B
BrotherofJared
Guest
What we also know is that Moses commanded the children of Israel to practice polygamy. Or was it, adultery!?!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I
iepuras
Guest
And just because you say that it wasn’t the Catholic Church doesn’t mean that it wasn’t.It wasn’t the Catholic church back then. Just because you guys keep calling the Catholic church doesn’t mean it was.
B
BrotherofJared
Guest
Right. Just because you say it IS, doesn’t mean it is. I agree they called themselves Christians, but somehow “the way” and “universal” are suppose to be the same. Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure that there is a historical basis on which the name Catholic came from, but none of the early Christians knew this. Those Christians would have been looking for Apostles which are not found in the Catholic church. The sad thing is, if you came to the Catholic church looking for an apostle, you would have been excommunicated for being a heretic.In the beginning the followers of Jesus referred to following “The Way”.(Acts 18:26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22) In Acts 11:26 is the first time that they were called Christians but it was never called the Christian Church. In the New Testament it was just called the Church as there was only one. When it became necessary to have a name, it became Catholic first used to denote the Church the same Church that was the Way at the end of the first Century. Whenever you see the Church mentioned in the Bible it IS the Catholic Church. Just because the word isn’t there doesn’t mean that they are not the same. What the Church practices now Eucharist, Baptism, Confession, Praying for the sick, etc. is still practiced.
A
adrift
Guest
No Moses only married once. I know what you are referring to but only one name, Zipporah, is mentioned as his wife. In another scripture she is called the Cushite woman.Isn’t it interesting that Moses, the prophet who brought us the commandment “thou shalt not commit adultery” had more than one wife. Maybe he didn’t know the definition!?!
A
adrift
Guest
They didn’t look for the Apostles. This is an error of the LDS. No where in Scripture does it state go look for the Apostle. What they looked for was the authority of Jesus which only the Catholic Church has. Would you like to document your last statement?Right. Just because you say it IS, doesn’t mean it is. I agree they called themselves Christians, but somehow “the way” and “universal” are suppose to be the same. Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure that there is a historical basis on which the name Catholic came from, but none of the early Christians knew this. Those Christians would have been looking for Apostles which are not found in the Catholic church. The sad thing is, if you came to the Catholic church looking for an apostle, you would have been excommunicated for being a heretic.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I call bull pucky on that one.What we also know is that Moses commanded the children of Israel to practice polygamy.
A
adrift
Guest
Me too. I can’t recall any scripture to validate this claim.I call bull pucky on that one.
A
adrift
Guest
I thought this as well also but it also possible that the Ethiopian woman was Zipporah.We know from the bible that Moses married Zipporah and we know that Moses later married an Ethiopian woman. What we don’t know (at least I don’t know) is whether Zipporah was still alive at that time.
Paul
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
In all probability, Zipporah WAS the “Ethiopian” (Cushite) woman.We know from the bible that Moses married Zipporah and we know that Moses later married an Ethiopian woman. What we don’t know (at least I don’t know) is whether Zipporah was still alive at that time.
Paul
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Just as your organization wasn’t the CoJCoLDS for the first 8 years of its existence.It wasn’t the Catholic church back then. Just because you guys keep calling the Catholic church doesn’t mean it was.
It morphed from:
The Church of Christ (1830) to
The Church of Jesus Christ, to
The Church of God in 1834 to
The Church of the Latter Day Saints
Until in 1838 it became the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
That’s the Jewish belief:I thought this as well also but it also possible that the Ethiopian woman was Zipporah.
From JewishAnswers.org:
Moses’ Cushite Wife
Does it say somewhere in the Torah that Moses’ wife was black?
The answer to your question is found in Bamidbar (Numbers) 12:1, which tells us of the “Cushite” woman that Moses married. Cush is the area we call Ethiopia today, so someone from Cush would be black. Despite the fact that the Torah speaks of this Cushite wife, the fact that this wife is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible led many commentators, with Rashi at their head, to conclude that **this “Cushite” wife is none other than Moses’ wife Tzippora, who is called a Cushite euphemistically **for different reasons. Rashi’s take on it is that she was called a Cushite to make the point that the contrast of her incredible beauty to others was as obvious as the darkness of a Cushite. Other commentators, however, basing themselves on a work called “Moses’ chronicles” cited by a Midrash, explain that the Torah is referring to a woman Moses married (presumably after converting her to Monotheism) when he spent forty years in Cush after escaping Egypt the first time, before he ended up in Median with Tzipporah.
Thanks,
Raffy Davidovich
From the Jewish Encyclopedia:
ZIPPORAH.
—Biblical Data:
Daughter of Jethro and wife of Moses. According to the Bible,Moses met the daughters of Jethro when they were being driven away from a well by shepherds; he assisted them, and was invited into the house of Jethro, who gave him Zipporah to be his wife (Ex. ii. 21). On his return to Egypt, Moses was accompanied by his wife, who saved him from great danger during their journey (ib. iv. 24-26). She appears to have returned with her children to her father’s house; for after the exodus from Egypt, Jethro brought Zipporah and her children out to Moses in the wilderness (ib. xviii. 2-5). Zipporah is mentioned only once more in the Bible; namely, in Numbers xii. 1, where she is referred to as “the Ethiopian woman,” for having married whom Moses is upbraided by Miriam and Aaron.
—In Rabbinical Literature:
Zipporah is mentioned by the Rabbis alternately with praise and with blame. Her name (= “bird”) is explained as having been given her because, when questioned by her father as to the man who had rescued her, she flew out of the house like a bird and returned with Moses (Yalḳ., Shim’oni, i. 169). R. Joshua was of the opinion that Zipporah and Moses were always estranged, and that the latter did not love his wife (ib. 268). The name “Cushite” was given to her, it is said, because she was distinguished from other women by her beauty, even as the Ethiopians differed from other people in their complexions. The circumstance that she is twice referred to in one verse as “the Ethiopian” (Num. xii. 1) is explained as indicating that her actions were as distinctive as her beauty, and that she conducted herself no less royally while in her father’s house than when she became the wife of Moses (Yalḳ., Shim’oni, 1238; comp. also M. Ḳ. 16b; Yer. Sanh. x. 28d).
L
lax16
Guest
What exactly do you mean?It wasn’t the Catholic church back then. Just because you guys keep calling the Catholic church doesn’t mean it was.
L
lax16
Guest
Please answer which false accusations Joseph Smith was not willing to back down to (3rd request).Jesus also avoided certain death because it was not his time. I think prophets should follow the example of other prophets and do what Christ commands them to do. I believe this is exactly what Joseph did in spite of the popularity or social acceptance and yes, following God’s commands did lead to his death, just as other prophets (and I might add, apostles) did in the past.
L
lax16
Guest
The term Catholic was first written in about 107 AD by Ignatius of Antioch. That would be an early Christian calling other early Christians, Catholic.Right. Just because you say it IS, doesn’t mean it is. I agree they called themselves Christians, but somehow “the way” and “universal” are suppose to be the same. Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure that there is a historical basis on which the name Catholic came from, but none of the early Christians knew this. Those Christians would have been looking for Apostles which are not found in the Catholic church. The sad thing is, if you came to the Catholic church looking for an apostle, you would have been excommunicated for being a heretic.
I am really trying to follow your thinking here, but I don’t know what you mean by “Christians would have been looking for Apostles…”. Please explain.
A
adawgj
Guest
I think the South Park episode summed up Joseph Smith pretty well.
“dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb”
“dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb”
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
The apostles passed on their authority to their successors, who are present in the Catholic Church to this day.Except, of course, the obviously missing apostles. And that the name universal church doesn’t exist in the New Testament either. “If it be Moses church, then call it the church of Moses.” So why wouldn’t the early Christians call it the Church of Jesus Christ? Because it was too offensive to the state? possibly? maybe?
Please point out the specific verse in the New Testament where the ancient Church was titled “the Church of Jesus Christ”. Indeed, cite the verse where the name of the Church is given. Otherwise, your argument holds no water. Indeed, for a time, your church was titled “the Church of the Latter day Saints”, which further makes your argument irrational.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
No, not enough said. Whether or not they worship Jesus Christ or have twelve apostles is not relevant to the fact that the author of the article in the OP is using an argument that would validate Islam, among many other religions invented throughout the ages, by virtue of their continued existence to this day (indeed, many of them have many more members than Mormonism).Do they worship Jesus Christ and savior and redeemer? Do they have the twelve apostles? Do they even remotely have a claim to a succession of authority in the priesthood? No? Okay then, enough said.
R
Robyn_p
Guest
Nathan said that because in early Judaism, they did not have a distinction between God allowing something, and God positively willing or causing something. They reasoned that because God is all-powerful, if something happened, it must have been because God caused it. Even sin. They had the right premise but the wrong conclusion.No I showed it, but it doesn’t say polygamy and so you won’t accept it. It’s also been shown that Nathan said that God gave David his wives, but; still the rationality that the practice was acceptable to God and commanded of God is just too much for your to accept.
The earlier books of scripture reflect this incomplete understanding of God. If Pharoah sinned, it must be because God hardened his heart and caused him to, if David had multiple wives, then they must have been given by God etc… There was no understanding of the relation between free will and God’s providence, or God allowing things that He didn’t approve of.
But as the centuries went on their theology deepened, so that they could begin to see that not everything that happens necessarily happens because God positively willed it. A good example of this development is the way 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles recount the same story of David holding a census against God’s will. 2 Samuel 24 says God himself caused David to take a census of the people, where 1st Chronicle’s version says it was satan that tempted him, not God. Chronicles was written after the Babylonian exile, which explains why the versions are so different. It reflects the deeper understanding Israel had of the nature of God at that particular time that they didn’t have at the time 2nd Samuel was written.
This gets even more explicit when we get to the book of Sirach, which was written a little bit after Chronicles. Even if you don’t accept it as Scripture, it’s still a good illustration of how Jewish thought developed on the issue:
Do not say, “Because of the Lord I left the right way”; for he will not do what he hates. Do not say, “It was he who led me astray”; for he has no need of a sinful man. The Lord hates all abominations,
and they are not loved by those who fear him. 14 It was he who created man in the beginning,
and he left him in the power of his own inclination. 15 If you will, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. 16 He has placed before you fire and water:
stretch out your hand for whichever you wish. 17 Before a man are life and death,
and whichever he chooses will be given to him. 18 For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything; 19 his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every deed of man. 20 He has not commanded any one to be ungodly.(Sirach 15:11-20)
Now we see there’s an explicit distinction between what God wants and what man does, which was not as clearly understood in the earlier books of the Old Testament.
Anyways, the point of all this is to show that just because a book in the Old Testament says God caused or did something, that doesn’t necessarily mean He approves of it. Otherwise we would have to say God also caused David to sin with the census, which is not true, according to the rest of the bible.
So, if we want to know what God intended for marriage, then we need to follow Jesus’ example: Don’t go back to David or Moses or even Abraham, go all the way back to the beginning, before sin entered the world, before mankind rejected God. And when we do, we see monogamy, not polygamy, is what God created. If God intended polygamy, then he would have given Adam multiple wives. But he didn’t. He gave him one.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Just because you keep saying it wasn’t the Catholic Church doesn’t mean it wasn’t.It wasn’t the Catholic church back then. Just because you guys keep calling the Catholic church doesn’t mean it was.
Why don’t you demonstrate that it wasn’t the Catholic Church. I’ve noticed that when asked for demonstration of your assertions, you refuse to present evidence.
L
lax16
Guest
The Encyclopedia Britannica supports the early Church/Christians as being Catholic.Just because you keep saying it wasn’t the Catholic Church doesn’t mean it wasn’t.
Why don’t you demonstrate that it wasn’t the Catholic Church. I’ve noticed that when asked for demonstration of your assertions, you refuse to present evidence.
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/507284/Roman-Catholicism
Honestly, this is the first time I have ever heard ANYONE claim the early Church wasn’t Catholic. If the early Church wasn’t Catholic, then what church experienced the Great Apostasy and what church was the great and abominable whore of Babylon?
Whew…I always thought it was the Catholic Church (according to other Mormons I have talked to) but I guess not!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.