as Christians, we follow the Gospels. If it weren’t for this “man”, there would be no discussion to have now, would there?
- Status
Z
zerinus
Guest
Your confused state of mind is palpable. First of all there is no connection or comparison between Russell and Smith. Russell did not claim to be a prophet (as far as I know), but Smith did. Russell did not claim to bring about a Restoration by revelation and ministration of angels, Smith did. Russell did not produce modern scripture, nor claim to receive revelation from God, Smith did. So you need to get sorted in your mind whom you are talking about, and what you are talking about. You don’t seem to know.
On the main topic of your question, I still don’t see the connection between the biblical predictions of the apostasy, and false (or true) prophets. Each must be judged independently on its own merits. Just because the Bible predicts false prophets, it does not mean that an Apostasy did not or could not have occured; and the biblical predictions of the Apostasy does not rule out future (true) prophets.
zerinus
R
RAR
Guest
There was nothing confused about my logic, evidenced by your subsequently insulting me. It appears you simply do not want to acknowledge my question for fear of lending it credence. If you read my original posting, you would understand my question and my reference to both Russell and Smith (the only similarities being their leaning on a belief in a Great Apostasy).
My question has still not been adequately handled by those I posed it to… but no matter, I’m tired of it and if an honestly curious question will not be answered, then I’ll let it go.
RAR
R
RAR
Guest
A good question, thank you, and I think also very to the point. The answer is yes.
As I see it, the difference is that Jesus rose from the dead.
Now, I’ll admit that this takes an amount of faith on our part, but the miracle is still much more compelling than the case of Joseph Smith. The case of Jesus proclaiming a new testament that fulfills the old is also more dramatic than Smith’s vision and restoring of the true church.
In the first, God steps into the world to make salvation available to all and an old testament prophecy is fulfilled. In the second, a man has a vision that denounces all existing religions and claims that a restoration is necessary.
I see these as having a great difference in importance.
RAR
T
teancum79
Guest
But that “man” was in violation of what the religious leaders of the day thought regarding the scriptures. The leap of faith taken by Peter et al. placed their very relationship with God at risk if Christ was not who he claimed to be.
T
teancum79
Guest
True Christ’s life suffering death etc trumps all other events.
But in that and the case of JS people where called to look beyond the established religion. God spoke from the heavens. Angels came and taught men the will fo God and scripture was written.
despite Christ’s supremacy both events are times when God has celled his children to rise above errors misunderstandings and pride and put him first.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
relativism
R
RAR
Guest
I like what you said about Christ’s life suffering death etc trumps all other events.
It’s for the same reason why I can’t imagine that God would need a man to come after Jesus to put right what He began. I just think that Jesus’ word was final. No improvement or correction needed.
RAR
R
RAR
Guest
Very good. And there probably is our impasse… I don’t believe a complete apostasy was possible and you believe it in fact occurred.
RAR
Z
zerinus
Guest
I am not a JW, and I am not responsible for Russell. I don’t appreciate being made responsible for answering for them, nor being lumped together with them. Russell may be a false prophet, Joseph Smith is not. If I wanted to anwer for the JWs, I would become a JW, not a Mormon. If you have an issue with the JWs, you have to take it up with them, not me.
Your questions:
Because the two have nothing to do with each other. The Bible indicates that an Apostasy did (or would) occur—regardless of whether there will be false prophets or not. The predictions of an Apostasy are not dependent on whether there will be false prophets or not. Either an Apostasy occurred, or it didn’t. Either the Bible teaches or predicts such a thing, or it does not. We can determine that independently by examining the Bible. Whether there shall be false (or true) prophets have absolutely no relevance to that whatsoever.
No such thing follows from Paul’s writings. Paul says there will be false prophets; but it doesn’t say that there won’t be true ones. Paul also says “Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). John also says, “try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).
That implies that there will be true prophets as well as false ones. We don’t just reject all prophets as false. We try them, to see if they are true or false; and then “hold fast that which is good”. I have “tried” Joseph Smith, and determined that he is a true prophet. As for Russell, I am not responsible for him.
zerinus
T
teancum79
Guest
yes. which is what I was trying to get at with that thread I started this week, but I think many missed the point.
We both believe in a central leadership structure that has the authority to guide and direct and give the final word on the meaning of the words of scripture.
We simply disagree on who has it.
We both believe in a central leadership structure that has the authority to guide and direct and give the final word on the meaning of the words of scripture.
We simply disagree on who has it.
B
BDawg
Guest
Good point, Z. I was a little baffled when I was accused of avoiding the question, but you make a nice argument for what I was trying to say, here.
Z
zerinus
Guest
J
jschwehm
Guest
Hi:
The JWs believe that after the last apostle died the early church went completely apostate and that Russell was the one appointed by God to get “God’s Organization” going again.
www.catholicxjw.com
Jeff S.
The JWs believe that after the last apostle died the early church went completely apostate and that Russell was the one appointed by God to get “God’s Organization” going again.
www.catholicxjw.com
Jeff S.
I
ibkc
Guest
Of course you shouldn’t feel like you should answer for them, but it is inevitable that the Mormons and the JWs will forever be “lumped together” in a broad sense. Both movements were started in the 19th century by men who claimed that Christianity went apostate within a few generations of the time of Christ’s teaching; and both movements feature beliefs and practices that are found nowhere else.
He wasn’t, actually. His teachings indicated pretty strongly that he was the fulfillment of prophecy. He was hated by the establishment not because his teachings deviated so radically from their own traditions, but because He posed a threat to their established order.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
The Mormons are exactly the same - just substitute Smith for Russell.
R
RAR
Guest
BDawg,
Don’t let that other Mormon on the website confuse you, too. I think that if you go back to the first page of the post you’ll see that we were having a nice discussion in which I politely re-phrased my question. A little later I got a little possessive of “my thread,” but I pointed out I was being tongue in cheek and was trying to get you back to my original question… it could be you didn’t fully understand the nature of my question, but that is pretty common considering we’re trying to communicate this way.
I was trying to understand how Mormons or JWs can hold their beliefs in the face of what I see as a formidable problem.
I admit my world is pretty black and white (I don’t understand why the entire world isn’t Catholic, I bet you understand) and I was hoping to gain some insight on Mormon and JW views. Unfortunately, some people on this site are only interested in insults and provocation.
The difficulty of trying to communicate by email reminds me again why Jesus would leave His authority with the Catholic Church to guide us into all truth.
RAR
R
rmcmullan
Guest
What? You’re joking, right? Why did the early apostles and prophets warn of a coming apostacy if there was no apostacy? The warnings about false prophets and many other warnings was the record of a prophesy of a “falling away”. And it was fulfilled. The apostles are all gone and it happened early on in the primitive church. And until 1830, there were no apostles.
R
RAR
Guest
I agree that there was (and continues to be!) an apostasy. People continue to fall into apostasy, as those that are taken in by gospels contrary to what Paul (and Jesus!) preached.
Paul and the other apostles were combating heresy and apostasy in their teachings and exhortations at the time. In so doing, they were exercizing the authority Jesus left them. It is an early example of that authority at work.
So, if the apostasy had not occurred at the time of Paul’s writings, the LDS and the JWs must believe it happened afterwards. Of course, this is the belief of each church, that the apostasy occurred following the death of the last apostle… but when?
I don’t believe a Great Apostasy occurred because it would have had to have been complete and total, which I think is simply impossible (and let’s not forget Jesus’ promises).
So, do the LDS and JWs not feel the slightest discomfort that perhaps they are the ones who have brought about apostasy?
I’ve tried to put myself in the shoes of those that lived at Joseph Smith’s and Charles Taze Russell’s time and I just think that I would fear and reject them when considering Jesus’ promises and the warnings of false prophets to come.
Jesus is God, Smith and Russell were men. Why are the LDS and JWs so confident that a Great Apostasy that extinguished all Christianity actually occurred? Smith and Russell were MEN! How can Jesus’ word be improved upon?
I still haven’t heard an explanation for this belief. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Which is why I originally posted this thread. It would seem to me that although the bible speaks of apostasy, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against His church and that He would be with us always and that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth. This, along with the warnings of false prophets, seems to make lunacy of listening to a couple of 20th century men preaching a new gospel… I was hoping to learn an explanation of why someone would overlook all of this and cast their lot with these men.
RAR
- Status