LDS OT apostasies?

[Catholic_Dude]

I was reading an official LDS document that says there were multiple apostasies from the time of adam up to Jesus with the Great Apostasy taking place some unspecified time after the Apostles died.

Anyway, in regards to the OT apostasies, how do LDS reconcile this with the fact places like Luke 3 gives a unbroken succession from Adam to Jesus. Given that the covenant with Abraham through the mark of circumcision was carried on since Abraham means there couldn’t have been an apostasy during that span because anyone who wasnt circumcised was cut off from his family line and all his inheritance.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I was reading an official LDS document that says there were multiple apostasies from the time of adam up to Jesus with the Great Apostasy taking place some unspecified time after the Apostles died.

Anyway, in regards to the OT apostasies, how do LDS reconcile this …
.

Mormons cannot account for any of their sect’s outrageous assertions.:banghead:

They can only bob and weave and feint and duck, and with Xavier University beating Bring’em Young in the NCAA Tournament, it’s official:

Catholics 1
Mormons 0

:extrahappy:

 

[zerinus]

Anyway, in regards to the OT apostasies, how do LDS reconcile this with the fact places like Luke 3 gives a unbroken succession from Adam to Jesus.

That is an unbroken genealogical succession. It simply tells us who is whose dad. It has no bearing on the apostasy.

Given that the covenant with Abraham through the mark of circumcision was carried on since Abraham means there couldn’t have been an apostasy during that span because anyone who wasnt circumcised was cut off from his family line and all his inheritance.

First of all, the apostasies that are thus referred to relate to the events that took place before Abraham (as well as afterwards). Secondly, circumcision was a sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendents; but that did not mean that because someone was circumcised, he (or they as a whole) could not apostatize. The Jews are still circumcised; but from the Christian point of view, they are apostates from the Christian faith, because they rejected that new covenant that Jesus came to make with them. But they are still circumcised. Of course, that is a tongue in cheek statement, because Christianity is itself apostate; therefore the Jews are no worse off than the Christians from that point of view. Nevertheless it helps to illustrate the fallacy of your argument.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

Right. Most boys in the U.S. are circumcised, for what I understand are health reasons. I was circumcised, even though my parents had no religion whatever, and so were most boys I ever saw naked as I was growing up, and there surely were precious few jews living where I grew up.

However, my understanding is that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant for Christians, and it is surely also true that many are baptised without that baptism having any saving effect whatever, Mormons being one among many examples.

 

[Allweather]

The Jews are still circumcised; but from the Christian point of view, they are apostates from the Christian faith, because they rejected that new covenant that Jesus came to make with them. zerinus

That doesn’t sound right to me. My understanding is that apostasy means the renunciation of the faith, which implies that the faith was once held. Jews who were never Christians couldn’t be apostates from Christianity, anymore than Christains who were never Mormons could be apostate from Mormonism.

Of course, you may have a uniquely Mormon definition for that word, apostasy.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

That is an unbroken genealogical succession. It simply tells us who is whose dad. It has no bearing on the apostasy.

After Abraham though it did because it was through the Jews the Messiah would come.

First of all, the apostasies that are thus referred to relate to the events that took place before Abraham (as well as afterwards).

Im not sure what your getting at here.

Secondly, circumcision was a sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendents; but that did not mean that because someone was circumcised, he (or they as a whole) could not apostatize.

They could still apostatize (the Bible lists other sins that could result in being “cut off”)…the point was if they did they would have been cut off from their inheritance. The only way an apostasy could have taken place is if everyone was cut off…however, if everyone was cut off then there would be no family from the Messiah to come through. The Bible shows a continuous succession of men who were born into the Abrahamic covenant thus fulfilling the prophecy/promise made to Abraham.

The Jews are still circumcised; but from the Christian point of view, they are apostates from the Christian faith, because they rejected that new covenant that Jesus came to make with them. But they are still circumcised. Of course, that is a tongue in cheek statement, because Christianity is itself apostate; therefore the Jews are no worse off than the Christians from that point of view. Nevertheless it helps to illustrate the fallacy of your argument.
zerinus

The rest of this is irrelevant. You mentioned yourself the “new covenant” established by Jesus…this covenant doesnt include the requirement of circumcision.

 

[zerinus]

After Abraham though it did because it was through the Jews the Messiah would come.

Im not sure what your getting at here.

They could still apostatize (the Bible lists other sins that could result in being “cut off”)…the point was if they did they would have been cut off from their inheritance. The only way an apostasy could have taken place is if everyone was cut off…however, if everyone was cut off then there would be no family from the Messiah to come through. The Bible shows a continuous succession of men who were born into the Abrahamic covenant thus fulfilling the prophecy/promise made to Abraham.

The rest of this is irrelevant. You mentioned yourself the “new covenant” established by Jesus…this covenant doesnt include the requirement of circumcision.

My reasoning in my previos post still applies. No additional comment is required.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi Z,
There is another teenager who recently burst upon this forum. He calls himself “Godhead”. He reminds me a lot of you, except that, while he believes in God, he refuses to worship Him. You two should get together and discuss. I would enjoy reading that debate.

God love you,
Paul

 

[zerinus]

Hi Z,
There is another teenager who recently burst upon this forum. He calls himself “Godhead”. He reminds me a lot of you, except that, while he believes in God, he refuses to worship Him. You two should get together and discuss. I would enjoy reading that debate.

God love you,
Paul

I have already given him the answer he required, just as I have given you. You miss a lot, don’t you!

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

Yes, I’m sorry I missed that. But then again, I’m a grown-up with a real job and a family to support.

Paul

 

[zerinus]

Yes, I’m sorry I missed that. But then again, I’m a grown-up with a real job and a family to support.

Paul

That’s amazing!

zerinus

 

[Chris-WA]

In order for the LDS to demonstrate Old Testament apostacies, they would have to demonstrate the loss of the Jewish priesthood over certain periods of time, since this is how religious authority is tranferred from generation to generation. Obviously at some point during the earthly ministry of Christ, the priesthood authority had to transfer from the Jews to the Apostles. I believe this took place during the last supper. Jesus made the Apostles priests when he instituted the new covenant in the form of the eucharist.

It is important to understand that Mormons and Catholics view the progression of salvation history very differently. Mormons see salvation history as a series of failed “dispensations” until the final dispensation ushered in by Joseph Smith. In each dispensation God established his “church” (although I don’t think its proper to call it that in the Old Testament), only to have its leaders completely apostacize each time. On the other hand, Catholics see salvation history as a gradual expansion of God’s family and gradual revelation of himself until the full revelation of himself in the person of Jesus Christ. It is at this point that the church is established to take this message to the whole world. Catholics are not dispensationalists.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

My reasoning in my previos post still applies. No additional comment is required.

zerinus

How does it still apply? As far as I can tell your reasoning was faulty…If all the Jews would have fell into apostasy then there would be no lineage for the Messiah to come from.

 

[zerinus]

How does it still apply? As far as I can tell your reasoning was faulty…If all the Jews would have fell into apostasy then there would be no lineage for the Messiah to come from.

Go back and read. This is what I had said:

That is an unbroken genealogical

succession. It simply tells us who is whose dad. It has no bearing on the apostasy.

And that reasoning still applies. I did not say that “all the Jews had fallen into apostasy”. But as a nation they had strayed so far from the spirit and letter of the original teachings of Moses and the prophets that they could no longer recognize the virtue of the Jesus—overlooking His mighty miracles and criticising Him for healing on the Sabbath day, or eating with unwahsen hands. Why then do you think that they rejected Him and had Him crucified? Not all of them did of course. Some believed in Him and even became His disciples. But the great majority of them did, as a result of which the gospel dispensation was taken away from the Jews and given to the Gentiles. That is what we mean by their apostasy.

zerinus

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Go back and read. This is what I had said:
That is an unbroken genealogical succession. It simply tells us who is whose dad. It has no bearing on the apostasy. And that reasoning still applies.

That isnt just an ordinary succession, especially after Abraham. From Abraham onwards, if you werent circumcised for example you were cut off from your family and inheritance. Thus, the Messiah couldnt have come through any of those linages…and the only option is that there was no full apostasy between Abraham and Jesus.

I did not say that “all the Jews had fallen into apostasy”. But as a nation they had strayed so far from the spirit and letter of the original teachings of Moses…

So there wasnt technically an apostasy…unless apostasy can mean only a portion of the faithful fell away.

I did not say that “all the Jews had fallen into apostasy”. But as a nation they had strayed so far from the spirit and letter of the original teachings of Moses and the prophets that they could no longer recognize the virtue of the Jesus—overlooking His mighty miracles and criticising Him for healing on the Sabbath day, or eating with unwahsen hands. Why then do you think that they rejected Him and had Him crucified? Not all of them did of course. Some believed in Him and even became His disciples. But the great majority of them did, as a result of which the gospel dispensation was taken away from the Jews and given to the Gentiles. That is what we mean by their apostasy. zerinus

So if “not all of them did” we see God’s Providence was at work in the background the whole time, there was never a time when nobody could rightly be called a Jew. From Abraham to Jesus there was always some faithful families to the covenant between God and Abraham.
Im not sure why the “good Jews” were punished by having the dispensation taken away from them and given to the Gentiles.
Whats even more interesting is that if there was an Apostasy after Jesus ascended and the Apostles died (all of whom were Jews) then how was the dispensation given to the Gentiles?

 

[zerinus]

That isnt just an ordinary succession, especially after Abraham. From Abraham onwards, if you werent circumcised for example you were cut off from your family and inheritance. Thus, the Messiah couldnt have come through any of those linages…and the only option is that there was no full apostasy between Abraham and Jesus.

So there wasnt technically an apostasy…unless apostasy can mean only a portion of the faithful fell away.

So if “not all of them did” we see God’s Providence was at work in the background the whole time, there was never a time when nobody could rightly be called a Jew. From Abraham to Jesus there was always some faithful families to the covenant between God and Abraham.
Im not sure why the “good Jews” were punished by having the dispensation taken away from them and given to the Gentiles.
Whats even more interesting is that if there was an Apostasy after Jesus ascended and the Apostles died (all of whom were Jews) then how was the dispensation given to the Gentiles?

You are playing with words. If you have a better word than “apostasy” to use to refer to the phenomenon that I had just described—i.e. the national rejection by the Jews of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the promised Messiah; their subsequent destruction as a nation, and their removal from their land of inheritance and scattering among the Gentiles as a punishment for it; and their removal from the privileged position of being the custodians and disseminators of the gospel, with that privilege being given to the Gentiles instead—if you have a better word than “apostasy” to describe this phenomenon, I would like to know what it is.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

You are playing with words. If you have a better word than “apostasy” to use to refer to the phenomenon that I had just described—i.e. the national rejection by the Jews of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the promised Messiah; their subsequent destruction as a nation, and their removal from their land of inheritance and scattering among the Gentiles as a punishment for it; and their removal from the privileged position of being the custodians and disseminators of the gospel, with that privilege being given to the Gentiles instead—if you have a better word than “apostasy” to describe this phenomenon, I would like to know what it is.

zerinus

Apostasy is the wrong word, period. The Jews couldn’t be apostate for having rejected Jesus as Messiah, because they never accepted Him in the first place.

This is the problem the Mormons have with the entire concept of apostasy. They’re mis-defining the word, and the concept that the word represents. They claim a Great Apostasy of Christianity dating from approximately the time of the death of the last Apostle, or the moment the divine authority was taken away from John who, supposedly, is still wandering around out there somewhere. But, when pressed on the issue they have to don tophats and canes, and start dancing, like cartoon crickets.

As with so many other crazy ideas that came out from the mouth and mind of Joseph Smith, the Mormons are stuck having to defend the Great Apostasy. Tough luck.

 

[zerinus]

Apostasy is the wrong word, period.

I had asked him to find me a better word. He hadn’t; and neither have you.

The Jews couldn’t be apostate for having rejected Jesus as Messiah, because they never accepted Him in the first place.

That is the stupidest thing I ever heard. It is like saying that the Heathen are not really Heathen for having rejected the one God because they never accepted Him in the first place. Jesus was the God of the Hebrews. He is the one who gave them the Law of Moses out of Mount Sinai. He is the one of whom Moses and all the Hebrew prophets had written and prophesied. Once they had rejected Him, they became apostates from their own religion, and everything that Moses gave them.

In a sermon that Peter preached to the Jews in the Temple after the Lord’s resurrection, this is what he said to them:

Acts 3:

13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.

14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;

15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

---

22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

Did you get that? I call that apostasy. I don’t care what you choose to call it.

This is the problem the Mormons have with the entire concept of apostasy. They’re mis-defining the word, and the concept that the word represents. They claim a Great Apostasy of Christianity dating from approximately the time of the death of the last Apostle, or the moment the divine authority was taken away from John who, supposedly, is still wandering around out there somewhere. But, when pressed on the issue they have to don tophats and canes, and start dancing, like cartoon crickets.

As with so many other crazy ideas that came out from the mouth and mind of Joseph Smith, the Mormons are stuck having to defend the Great Apostasy. Tough luck.

Your objections to the LDS concept of the Apostasy of the early Christian church is as stupid, idiotic, and nonsensical as is your objections to the Jewish one that you have just raised. No further comment is required.

zerinus

 

[Catholic_Dude]

You are playing with words. If you have a better word than “apostasy” to use to refer to the phenomenon that I had just described—i.e. the national rejection by the Jews of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the promised Messiah; their subsequent destruction as a nation, and their removal from their land of inheritance and scattering among the Gentiles as a punishment for it; and their removal from the privileged position of being the custodians and disseminators of the gospel, with that privilege being given to the Gentiles instead—if you have a better word than “apostasy” to describe this phenomenon, I would like to know what it is.
zerinus

Your shifting the discussion now entirely off the OT “apostasies” and onto the NT “Great Apostasy.” The Gentiles had nothing to do with the OT apostasies between Abraham and Jesus. The fact remains between Abraham and Jesus, the covenant between God and Abraham was maintained, there was never a complete falling away, there was always a genuine linage for the Messiah to come from.

As for the word “apostasy”…I didnt pick that word. When LDS talk about an “apostasy” I am under the impression that at that point in time there are none on earth who are faithful to God and as a consequence He basically disowns/abandons them entirely. However, if you believe there always are at least a few good people on earth then you agree with the Catholic position in that God will work through them to further His plans, He will never disown those good people.

One last point, you keep making mention of the “privilege being given to the Gentiles instead”…Jesus gave all authority to the 12 Apostles who were all Jewish. Given that the “national rejection by the Jews” didnt include each and every Jew, the result was the authority being passed on to those faithful Jews, not to the Gentiles. The Bible is clear the Apostles went on to convert the Gentiles so there was no gap of
Jews—> apostasy—> Gentiles

Further, if you believe the Apostasy took place after the death of the last Apostle and that no Gentile Christian convert was worthy to be given authority, then the Apostles didnt truly convert anyone, and all their preaching and letters fell on deaf ears.

 

[GrammasRose]

I had asked him to find me a better word. He hadn’t; and neither have you.

That is the stupidest thing I ever heard. It is like saying that the Heathen are not really Heathen for having rejected the one God because they never accepted Him in the first place. Jesus was the God of the Hebrews. He is the one who gave them the Law of Moses out of Mount Sinai. He is the one of whom Moses and all the Hebrew prophets had written and prophesied. Once they had rejected Him, they became apostates from their own religion, and everything that Moses gave them.

In a sermon that Peter preached to the Jews in the Temple after the Lord’s resurrection, this is what he said to them:

Acts 3:

13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.

14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;

15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

---

22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

Did you get that? I call that apostasy. I don’t care what you choose to call it.

You don’t know the Jews well do you? You have no clue why they did not accept Christ. He didn’t fit the description of what the Messiah was supposed to be. He was never meant to be a son of God or God to the Jews.

Your objections to the LDS concept of the Apostasy of the early Christian church is as stupid, idiotic, and nonsensical as is your objections to the Jewish one that you have just raised. No further comment is required.

zerinus

The onus is on you really since you are the one who represents the church who makes the claim of apostacy.

Do you enjoy being rude to others? He made a very good point and you have no answers for them.