Is this all the CC has?

[majick275]

You’re version of the trinity is not the one taught by the traditional catholics I have known.

Saints is the term used to discribe the followers Christ. Latter in the CC it become a special title for some people.

I doubt that Ignatius was, but having minimal info on the issue I can not say for sure.

that’s the teaching on the trinity straight out of the catechism. it is the same as was taught by the early church fathers. either the “traditional catholics” you have known were wrong or you misunderstood.

LDS use the term “saints” to describe followers of christ. it is not biblical nor historical. it also isn’t necessarily wrong. disciples is probably more accurate. christians is most common. the term saints means literally “holy ones” so i don’t see it as problematic to use it to describe people who have led holy lives.

 

[majick275]

Saints where people folloowing Christ. No better or worse than any other church goer today.

Many LDS beliefs are alluded to in the Bible. In fact I knew of very few that are not.

The reformist where trying to fix what was broken that they still believed many of the CC’s teachings does = those teachings being right.

where do you get this from? simple linguistics if not historical facts shows us that saints was never applied as a synonym for Christians.

 

[majick275]

Saints where people folloowing Christ. No better or worse than any other church goer today.

Many LDS beliefs are alluded to in the Bible. In fact I knew of very few that are not.

The reformist where trying to fix what was broken that they still believed many of the CC’s teachings does = those teachings being right.

alluded to? uniquely mormon doctrines are not only absent from the bible but even from the BoM. you have to go to the D&C for those.

 

[majick275]

Like I said I don’t have a ton of info. I would want to learn a lot more about who he was and what he taught before putting him in a camp.

LDS believe that Jesus is God (the Son). So that one teaching does not cause a problem.

so once again you make unfounded allegations with no verifiable references and admit that you haven’t even studied the subject. dude…at least attempt some credibility

 

[teancum79]

alluded to? uniquely mormon doctrines are not only absent from the bible but even from the BoM. you have to go to the D&C for those.

A few, but most have bits and peaces in the Bible and BoM

 

[teancum79]

so once again you make unfounded allegations with no verifiable references and admit that you haven’t even studied the subject. dude…at least attempt some credibility

Yes I confess I have failed to do a detailed study as to whither one person’s ideas are close enough to LDS beliefs that would personally consider them to be apostate or not.

 

[majick275]

A few, but most have bits and peaces in the Bible and BoM

really? like what?
endowments?
eternal marriage?
perpetual office of apostles?
15 apostles?
first presidency?
i could go on but hopefully you get the jist. doctrines that are only taught by mormons. show where they are taught in the bible.

 

[cazayoux]

I don’t see the consistency of doctrine between the current church and the one set up by Christ. That what is now the CC and what the CC was in say 350 AD or so I think is close enough to call the same.

What I see is a claim that a history kept by people who where well served by keeping a story looking the same way. I am well awake. I study my Bible and like Luther and many other wise men what I see now in the CC as nice as many things are does not jive with what I read in the Bible.

I don’t have “anti-catholic” beliefs.

As to a date I don’t know I’ve thrown out the guess of 150 AD, but thats a guess. The Apostles died. The beliefs and practices of the CC and not the same as the Church that Paul et el. wrote to and taught.

If you think the church was apostate by 350, why do you trust the bible that was assembled in 382?
How do you know the bible you trust isn’t missing books, or has too many.
There was much discussion about what should and should not be put in the canon.
Many books that some thought were inspired didn’t actually make it.
Some books that many thought were not inspired did make it.

What’s interesting is that once it was decided, all argument ceased.
Almost as if the decision was authoritative.

michel

 

[teancum79]

If you think the church was apostate by 350, why do you trust the bible that was assembled in 382?
How do you know the bible you trust isn’t missing books, or has too many.
There was much discussion about what should and should not be put in the canon.
Many books that some thought were inspired didn’t actually make it.
Some books that many thought were not inspired did make it.

What’s interesting is that once it was decided, all argument ceased.
Almost as if the decision was authoritative.

michel

I know it is missing books.
As for authoritative I’ll leave that to those who wish to speculate on that issue.

I’m glad we have as much as we do and will always hope for more.

 

[Eden]

You’re version of the trinity is not the one taught by the traditional catholics I have known.

Maybe the “Shield of the Trinity” can help you understand:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity

From the introduction to the New Advent article on the Blessed Trinity:

newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

“The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion – the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.”

How can Persons who are “truly distinct from one another” be said to be “talking to Himself”? The fact that you would mockingly phrase it that way, shows how little you actually know about the Trinity.

Saints is the term used to discribe the followers Christ. Latter in the CC it become a special title for some people.

There is a broader meaning of the word “saint” in Catholicism that you don’t seem to be aware of.

“The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The damned are thus excluded from the communion of saints.”

New Advent on the Communion of Saints (the spiritual union of all Christians in Heaven and on earth):

newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm

The saints on earth are bound to the saints in Heaven:

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0704clas.asp

I doubt that Ignatius was, but having minimal info on the issue I can not say for sure.

Don’t you think it’s significant that a disciple of the Apostle John said unequivocally that Jesus is God?

 

[teancum79]

really? like what?
endowments?
eternal marriage?
perpetual office of apostles?
15 apostles?
first presidency?
i could go on but hopefully you get the jist. doctrines that are only taught by mormons. show where they are taught in the bible.

There are many hints of eternal marriage in the Bible. Also a 1st presidency.

They are alluded to not always spelled out.

but we are getting far off topic.

 

[dosdog]

There are many hints of eternal marriage in the Bible. Also a 1st presidency.

They are alluded to not always spelled out.

but we are getting far off topic.

Here is a hint

Matthew 22 30 For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.

 

[teancum79]

Here is a hint

Matthew 22 30 For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.

Oh my how could I have missed that its only been misquoted half a dozen times in the last few weeks.

 

[dosdog]

Oh my how could I have missed that its only been misquoted half a dozen times in the last few weeks.

Ok want it in Latin?
22 30
in resurrectione enim neque nubent neque nubentur sed sunt sicut angeli Dei in caelo

 

[teancum79]

Ok want it in Latin?
22 30
in resurrectione enim neque nubent neque nubentur sed sunt sicut angeli Dei in caelo

Its all Greek to me

 

[RebeccaJ]

Its all Greek to me

This is the Greek version, maybe you’ll understand that.

εν γαρ τη αναστασει ουτε γαμουσιν ουτε εκγαμιζονται αλλ ως αγγελοι του θεου εν ουρανω εισιν

 

[teancum79]

This is the Greek version, maybe you’ll understand that.

εν γαρ τη αναστασει ουτε γαμουσιν ουτε εκγαμιζονται αλλ ως αγγελοι του θεου εν ουρανω εισιν

about the same.

 

[dosdog]

Its all Greek to me

You got it
en gar th anastasei oute gamousin oute ekgamizontai all wV aggeloi tou qeou en ouranw eisin

29 And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.

31 And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken by God, saying to you: 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living

 

[cazayoux]

I know it is missing books.
As for authoritative I’ll leave that to those who wish to speculate on that issue.

I’m glad we have as much as we do and will always hope for more.

I’m curious.
Which of the contested books that didn’t make it into the canon should be there?

 

[Eden]

St. Ignatius contradicts LDS belief. He taught of the eternally-begotten Son:

“We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the** only-begotten Son and Word, before time began**, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.” *Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 7 (A.D. 110).

*Is he an apostate?