LDS View of the Great Apostasy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fatboys
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fat,

And do you teach and profess that the sinful Mary had carnal relations with the Father that came down from heaven to produce Jesus…and the atonement took place in the garden with the sweating of blood?
This is just plain silly. First off we have no Idea how Mary conceived . Second it is none of our business. Third we know that the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary. Forth Jesus is not the Son of the Holy Ghost. Fifth, Jesus is the Son of our Heavenly Father. Now however that happened no one knows. That being said, I have tried to share with you that Adam and Eve were told to multiply and replenish the Earth. To do this they would have had to have sex. If they were to have sex, then sex would not have been sinful, or wrong. God commanded them to do so. Just because the world has made intimate relations with a spouse as something nasty, does not mean that if put in the right time and the right place, with the right feelings of Love and within the bonds of marriage that these relations are in any way shape or form dirty. It is your own worldly thoughts that has cast such feelings towards relations. Perhaps I am just abnormal, but when my wife and I are as one, there can be no greater bond between a man and a woman. There is no lust, there is not feeling of nasty and dirty. It is the sharing of love.
 
Lets take one of the traditions that you teach. The birth of Christ is the most important event that has ever happened to the fallen man.
Actually, that is not a correct expository on Catholic teaching.
If the importance of Christ being born without original sin was so important, and your logic dictates that this must mean that Mary must likewise be born without the original sin,
It is not that it was* required *that Mary must also be born without original sin, but that it was fitting that the vessel which contained Him Who Could Not Be Contained would be pure.
they why is this not mentioned in any of the scriptures.
But it *is *mentioned in the Word of God.

We just don’t believe that the Word of God is ONLY the Scriptures.
 
CopticChristian;9991332:
Have you ever played the game where a group of you sit in a circle and one person whispers something in the person sitting next to them and then they do and so on until it goes all around the circle. The last person recites what was told to them via all the others that it has gone through. I have played this many times, and never is it word for word what was told to the first person. Oral tradition is better than none, but is by far less reliable that written text.
You do know, Fatboys, that it was Oral Tradition that gave you the New Testament, right?

You would not know that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired, except through Oral Tradition.
 
To do this they would have had to have sex. If they were to have sex, then sex would not have been sinful, or wrong.
Are you under the impression that Catholicism believes sex between a husband and wife is sinful or wrong?
 
Jesus said he would always be with his Church. He has never abandoned it. There was no Great Apostasy. You can’t give an exact year or place. The apostles appointed successors, passing down the teachings of Jesus until the books of the bible were chosen (the canon). This has continued for 2000 years.

Why would Jesus abandon his church for 1800 years and then send an ANGEL, not come HIMSELF, to talk to a man who was a known fraud?
Well said:thumbsup:
 
Actually, that is not a correct expository on Catholic teaching.

It is not that it was* required *that Mary must also be born without original sin, but that it was fitting that the vessel which contained Him Who Could Not Be Contained would be pure.

But it *is *mentioned in the Word of God.

We just don’t believe that the Word of God is ONLY the Scriptures.
WHAT!!! The Bible is not the only word of God?
 
Are you under the impression that Catholicism believes sex between a husband and wife is sinful or wrong?
Yes, and that it is dirty and here for us to endure until we die. That a person can not devote his life to Christ and his kingdom and be able to focus on its teachings without totally abstaining from it. That it takes away from the spirit of God in some twisted way.
 
WHAT!!! The Bible is not the only word of God?
No, it is not.

Catholics are not people of the book, Fatboys. Like Muslims and Jews.

Our faith does not come from a book no matter how holy.

Our faith comes from a Person. Jesus is the Word of God.
 
Lets take one of the traditions that you teach. The birth of Christ is the most important event that has ever happened to the fallen man. If the importance of Christ being born without original sin was so important, and your logic dictates that this must mean that Mary must likewise be born without the original sin, they why is this not mentioned in any of the scriptures. **Nothing, notta. It was never taught by Christ, nor his apostles. **

It makes sense as science as confirmed that children at this time has a better understanding of right and wrong for the most part.

A person who does not have the capacity to know right from wrong does not need baptism. It is not about a number, it is about the sacrifice of Christ to save those who have died without knowledge who have not been baptized.
Fat,

This would be arguing in favor of Sola Scriptura.

Using a hat to decipher reformed egyptian, is nowhere mentioned in the Scriptures, nowhere nada…👍
 
Yes, and that it is dirty and here for us to endure until we die. That a person can not devote his life to Christ and his kingdom and be able to focus on its teachings without totally abstaining from it. That it takes away from the spirit of God in some twisted way.
You have been misinformed, then, about what the Catholic Church believes and proclaims about sex.
 
CopticChristian;9991332:
Have you ever played the game where a group of you sit in a circle and one person whispers something in the person sitting next to them and then they do and so on until it goes all around the circle. The last person recites what was told to them via all the others that it has gone through. I have played this many times, and never is it word for word what was told to the first person. Oral tradition is better than none, but is by far less reliable that written text.
Fat,

Please. Just for one moment please. I am a college graduate, actually beyond that. Are you a college graduate? Just answer this one question so at least I know that we are on the same page.
 
CopticChristian;9991332:
Have you ever played the game where a group of you sit in a circle and one person whispers something in the person sitting next to them and then they do and so on until it goes all around the circle. The last person recites what was told to them via all the others that it has gone through. I have played this many times, and never is it word for word what was told to the first person. Oral tradition is better than none, but is by far less reliable that written text.
Oral tradition is not comparable to a game of telephone.

You need to provide a reference for your idea that oral tradition is unreliable. Here is a reference that says it is reliable.

“Oral traditions, among many African peoples, are more complex, better-organized forms of recording history than the stories and legends of some other preliterate societies. Traditional controls in the form of training and taboos have served to guarantee the reliability of historical accounts. “Palace historians” and griots often occupy hereditary positions, and the training of custodians of a society’s history usually begins at an early age. Special occasions such as coronations, burials, births, and other rituals present opportunities to perfect their arts. Stringent sanctions are attached to any distortion of historical accounts. The fact that in such societies crimes and punishments are communal and that physical and spiritual influences guide social compliance provides added checks against manipulation of accounts. Oral traditions have thus been successfully employed to reconstruct the history of many societies in Africa. In Nigeria, the pioneering works of Kenneth Dike—Trade and Politics in the Niger Delta (1956)—and Saburi Biobaku—The Egba and Their Neighbours (1957, based on a 1951 thesis) relied mainly on gathered oral traditions and have survived much historiographical scrutiny to remain national historical classics. Substantial works on East African history have also depended on the collection and use of oral traditions following the pioneering works of B. A. Ogot. Jan Vansina’s seminal theoretical work, Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology, articulated the major theoretical advances for the defense of the use of oral traditions in historical reconstruction. The case for oral tradition was further taken up in his more recent study, Oral Tradition as History. Vansina, however, not only makes a case for the validity of oral tradition in historical reconstruction but has produced historical works that fully utilize the method. These include The Tio Kingdom of the Middle Kongo 1880–1892 (1973) and The Children of Wool: A History of the Kuba People (1978). Vansina’s influence as the foremost theoretician of oral tradition historiography is not in doubt.”

Read more: Oral Traditions - Oral Traditions As A Source And As A Method Of Historical Construction - History, Reconstruction, African, and Vansina - JRank Articles

science.jrank.org/pages/10523/Oral-Traditions-Oral-Traditions-Source-Method-Historical-Construction.html#ixzz2BhFaINgm
 
I have never said not being baptized is a sin. Those are your words not mine. However, it is clear that not being baptized certainly can keep us from the kingdom of God as Jesus plainly taught in John 3.

Rebecca, if at least some of the cares of this life are not carried into the spirit world then why did Christ go preach to the spirits in prison?

For Peter says, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” (1 Peter 3:18-20). So he not only went to the spirit world, but he felt it necessary to preach to the individuals there. Would Christ preach to them if they could not improve their condition?

This then is the point, individuals in the spirit world can change. They can accept the gospel. They can receive the ordinances of salvation and still be saved in the kingdom of God.
Janderich, the souls of those who died before the death and resurrection of Jesus were in what we call limbus patrum, or the limbo of the fathers. The old Catholic encyclopedia has a good explanation of it.

Though it can hardly be claimed, on the evidence of extant literature, that a definite and consistent belief in the limbus patrum of Christian tradition was universal among the Jews, it cannot on the other hand be denied that, more especially in the extra-canonical writings of the second or first centuries B.C., some such belief finds repeated expression; and New Testament references to the subject remove all doubt as to the current Jewish belief in the time of Christ. Whatever name may be used in apocryphal Jewish literature to designate the abode of the departed just, the implication generally is

that their condition is one of happiness,
that it is temporary, and
that it is to be replaced by a condition of final and permanent bliss when the Messianic Kingdom is established.

In the New Testament, Christ refers by various names and figures to the place or state which Catholic tradition has agreed to call the limbus patrum. In Matthew 8:11, it is spoken of under the figure of a banquet “with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven” (cf. Luke 8:29; 14:15), and in Matthew 25:10 under the figure of a marriage feast to which the prudent virgins are admitted, while in the parable of Lazarus and Dives it is called “Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16:22) and in Christ’s words to the penitent thief on Calvary the name paradise is used (Luke 23:43). St. Paul teaches (Ephesians 4:9) that before ascending into Heaven Christ “also descended first into the lower parts of the earth,” and St. Peter still more explicitly teaches that “being put to death indeed, in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit,” Christ went and “preached to those souls that were in prison, which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noah” (1 Peter 3:18-20).

It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory. As a result of the Fall, Heaven was closed against men. Actual possession of the beatific vision was postponed, even for those already purified from sin, until the Redemption should have been historically completed by Christ’s visible ascendancy into Heaven. Consequently, the just who had lived under the Old Dispensation, and who, either at death or after a course of purgatorial discipline, had attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into glory, were obliged to await the coming of the Incarnate Son of God and the full accomplishment of His visible earthly mission. Meanwhile they were “in prison,” as St. Peter says; but, as Christ’s own words to the penitent thief and in the parable of Lazarus clearly imply, their condition was one of happiness, notwithstanding the postponement of the higher bliss to which they looked forward. And this, substantially, is all that Catholic tradition teaches regarding the limbus patrum.
 
Janderich, the souls of those who died before the death and resurrection of Jesus were in what we call limbus patrum, or the limbo of the fathers. The old Catholic encyclopedia has a good explanation of it.

Wow I didn’t think I was going to get a response. I wasn’t going to hold it over your head but thanks for commenting.

So let me see if I can get to the heart of this explanation. In essence there was a space between death and the resurrection for some people called limbo. It was a place of happiness. People there did not improve, simply waited and then moved on after Christ’s resurrection.

This information seems very poor in relation to the scripture I provided. It twists the word "prison’ to imply a condition of happiness. It also does not account for why Christ preached to the people there.
 
Wow I didn’t think I was going to get a response. I wasn’t going to hold it over your head but thanks for commenting.
🤷 I don’t have all the time in the world, always lots going on.
So let me see if I can get to the heart of this explanation. In essence there was a space between death and the resurrection for some people called limbo. It was a place of happiness. People there did not improve, simply waited and then moved on after Christ’s resurrection.
You make it sound so blah. Hello. We’re talking about the effect of the Father sacrificing His Son.
This information seems very poor in relation to the scripture I provided. It twists the word "prison’ to imply a condition of happiness. It also does not account for why Christ preached to the people there.
I think you try to make it more complicated than it is.

There is nothing that says Jesus needed to preach. That is your Mormon twist.
 
Read this: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

and then we can come back and discuss. 👍

You, like millions of folks, have been arguing against a false idea of what Catholicism is.

Read what we really believe, and then, if you object, you can come back and raise your objections.

But at least then you will be fighting the right idea, rather than a cipher.
I thought much of it was really good. I am trying to put into words what I want to say but I am not having much success. From what I read, that the only reasons for intimate relations is for procreation. Do you as a Catholic believe that there are no other reasons for being intimate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top