LDS: Apostasy

[Jay53]

This is what you said: “So, public revelation is God revealing Himself to man, culminating in God incarnate, Jesus Christ, on earth, and all that is necessary for salvation.” That was the logic behind your argument that there should be no more “public” revelation. If that argument is valid, there should be no New Testament either; but there is. Unless John is greater than Jesus, why should he be the last revelator here on earth?

I’m not quite sure what your position is here. What do you think prophets reveal/have revealed after Jesus that is needed for salvation? I’m just trying to figure out what you are trying to convey here.

 

[zerinus]

The New Testament is about Jesus Christ. He is the message, the revelation.

All the saints who share private revelation always bear the same message and fruits of the Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ. He is the Alpha and Omega.

The Book of Mormon testifies of Jesus Christ, just like the Bible does. That is why it has been subtitled “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”.

 

[TheosisM]

This is what you said: “So, public revelation is God revealing Himself to man, culminating in God incarnate, Jesus Christ, on earth, and all that is necessary for salvation.” That was the logic behind your argument that there should be no more “public” revelation. If that argument is valid, there should be no New Testament either; but there is. Unless John is greater than Jesus, why should he be the last revelator here on earth?

Still straw man. Perhaps you missed “and all that is necessary for salvation”. Public revelation by definition includes Scripture, i.e. the Old and New Testaments. My quoted statement rests on Hebrews 1:1-2 "

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

Public revelation culminated, or reached its high point, with the arrival of God the Son on earth. It also includes by definition the entirety of Scripture, which is part of “all that is necessary for salvation”. So your argument is invalid.

Also, I am unsure of your conclusion that because we believe public revelation ended with the writing of the last scriptures, by John, that somehow means that John is greater than Jesus for us. Obviously not. All public revelation, including John’s, points towards Jesus Christ. The source of revelation, whether “public” or “private”, is God. John had his role to play in salvation history, and I fail to see how believing public revelation ending with his writings (revealed by God) implies that he is greater than Jesus Christ.

 

[zerinus]

I’m not quite sure what your position is here.

That quote was in reply to TheosisM. I was trying to show him that his argument against there being no more public revelations is not valid.

What do you think prophets reveal/have revealed after Jesus that is needed for salvation?

Read the letters of St Paul, or Peter, or John. They were all written “after Jesus”. They told those saints what they needed to know and do to be saved. Modern day prophets do the same thing. They tell us what we need to know to be saved.

I’m just trying to figure out what you are trying to convey here.

Were!? If you are referring to that quote from me, that was in reply to what TheosisM had written which conveyed a flawed logic. Tell me what there was in it that you did not understand, and I will try to explain it further.

 

[Jay53]

That quote was in reply to TheosisM. I was trying to show him that his argument against there being no more public revelations is not valid.

Read the letters of St Paul, or Peter, or John. They were all written “after Jesus”. They told those saints what they needed to know and do to be saved. Modern day prophets do the same thing. They tell us what we need to know to be saved.

Were!? If you are referring to that quote from me, that was in reply to what TheosisM had written which conveyed a flawed logic. Tell me what there was in it that you did not understand, and I will try to explain it further.

I understood all that. I’m just trying to figure out (through all of your posts to TheosisM) what you think any prophets, outside of the OT and NT, have revealed that is necessary for salvation? St. John, St. Paul et al are writing about Jesus and His life and His teachings. I can’t figure out what other prophets you’re referring to?

 

[ParkerD]

I definitely have and there is a night and day difference in the feeling!! The feeling after confession to a priest is completely different and words cannot describe it accurately. This may be TMI, but there have been several occasions when I have been moved to tears simply because of the joy/elation/freedom/acceptance that I have experienced from God through confession. Believe me when I tell you that there is no one on this earth that will ever convince me that the Catholic priests do not act as Christ in the confessional and that they do not have the authority to forgive sins.

Jay,
Since that idea of confession to a priest is non-Biblical, then it would seem to me that the scripture you brought up from Galatians is more directly applicable to that teaching than that the Book of Mormon is “another gospel”, even though one certainly feels relieved when they have the feeling that God has forgiven them.

 

[Jay53]

Jay,
Since that idea of confession to a priest is non-Biblical, then it would seem to me that the scripture you brought up from Galatians is more directly applicable to that teaching than that the Book of Mormon is “another gospel”, even though one certainly feels relieved when they have the feeling that God has forgiven them.

“Relieved” is only a part of the feeling God gives us through confession. I know this, because I have experienced it!

I gave you the Bible quote. John 20:21-23

He therefore said to them again, “Peace be to you! As the Father has sent me, I also send you.” When he had said this, he breathed upon them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

 

[zerinus]

Still straw man. Perhaps you missed “and all that is necessary for salvation”.

Wait a minute! Let’s not talk out of the both sides of our mouths here. So “public revelation” ended with “after Jesus,” and not “with Jesus”! How long “after Jesus”? Twenty years? Fifty years? Sixty years? Eighty years? So why not eight hundred years? Why not 2,000 years?

Public revelation by definition includes Scripture, i.e. the Old and New Testaments.

You mean the ones that were written fifty, sixty, eighty, ninety years after Jesus? So why not the ones that were written 800 years after Jesus, or 2,000 years?

My quoted statement rests on Hebrews 1:1-2 "

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

So where does it say in there that there should not be any more prophets after Jesus? And how do you explain all those prophets that lived in New Testament times, long after Jesus?

Public revelation culminated, or reached its high point, with the arrival of God the Son on earth.

And how does that translate into no more revelations after Jesus?

It also includes by definition the entirety of Scripture, which is part of “all that is necessary for salvation”. So your argument is invalid.

Talking out of both sides of your mouth again! Does that include those scriptures that were written ninety years after Jesus? Why not the ones that were written nine hundred years after Jesus?

Also, I am unsure of your conclusion that because we believe public revelation ended with the writing of the last scriptures, by John, that somehow means that John is greater than Jesus for us.

Did public revelation end with John or with Jesus? If with John, then maybe John was greater than Jesus. If not, why should there not be others after him?

 

[TheosisM]

Wait a minute! Let’s not talk out of the both sides of our mouths here. So “public revelation” ended with “after Jesus,” and not “with Jesus”! How long “after Jesus”? Twenty years? Fifty years? Sixty years? Eighty years? So why not eight hundred years? Why not 2,000 years?

Already answered. With the last scripture was written, after the last apostle died.

You mean the ones that were written fifty, sixty, eighty, ninety years after Jesus? So why not the ones that were written 800 years after Jesus, or 2,000 years?

See above. We are talking about Catholicism here, right?

So where does it say in there that there should not be any more prophets after Jesus? And how do you explain all those prophets that lived in New Testament times, long after Jesus?

Where did I ever claim that it said that? Please stop with these straw men. In fact, I repeatedly stated that a number of the canonized saints in Catholicism (post ancient Church) were prophets and prophetesses.

And how does that translate into no more revelations after Jesus?

Please pay attention. See above. Public revelation ended with the writing of the New Testament scriptures.

Talking out of both sides of your mouth again! Does that include those scriptures that were written ninety years after Jesus? Why not the ones that were written nine hundred years after Jesus?

I thought you were familiar with Catholicism? When Catholics say “Scripture” we are talking about the Old and New Testaments. We don’t believe that there was any other scripture besides what is found in the Bible.

Did public revelation end with John or with Jesus? If with John, then maybe John was greater than Jesus. If not, why should there not be others after him?

Already answered. See above. Please explain why you believe that a belief that public revelation ending with the writings of John means that he is greater than Jesus Christ.

 

[Javl]

We think life is less complicated than that. When somebody splinters off from the true Church and sets up a rival church of his own, we call that apostasy.

That is NOT apostacy. The worst that splintering can be is heresy,such as the Gnostics, Nestorians, Montanists, etc., and the least it can be is schism, such as the St. Pius X group, Old Catholics, etc… Apostacy is like the LDS Church, Christian Science, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, etc., which has abandoned the basic truths and set up its own.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[zerinus]

I understood all that. I’m just trying to figure out (through all of your posts to TheosisM) …

Why are you ignoring the posts that I am addressing to you!?

… what you think any prophets, outside of the OT and NT, have revealed that is necessary for salvation?

The same thing that the New Testament prophets revealed. Modern prophets testify of Jesus Christ like the NT prophets did, and they convey His messages to us in the same way that they did.

St. John, St. Paul et al are writing about Jesus and His life and His teachings.

Modern prophets do the same.

I can’t figure out what other prophets you’re referring to?

The prophets and Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormonism is led by Apostles and prophets, just like the early Church was.

 

[TheosisM]

Just so everyone is clear on all of the straw men arguments that Zerinus has brought up in his arguments:

Catholicism believes that public revelation is all that is necessary for salvation, for everyone. Private revelations may help in that endeavor, but are not required for everyone to believe, and may even be personalized for the individual. Some private revelations have also included various messages to the Church as a whole, and have been accepted into the spiritual life of the Church (Marian apparitions are an obvious example).

Catholics have had prophets and prophetesses throughout its history, and many of them are also canonized saints. Again, many of their messages have been incorporated into the spiritual life of the Church.

Catholics believe that public revelation points towards Jesus Christ. Before Him, God spoke in parts. God then spoke through His Son, Jesus Christ, the Word, God incarnate. Public revelation includes scripture in its entirety, Old and New Testament. We do not believe that any scripture was written after the death of the last apostle, since all that was necessary for salvation was already revealed, and included that Scripture. It is through Scripture and the life of the Church that we can learn of what the disciples were taught on what is necessary for salvation by Jesus Christ.

 

[zerinus]

Already answered. With the last scripture was written, after the last apostle died.

And why should he be the last one?

See above. We are talking about Catholicism here, right?

Of course not! I am talking about the religion that Jesus established, as recorded in the New Testament. That is not the same thing as Catholicism. There is nothing in that revelation, that scripture, that New Testament, which justifies belief in the idea that public revelation ended with the last Apostle.

 

[Javl]

JAVL,
I understand that one such as yourself would feel that God stopped talking to His children after the Revelation of the Apostle John, and hasn’t spoken since as some sort of trial of everyone’s faith in the church you profess as the ultimate authority for all things heavenly, but I simply disagree and I would disagree if the Bible were my only source for revealed knowledge. The Bible contradicts your position throughout its message of salvation.

Merry Christmas and peace to you also.

No, Parker. God has not stopped speaking to me or to others of His children. Public revelation was completed with the death of John, but private revelation continues till this day. Our faith needs no trial either, for it is by God’s grace that we believe in, and are called by, His Son, Jesus. Also our position is supported by the Bible. It is you, the LDS, who in reality do not understand the fulness of the truth that has been revealed and given to us. We need no aides in understanding, for our understanding is a gift from Our Heavenly Father.

A Merry Christmas to you also, and peace be with you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[zerinus]

Just so everyone is clear on all of the straw men arguments that Zerinus has brought up in his arguments:

Catholicism believes that public revelation is all that is necessary for salvation, for everyone. Private revelations may help in that endeavor, but are not required for everyone to believe, and may even be personalized for the individual. Some private revelations have also included various messages to the Church as a whole, and have been accepted into the spiritual life of the Church (Marian apparitions are an obvious example).

Catholics have had prophets and prophetesses throughout its history, and many of them are also canonized saints. Again, many of their messages have been incorporated into the spiritual life of the Church.

Catholics believe that public revelation points towards Jesus Christ. Before Him, God spoke in parts. God then spoke through His Son, Jesus Christ, the Word, God incarnate. Public revelation includes scripture in its entirety, Old and New Testament. We do not believe that any scripture was written after the death of the last apostle, since all that was necessary for salvation was already revealed, and included that Scripture. It is through Scripture and the life of the Church that we can learn of what the disciples were taught on what is necessary for salvation by Jesus Christ.

And Mormons disagree with Catholics. That is a declaration, not a proof or an argument. Declaring something to be true does not make it true.

 

[TheosisM]

And why should he be the last one?

Of course not! I am talking about the religion that Jesus established, as recorded in the New Testament. That is not the same thing as Catholicism. There is nothing in that revelation, that scripture, that New Testament, which justifies belief in the idea that public revelation ended with the last Apostle.

In your opinion of course. Obviously others here believe that the religion that Jesus established as recorded in the New Testament is Catholicism.

John should be the last one because with his writings, the entirety of the scriptural message of salvation was complete. It is unnecessary for there to be an explicit reference in scripture itself for this, since Catholics are not sola scriptura anyway.

This idea that public revelation was supposed to continue is interesting, since we have yet to see examples of things that are required for salvation (what should ordinarily be known and done by all), for all, that were not revealed anciently. This seems to be a difference in how Catholicism approaches God’s message of salvation to His Church and how Mormons approach it.

 

[TheosisM]

And Mormons disagree with Catholics. That is a declaration, not a proof or an argument. Declaring something to be true does not make it true.

Obviously. My point in the quoted post was to show that you were misrepresenting what I stated, as well as the Catholic position on a number of issues. Of course Mormons disagree, just like how we disagree with Mormons.

 

[KathleenGee]

Joseph Smith would be within the category of private revelation. And then his new ideas would have to be brought before the Congregation of Sacred Doctrine…correct me Catholics here on this congregation – to subject his writings to supporting the same faith held of Jesus, His salvation history, and Joseph’s place as a private prophet.

 

[ParkerD]

“Relieved” is only a part of the feeling God gives us through confession. I know this, because I have experienced it!

I gave you the Bible quote. John 20:21-23

He therefore said to them again, “Peace be to you! As the Father has sent me, I also send you.” When he had said this, he breathed upon them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

Jay,
Jesus was sending out the apostles, not the bishops. He gave the authority to bind on earth that which would be bound in heaven to the apostles, not to the bishops. He gave the responsibility of judging worthiness to the apostles to keep the church from having ravenous wolves within the ranks of the membership, but that did not say that the apostles or the bishops needed to be an intermediary for every confession of sin. My goodness! What you have experienced could not have been the Holy Ghost except for the fact that God was hearing your confession to Him, not to the priest. The Bible did not give the priest the right or responsibility to tell you whether you had been forgiven or not. The Holy Ghost could tell you that directly, through your sincerity and through the atoning grace of Christ.

 

[Bataar]

Jay,
Jesus was sending out the apostles, not the bishops. He gave the authority to bind on earth that which would be bound in heaven to the apostles, not to the bishops. He gave the responsibility of judging worthiness to the apostles to keep the church from having ravenous wolves within the ranks of the membership, but that did not say that the apostles or the bishops needed to be an intermediary for every confession of sin. My goodness! What you have experienced could not have been the Holy Ghost except for the fact that God was hearing your confession to Him, not to the priest. The Bible did not give the priest the right or responsibility to tell you whether you had been forgiven or not. The Holy Ghost could tell you that directly, through your sincerity and through the atoning grace of Christ.

Could you cite any historical writings from the early church that backs this claim up?