https://www.quora.com/What-do-Protestants-and-Catholics-think-of-Mormons/answer/James-Hough-1

  • Thread starter Thread starter lokisuperfan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please stop derailing the thread.

We can discuss all of these issues you are bringing up after we finish the current conversation.

Now back to Augustine…
 
Last edited:
But BYU says his opinion is to be discounted-

So is Augustine credible or not?

(Just say yes or no)
The ECF are witnesses to what the ECF believed. They are not infallible and their writings are not inerrant.
So they are credible if used to understand what they believed.
They are part of what the Paster of Hermas called an “inferior” church, so they are not like St. Peter and those Christians who knew Peter was the living leader of Christ’s Church on earth.

If you don’t understand that, I am sorry. I cannot make it much simpler. If you are looking for a “gotcha,” I hope you didn’t find it and will instead try to UNDERSTAND what I believe.
Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
40.png
TOmNossor:
do not dismiss what the ECF say.
Augustine is clear that he rejected Christianity because he thought to be Christian was to believe in an embodied God.
Augustine found this ridiculous and would not embrace such a foolish endeavor?
I disagree. I see no reason why an omnipotent being couldn’t be embodied or incorporeal. Other truths are more important to me than this.
Augustine rejected Christianity because the early Christians believed God was incorporeal?
You should read Augustine!!!
Augustine believed that Christians in the late 4th or early 5th century believed in an embodied God.
I think he was correct in this understanding and his mother, a Catholic saint, believed as Augustine thought all Christians believed.
St. Ambrose told Augustine that true Christianity rejects an embodied God.

This is what you can learn from reading Augustine.

Tertullian centuries earlier highlight the CHANGE in Christianity and speaks against it.
Origin earlier than Tertullian highlights the TWO views one aligned with Judaism, embodiement and one rejecting Judaism, non-embodiment. Origin argues for non-embodiment, but tells us that Bishop Melito (from many decades earlier) wrote about embodiment.

It is a common belief among LDS Christian scholars and non-LDS Christian Scholars that many or all Christian believed in an embodied God and only layer did this change.
Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
Please stop derailing the thread.

We can discuss all of these issues you are bringing up after we finish the current conversation.

Now back to Augustine…
I am responding to things that are said.
I am not sure if I can keep posting when it seems you have not read the ECF and are not trying to understand what I am sharing with you.

Perhaps you can acknowledge that ancient Jews according to many ECF and scholars believed in an embodied God. Thus your Catholic view aligns with 12th century Jews, but my LDS view aligns with ancient Judaism. Can you respond to this???
Charity, TOm
 
Once Catholic, always Catholic. That inedible mark does not go away. Most Catholics are really only a good confession away from coming back into communion with the body of Christ.
 
Once Catholic, always Catholic. That inedible mark does not go away. Most Catholics are really only a good confession away from coming back into communion with the body of Christ.
If this is what you about me, I do not see how it could result in getting you in trouble. When you claimed you should be banned for your comment, I thought perhaps you were being really ugly to me somehow.

When I was truly trying to understand what Catholicism REALLY was and was told by many Catholics (and at least a few Protestants) that I was going to be Catholic again, I always took it as a complement (from the Catholics a complement).

I have said a number of times that if I ever became convinced that God was not involved in producing the Book of Mormon and restoring His Church through Joseph Smith, I would be at confession hopefully within 1-2 days. So, I am a radical change in conviction AND a good confession away from being a Catholic (that doesn’t mean I do not think the problems with the Catholic Church are HUGE, that doesn’t mean I think there is ANY Catholic explanation for the Book of Mormon and the witness of the Book of Mormon, that doesn’t mean … well you know).

But, it means that there are many good things about the Catholic Church and it is my second choice.

Charity, TOm
 
Christians have always believed God was a God of Spirit; incorporeal.

To summarize the Mormon argument against this fact:

Augustine believed that Christians believed in a God of flesh and bone.

Augustine learned he was wrong.

Therefore the early Christians believed God had a body of flesh and bone.

Another Mormon argument:

Many ECFs ridiculed Jews for believing that God had a body of flesh and bone.

Therefore the early Christians believed that God had a body of flesh and bone.
 
Many ECFs ridiculed Jews for believing that God had a body of flesh and bone.

Therefore the early Christians believed that God had a body of flesh and bone.
Why do the Jews believe differently from the ECF? Christianity is supposed to be the fulfillment of Judaism…
 
You are very condescending in your posts.

I have read some of the ECF, however I am not an expert.
1). Are you?

2). So let me understand what you are saying:
Because Augustine supposedly said (you haven’t provided a link yet) that God may have had a body that means the Jewish teaching about God being incorporeal is incorrect?

3). Why did BYU state that Augustine was not credible?

The link I posted claims that there was disagreement among the Jews -which is very common btw- up until Maimonides created the articles of faith in the 1200’s.
4). So Jewish teaching about God from 1200+ - now is incorrect?
 
Augustine believed that Christians believed in a God of flesh and bone.

Augustine learned he was wrong.

Therefore the early Christians believed God had a body of flesh and bone.
TOm said in his earlier post that Augustine didn’t want to become Christian because he believed God had a body…

Meaning -

The early Christians believed God was incorporeal.

(I feel a meme coming on lol)
 
Hello Stephen,

Of course your mocking presentation of my point is precisely how the Early Chruch was treated by the learned. I will correct what you have said shortly so it is more accurate, but first let me offer this from Cardinal Newman:
if there is a form of Christianity now in the world which is accused of gross superstition, of borrowing its rites and customs from the heathen, and of ascribing to forms and ceremonies an occult virtue; a religion which is considered to burden and enslave the mind by its requisitions, to address itself to the weak-minded and ignorant, to be supported by sophistry and imposture, and to contradict reason and exalt mere irrational faith… a religion, the doctrines of which, be they good or bad, are to the generality of men unknown; which is considered to bear on its very surface signs of folly and falsehood so distinct that a glance suffices to judge of it, and that careful examination is preposterous; which is felt to be so simply bad, that it may be calumniated at hazard and at pleasure, it being nothing but absurdity to stand upon the accurate distribution of its guilt among its particular acts, or painfully to determine how far this or that story concerning it is literally true, or what has to be allowed in candour, or what is improbable, or what cuts two ways, or what is not proved, or what may be plausibly defended;—a religion such, that men look at a convert to it with a feeling which no other denomination raises except Judaism, Socialism, or Mormonism, viz. with curiosity, suspicion, fear, disgust, as the case may be, as if something strange had befallen him, as if he had had an initiation into a mystery, and had come into communion with dreadful influences, as if he were now one of a confederacy which claimed him, absorbed him, stripped him of his personality, reduced him to a mere organ or instrument of a whole;a religion which men hate as proselytizing, anti-social, revolutionary, as dividing families, separating chief friends, corrupting the maxims of government, making a mock at law, dissolving the empire, the enemy of human nature, and a “conspirator against its rights and privileges;” a religion which they consider the champion and instrument of darkness, and a pollution calling down upon the land the anger of heaven;—a religion which they associate with intrigue and conspiracy, which they speak about in whispers, which they detect by anticipation in whatever goes wrong, and to which they impute whatever is unaccountable; a religion, the very name of which they cast out as evil, and use simply as a bad epithet, and which from the impulse of self-preservation they would persecute if they could;—if there be such a religion now in the world, it is not unlike Christianity as that same world viewed it, when first it came forth from its Divine Author
As the modern Catholic Church CHANGES, it might think about this from Newman a bit before “global warming” is a more important teaching than avoiding adultery.

Charity, TOm
 
Why do the Jews believe differently from the ECF? Christianity is supposed to be the fulfillment of Judaism…
The Jews used anthropomorphic language when talking about God. This could lead someone to falsely believe that the Jews actually believed that God had a body of flesh and bones. If I remember correctly, it is this same anthropomorphic language that Mormons use to explain why they believe that God has a body of flesh and bone.
 
Perhaps I’m just ignorant of my peoples history but I’d sure like to see evidence that Jews believed in an embodied God?

And please, saying “the Jews believed” is as inaccurate as “Protestants believe”. There were many differing Jewish beliefs. Some may have even believed in an embodied God but they certainly weren’t the majority! One of the strongest beliefs most Jews had was that God could not be man and any physical representation of Him was idolatry.
 
In this excerpt, Newman is plainly referring to the Catholic Church as existing from the time it was first established by Jesus, until the present day, Newman’s day.
“if there is a form of Christianity now in the world … it is not unlike Christianity as that same world viewed it, when first it came forth from its Divine Author“
Newman acknowledges the severe distaste that he and his contemporaries had for even a thought that the alien religion he was exploring, might be true, yet that he had to finally recognize as the Catholic Church.

I don’t know where you meant to go with this; it is off topic to the OP.
 
Christians have always believed God was a God of Spirit; incorporeal.
This is not true and you have admitted as much in the past. There was Serapion and Tertullian (and Lacantius too BTW) unless you do not believe they were “true Christians.”
Augustine believed that Christians believed in a God of flesh and bone.

Augustine learned he was wrong.
Let’s flesh this out a little. Augustine was raised as a Catholic by his mother who is a Catholic saint. Augustine left the Catholic faith in response to three attacks of the faith as he understood it from the Manicheans, one of which was that Catholics believed God is “limited by a bodily shape.” (Conf 3:7:12) He returned to the Catholic faith when an educated Christian (Ambrose) taught him this was not the case.

I do not believe Augustine was so ignorant that when his Manicheans persecutors ridiculed Catholic anthropomorphic beliefs he thought, “My mother and I have never thought this to be true, but if the Manicheans claim it is, it must be. I will cease to be a Christian.”

No, Augustine lived in an area of Africa where MANY Christians believed God was embodied and this continued into the 4th century. This makes more sense of what Augustine wrote.

I will acknowledge, that he never called his mother or his more simple co-religionist simpletons for not understanding, but that makes much more sense than that he rejected his former faith based on something he never believed.
Many ECFs ridiculed Jews for believing that God had a body of flesh and bone.

Therefore the early Christians believed that God had a body of flesh and bone.
Actually, this is not the argument. @SunshineGrandma claimed that Christians should believe about God what Jews did. Problem was she picked a 12th century Jew and the ECF witness to the fact that Jews believed in an embodied God. Origin specifically saying that Jews and some Christians believe this.

Anyway, I do not think my arguments are near as ridiculous as you seem to think they are, but I am used to this type of misrepresented.

Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
You are very condescending in your posts.
I was responding to what looked like an attempt at “gotcha” dialogue when you DEMANDED just a “simple yes or no.” I do not think that evidences that you were trying to understand me but rather trying to TRAP me. I do not mean to make you feel less or that I consider myself more, but I do want you to recognize that such DEMANDS come across as condescending too. Sorry if I hurt you.
I have read some of the ECF, however I am not an expert.

1). Are you?
I would say the same thing.

But…

I do think concerning God’s corporeal/incorporeal nature there is enough there that you shouldn’t have claimed that a 12th century Jew is the proper witness.

Your argument falls apart if you value the ECF over a 12th century Jew. There are many works that delineate the movement from a Jewish corporeal God who could not be seen by normal means to a completely incorporeal God who could not be seen. Most suggest it was the middle ages before this was complete (much later than the transition for Christianity that I claimed).

Can you acknowledge that your argument that Catholicism is true because it conceives of God the same way Jews was flawed?
2). So let me understand what you are saying:

Because Augustine supposedly said (you haven’t provided a link yet) that God may have had a body that means the Jewish teaching about God being incorporeal is incorrect?
I have quoted a little from Augustine and explained the context and why I believe it is quite clear that Augustine was a Christian who believed in an anthromoporphic God, rejected Christianity because of this, and the decided he could be a Christian and not believe that God was corporeal.

The Jewish part is because you argued that Catholicism is the fulfillment of Judaism because it conceives of God the same way, but that’s not accurate.
3). Why did BYU state that Augustine was not credible?
I suspect most folks at BYU would agree with:
40.png
https://www.quora.com/What-do-Protestants-and-Catholics-think-of-Mormons/answer/James-Hough-1 Non-Catholic Religions
The ECF are witnesses to what the ECF believed. They are not infallible and their writings are not inerrant. So they are credible if used to understand what they believed. They are part of what the Paster of Hermas called an “inferior” church, so they are not like St. Peter and those Christians who knew Peter was the living leader of Christ’s Church on earth. If you don’t understand that, I am sorry. I cannot make it much simpler. If you are looking for a “gotcha,” I hope you didn’t find…
The link I posted claims that there was disagreement among the Jews -which is very common btw- up until Maimonides created the articles of faith in the 1200’s.

4). So Jewish teaching about God from 1200+ - now is incorrect?
BUT… the disagreement started for Jews as they engaged with Greek philosophy just like Christians. Before that there was little disagreement. God could not be seen normally, but was embodied.

And IMO, modern Jews and non-LDS Christians are wrong. Ancient Jews, ancient Christians (like Tertullian and Lacantius and Melito, and Serapion and numerous unnamed individuals) and LDS are correct.

LDS do not believe what we believe because of the Bible as claimed by Stephen, we believe what we believe because God revealed it.

Charity, TOm
 
40.png
lokisuperfan:
Why do the Jews believe differently from the ECF? Christianity is supposed to be the fulfillment of Judaism…
The Jews used anthropomorphic language when talking about God. This could lead someone to falsely believe that the Jews actually believed that God had a body of flesh and bones. If I remember correctly, it is this same anthropomorphic language that Mormons use to explain why they believe that God has a body of flesh and bone.
Most scholars believe that Jews believed in a corporeal God for a long time.
LDS hold the beliefs we do because we believe God revealed this.
I also believe it is a much better read of the Bible than the belief argued for against the Bible and the Jewish witness for centuries in the texts of the ECF. The ECF acknowledged the clear read of the Bible and argued for a figurative read of the Bible instead.
Charity, TOm
 
was responding to what looked like an attempt at “gotcha” dialogue when you DEMANDED just a “simple yes or no.” I do not think that evidences that you were trying to understand me but rather trying to TRAP me. I do not mean to make you feel less or that I consider myself more, but I do want you to recognize that such DEMANDS come across as condescending too. Sorry if I hurt you.
It was a request due to your resistance to answer questions with a simple answer.
Instead, your responses go on for paragraphs twisting and turning.

The “gotcha” was when you said Augustine was reluctant to become Christian because he believed God had a body and (they didn’t). Read: early Christians believed God was incorporeal.
 
I would say the same thing.

But…

I do think concerning God’s corporeal/incorporeal nature there is enough there that you shouldn’t have claimed that a 12th century Jew is the proper witness.

Your argument falls apart if you value the ECF over a 12th century Jew. There are many works that delineate the movement from a Jewish corporeal God who could not be seen by normal means to a completely incorporeal God who could not be seen. Most suggest it was the middle ages before this was complete (much later than the transition for Christianity that I claimed).
I absolutely value the Jewish definition of God over an ECF (if he even said it…still waiting for a link).

The Jewish people have always valued debate on all issues and the incorporeal vs corporeal nature of God is no exception.

The fact that the Catholic Church teaches God is incorporeal stems from the Jewish belief that was solidified by Maimonides and accepted as official Jewish teaching.
 
Last edited:
"TOmNossor:
was responding to what looked like an attempt at “gotcha” dialogue when you DEMANDED just a “simple yes or no.” I do not think that evidences that you were trying to understand me but rather trying to TRAP me. I do not mean to make you feel less or that I consider myself more, but I do want you to recognize that such DEMANDS come across as condescending too. Sorry if I hurt you.
It was a request due to your resistance to answer questions with a simple answer.

Instead, your responses go on for paragraphs twisting and turning.
The ONLY answer can be that Augustine is a witness to what Augustine believed and to various things concerning the 4th and 5th century.

He was a member of the what the Pastor of Hermas called an “inferior” organization that replaced the apostolic Church lead by revelation.

This makes him reliable for some things and unreliable for others.

Similar things must be said by Catholics who know what Augustine wrote. He is both reliable and not reliable when it comes to defining what Catholicism believes.
The “gotcha” was when you said Augustine was reluctant to become Christian because he believed God had a body and (they didn’t). Read: early Christians believed God was incorporeal.
Please quote where I said this, I do not think I did.

Charity, TOm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top