R
rinnie
Guest
[SIGN][/SIGN]
Bingo. Then how could Jesus have left the Church? He couldn’t!
- Status
P
ParkerD
Guest
Rinnie,And God Bless you but where does any of this scripture you quote show that the devil beat the Holy Spirit and took over the Catholic Church.
If anyone says that the devil took over they are calling Jesus Christ a liar. Its as simple as that.
Please definitely understand that none of those scriptures say the devil did the specific thing you wrote in your question. By being allowed to have influence does not make it a “takeover”. It means the dissension, the influences by outside interests including governments and their leaders, and sometimes perhaps internal decisions that were not in the best interests of the people, could have been influenced by the powers of the adversary who seeks to deceive–but remember that the core message of the gospel was still there and good people were still in the church.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Rinnie,
The Jeremiah and Isaiah passages are specifically about the gatherings of the house of Israel in the latter days, including the house of Ephraim and all the tribes of Israel (i.e. descendants on the earth.) Certainly, the apostles were sent also, and became fishers of men.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Jay53,This is nothing but confusion. God IS the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit was not calling any more apostles, then God willfully let His Church fall into this so-called apostasy. I’m sorry, but this is nothing but confusing. It’s like you’re saying that Jesus established His Church, but then willfully let it fail because ________ ???
And seriously, Matthew 21:33-43 has nothing to do with the LDS Church at all!!! It’s referring to the Jewish people. The son that the landlord sent was Jesus who was killed. I can’t even figure out what interpretation you are trying to put on that parable that would even involve the LDS Church. Equating the son killed in the parable with Joseph Smith?
I would recommend reading the article I linked in my earlier posts if you haven’t already.
It may help explain the differences between apostles and priests and how the successions to the Apostles worked.
I would also like to see the evidence of all of the Mormon Apostles Gift of Miracles. If they are in fact true apostles that would be something to see. (And I honestly don’t mean that sarcastically - if you have anything on that I would be interested to read it.)
As always, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
Woops again if you thought my reference to Matthew 21:33-43 was referring to anyone but Christ as far as the son who was killed. It is of course a parable about Christ and the Jews, but note that the intent given by the parable was that those who killed the son would do that to “seize on his inheritance”. Also, that “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”
Bringing forth the fruits thereof involves the Gentiles, and in the latter days the United States nation is a “Gentile” nation which brings “forth the fruits thereof.” That is why the United States has been such a blessed nation.
The greatest miracle in the world is the miracle of healing provided by the Savior, and it happens every day across the world. There have been other miracles, but none as great as that. (And no, I’m not saying that is exclusive to the LDS church, at all.) It is a joint effort by all people who seek to bring people to Christ and have them be healed through repentance, forgiveness, forgiving others, and gaining peace in their lives and joy in their soul.
R
rinnie
Guest
But that is going against scripture Parker. Why can you not see this. Jesus promised the CC could not err in its teaching because it is being led by the power of the Holy SPirit.
And I know none of those scriptures say the devil took over because that would have scripture contradict scripture.
But the bottom line is Parker Jesus said that the CC would never ever fail or fall because it is led by the Power of the HS. IF you believe this you could not believe that JS was sent from God to sway people from it. If you believed the Words of Jesus Christ you could not possibly believe JS. Can you not see that Jesus could not possibly NEED JS. For what reason. You yourself said he did not agree with the teahings of the CC. Right there he disagrees with the HS. Unless you have to say Jesus lied and the HS failed. Which in part is saying GOd lied and left us orphans. And scripture will show you Jesus said the opposite.
Jesus Christ himself is the leader can you not see this. Why would Jesus sent JS to tear down his church? Jesus said himself in scripture when he was being accused of being possessed in Luke 11:17 Every house divided against itself will be laid waste and the house will fall against house. If Jesus sent JS he divided his own kingdom. Can you not see this?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Rinnie,
You would probably need to read some of the other discussion on this thread. Jesus desires free will to be fully operative in the lives of everyone. Free will means many, many choices–some good and some less than good, meaning they can choose whatever they deep down want to choose.
Jesus’ kingdom would be bigger than a single church. It is comprised of those who sincerely seek Him with all of their hearts. Then, He leads them along in His way, not their way. But all along the way, they get to choose whether they will be led.
T
Techno2000
Guest
I think what you are trying to say is the Mormons are the ones that are Bearing Fruit right now in the U.S. … Right ?
R
rinnie
Guest
Yes he gave them free will. Why do you think that if we as Catholic have free will and we choose it to follow the ten commandments and the RCC that is led by the HS that it takes our free will away. Do you not see that it is by our free will that we OBEY?
And Jesus never said you can choose whatever you deep down want to choose. He said quite the opposite. He said the right road is narrow, and few with follow because it is hard. He said people will turn away from the CC and take other paths because they will follow the will of man, not Gods way.
Jesus said if you love me keep my word, do not stray away from the faith. Stick with Tradition and the early teachers of the Faith. He never said I will be sending a prophet who will turn you away from the CC. He said the opposite he said there will be many false prophets who will TRY to sway you away from the CC. But to stick with the teachings of the CC.
R
rinnie
Guest
If you agree that the Apostles were sent by Jesus Christ why do you feel that JS can disagree with their teaching’s then?
P
ParkerD
Guest
No. The United States has been a blessed nation. There have been many purposes for that, and among those purposes are fulfillment of some of Isaiah’s prophecies.
A nation that is righteous will bear the fruits of righteousness. People who are righteous will bring fruits of righteousness into their lives. Part of that involves keeping the Ten Commandments, and part involves living by the Sermon on the Mount. Those who live by those teachings bear fruits of righteousness, wherever they are in the world. I would say that the United States has had a concentration of those kinds of people during its history, and that explains why it has been a blessed nation.
Mormons are not exclusive in bearing righteous fruit, of course, but many Mormons do and also many other wonderful people do also. Christ does not deny blessings to anyone who is righteous, of course.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
You forgot one very important thing, and your omission of it in this post makes your apostacy theory highly suspect. What is that thing? Bishops. The Apostles appointed bishops, and bishops ordained priests. This is documented in the earliest church historical documents. From Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians:
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge** of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.**
So here we have a crystal clear statement from a first century Bishop of Rome, who was himself ordained by the Apostles, describing how church authority was to be passed on. The episcopate is the office of bishop, and there is absolutely no doubt the Apostles appointed bishops to head the local churches. Clement tells us that when bishops died, other men would succeed them. Not Apostles. Bishops.
Notice also what is missing in the writings of the ECF’s–any mention whatsoever that the church needed to appoint more Apostles. Nowhere is the cry for new Apostles, yet we see plenty of examples of bishops being appointed to fill offices left vacant by their martyred predecessors. Unless you think there was some sort of conspiracy very early on to cover this up, how could the church forget the need for Apostles? It makes no sense. No, the church knew exactly what it was doing to preserve the authority handed down by the Apostles through the office of bishop. If not, we would have documents stating that the church failed to appoint replacement Apostles, unless of course you believe in the conspiracy theory. St. Clement of Rome, by this letter, therefore pins down the LDS Apostacy theory on himself. Either Clement was telling the truth, or he was an apostate.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Rinnie,
He didn’t, basically, other than receiving the temporary practice which Abraham had of plural marriage, which was an “Abrahamic trial of faith” for a number of people.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Chris-WA,
Clement could have been in the position of not having the Holy Spirit with him to make a certain statement, but that does not make him “an apostate.” It makes him human.
To me it makes sense that Clement would want to assure the members that everything was fine, and to trust the process of leadership and trust the bishops. That is logical.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
Gosh it’s amazing the different take LDS have on biblical history versus other faiths. You say Abraham “received” the temporary practice of plural marriage. I say Abraham did not. He acted at the request of Sarah when she lost faith in God’s promiss that she would bear Abraham a son. Nowhere do we find in biblical scripture that God told or permitted Abraham to enter into plural marriage. Think he was justified in doing so? How did that work out for him by the way? How about the birth of two nations that would forever be fighting against each other to the present day. Not a good family scene, huh? Polygamy always spelled trouble in the bible for those that practiced it. Abrahamic trial of faith? Nonsense.
Only under Moses was polygamy permitted, and why (according to scripture), because of the hardness of their hearts! Doesn’t sound like much of an endorsement does it? I know the Mormon DoC describes it completely differently, as some sort of elevated form of marriage, but that is totally inconsistent with the Old Testament, and defnitely not found anywhere in the New. The Israelites were put on probation after violating the covenant. Marriage was to be between one man and one woman, but they wanted to be like the pagan nations, who all practiced polygamy. It was a concession to their hardness of hearts, their inability to keep the covenant, their failure to live according to how God intended. Divorce was also permitted in this state of probation, but Christ himself corrected that in the New.
R
rinnie
Guest
Not true. Not true at all. Jesus said that Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hardness of hearts. But it was not this way in the beginning.
Jesus never accepted plural marriages as he said and never will.
R
rinnie
Guest
Excatly and look how that turned out. Sarah did nothing but reject that child. She could not even stand to look at it. It is the Child that suffered. No one has the right to go against the word of God. No One.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
I’m sorry but you have to face the facts here ParkerD, and you are avoiding them. If Clement, being personally trained and ordained by the Apostles (which I hope you do not dispute) knowingly lied to the church about the method of Apostolic succession, then he would be an apostate. You can’t excuse that as just being ‘human.’ If the leader of the early Church knowingly steered the flock wrong in such a major manner as this, that would be a very serious transgression. Clement is either telling the truth or lying. In order for the LDS Great Apostacy theory to be true, Clement has to be lying. You’re trying to be diplomatic about it, but that effort conceals the truth of the matter.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Do you think a Nation that Legalizes Abortion is a Blessed Nation ?
B
banarick
Guest
Hmmmmm So if John was to be the successor and had the keys I think it is only logical to ask what his disciples thought about the leadership of the Church. They would know. St Ignatius of Antioch, 3rd Bishop of Antioch, Martyr was a disciple of the Apostle John.“to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and , because you hold the presidency in love named after Christ and named after the Father.” AD 110
What about others from the line of teaching from St John? St Polycarp of Smyrna was a young disciple of St John and colleague of St Ignatius and master of St Irenaeus of Lyons. The testimony of St Irenaeus is clear in “Against Heresies”, Bk 3 Chap. 3 states,
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate, Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing (in his ears), and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone (in this), for there were many still remaining who had received intstructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the bretheren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles."
Elsewhere St Iranaeus says , “the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been annouced to men by the apostles, With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”
The witnesses and followers of St John are clear that the primacy resided in Rome. They would know best. They addressed this at the beginning. A theory more than 1800 years later fails in the face of the witnesses and disciples of St John.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Rinnie and Chris-WA,
I can certainly see your point about Abraham and Isaac and Ishmael. But Jacob has a much different situation, and I think his case shows that God actually did allow and even sanction plural marriage in a certain situation. The twelve tribes of Israel really are an important foundation for much of Bible teachings and prophetic promises.
- Status