Since the founder of your church is discussed, it would only be fair to compare and discuss what the Founder of our Church said… His name is Jesus, the Christ. Christ built His Church, which came to be called Catholic, with the visible head of the Church established by Christ. This visible head is today the successor of Peter, residing in Rome. Where Peter is, there is the Church.So would it be fair and accurate for me to pick historical quotes from Catholic luminaries and hold the Catholic faith responsible for those opinions today? Franky I don’t think it much of a complaint to say… look what Orson Pratt said 100 years ago, or BR McConkie said 50 years ago. So what. We don’t think they were perfect or infallible. On the other hand, look at all the supposed 'Christian" ministries that today denigrate, and marginalize The Church of Jesus Christ.
Personally, I think it is a function of religious maturity. We’ve matured, for the most part, well beyond that. Others have a lot of growing up to do still.
There has been much fiery rhetoric on both sides of the LDS / non-LDS playground. If you want to know what we believe, ask us, or read our current official publications.
What’s confusing? The claim is that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome - a monoepiscopal role. The difficulty is that there is no evidence that such a role existed in the church until much later.Since this was the structure of the early church all over the world, it is confusing why you are using the notion of “monoepiscopal” to invalidate the role of Peter. Those in communion with the Apostles did things in communion with the Apostles, and their successors, the bishops. Separation from the Apostolic succession was the hallmark of schism and apostasy.
Since you’ve matured, can you please answer this conundrum posed by Tim Staples (when you examine and come to truth, it will lead you truly to Christ):Personally, I think it is a function of religious maturity. We’ve matured, for the most part, well beyond that. Others have a lot of growing up to do still.
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you . . . If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.Correction: Some of Christianity is Trinitarian, and, obviously, since the doctrine of the Trinity, as understood today, was not formulated until the 4th and 5th century, early Christians were not Trinitarian,No, I don’t think so. Christianity is distinctly Trinitarian.
Wrong. Doctrine doesn’t establish a truth, any more than the law of gravity established gravity. The truth of the Trinity always existed, including in the early Church.Correction: Some of Christianity is Trinitarian, and, obviously, since the doctrine of the Trinity, as understood today, was not formulated until the 4th and 5th century, early Christians were not Trinitarian,
Obviously false. I seek truth. I was offended. What you mean to say is that YOU personally weren’t offended.No, what I meant was that nothing Mercygate wrote is offensive to anyone seeking truth.
I think “truth” does line up. Your interpretation of truth is another matter.Like I also said to you, if the truth doesn’t line up with what you’re doing, probably want to investigate and discern what to do.
That Christ has a church is not the issue. The question is which church.Yes, we agree on this. However, God has established His Church, with Christ as Head of the Church.
Please post the specific revelation that you think proves your point.Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. God is not unknowable, but has revealed Himself to us. He also has revealed what He established… almost 2000 years ago.
I asked so that you could examine and learn for yourself. The truth will never mislead you… if you know and go with the truth. Christ established His Church on the rock of Peter as visible head of the Church when the King was going to ascend to Heaven.Sorry, it is true. The Church that Jesus built is fully Christian, and from about the year 100 adopted the name Catholic, fitting for the universal nature of the Church.
?He didn’t write a book and hand it to us.
That’s a lot of opinion in there. I understand your opinion.It is in Scriptures. The Church existed before Scriptures were written, because they discuss the early Church. Also, since Christ said he would build His Church on the Kepha (rock), and he at the same time changed Simon’s name to Kepha, He made it clear to the Apostles that Kepha was the head of the Apostles and head of the Church. The church existed while Kepha was alive, and this dynastic office as visible head of the Church and the Church still exist today.
That includes your ChurchYes. All churches established after the Bible was written are man-made churches.
That’s and opinionThe Jews never went into full apostasy.
That’s an opinionNext, the NT Church has never and will never go into full apostasy.
I agree and do not think Hell has or will prevail.Christ told us that the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church…
I do too. It is YOUR opinion of truth that I disagree with.We believe Christ, and find no reason not to take Him at His word, for it is Reliable and True.
I agree - that is why I belong to The Church of Jesus Christ.If you go with the truth, it will lead you truly to Christ.
That’s an opinion.Since the founder of your church is discussed, it would only be fair to compare and discuss what the Founder of our Church said… His name is Jesus, the Christ. Christ built His Church, which came to be called Catholic, with the visible head of the Church established by Christ. This visible head is today the successor of Peter, residing in Rome. Where Peter is, there is the Church.
If you were interested in truth, you would eventually stop following a false prophet.That’s an opinion.
I appreciate you wanting you share but I really already understand your opinions on the matter. I am a bit more interested in substantiating claims with evidence.
I’m not confident you really are interested in finding the truth, but if you are, what will you accept as “evidence.” We believe Christ’s word is authoritative.That’s an opinion.
I appreciate you wanting you share but I really already understand your opinions on the matter. I am a bit more interested in substantiating claims with evidence.
You’re right in that I wasn’t offended. But once again, I meant that anyone seeking truth would not be offended. The Devil is often offended by the truth as well.Obviously false. I seek truth. I was offended. What you mean to say is that YOU personally weren’t offended.
Joseph Smith created an un-Christan Theology. It does not match the truth. That’s my opinion, which is well formed and in line with the truth.I think “truth” does line up. Your interpretation of truth is another matter.
I asked you to please answer a Tim Staples question in post 201. Will you kindly do so. The truth is obvious.That Christ has a church is not the issue. The question is which church.
No, I’ve provided a decent amount of information including a picture, unlike you who really like to remain anonymous.Okay - you’re an anonymous enigineer from Houston who likes computers and home projects. It still isn’t up to you to decide who God thinks is Christian
Already have established a good deal, which you cannot refute. Discussion of Peter as head of the Church… fact that Scriptures discuss the Church so that it already existed at the time of the writing of the Scriptures.Please post the specific revelation that you think proves your point.
Yeah - you already said that. I guessed that you were wrong and invited you to correct me with evidence. In as much as you merely repeated yourself with no evidence, may I assume you do not have any?
Well, what you call merely an opinion is based on learning the truth. It’s one you can’t refute. Christ established a Church. We have evidence of that, and His own words.That’s an opinion, merely an opinion.
?
Have you ever met or heard of someone who thought that he did?
On the other hand, You state it as fact - I’d love you to prove it.
It is based on the truth, and a repetition of the truth. It’s something that you can’t refute.That’s a lot of opinion in there. I understand your opinion.
No, the Catholic Church existed long before Scriptures were written and, the Catholic Church later assembled these Scriptures into the Bible.That includes your Church
No. It’s fact. The mother of Jesus, and all the apostles for instance. They were born Jewish who never went into apostasy.That’s and opinion
It’s an opinion in line with the truth. Do you not believe Christ’s own words, regarding the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church.That’s an opinion
See what I mean! Your opinion is in line with the truth here.I agree and do not think Hell has or will prevail.
My “opinion” and what I have told you is in line with the truth of Christ. What problem do you have with Christ?I do too. It is YOUR opinion of truth that I disagree with.
So, you’re Catholic now?I agree - that is why I belong to The Church of Jesus Christ.
BDawg,This is more correct than the way I said it.
Since you’ve matured, can you please answer this conundrum posed by Tim Staples (when you examine and come to truth, it will lead you truly to Christ):
"According to Matthew 18:15-18, Jesus gave us a definitive commandment. He said:
Mormons and Catholics agree that Christ was directing the faithful to obey the Church that he established and that we can be confident about doing so because the true Church to which Jesus was leading us would never steer us away from God. The question is: To what Church is he referring? Mormons say it is the LDS “church.” Catholics say it is the Catholic Church. How do we know which is true?Code:If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you . . . If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
One way to know is to ask another simple question: What if you were living in, let’s say, 1785, and you were to read this very passage from Matthew. You know that Jesus would never lead you to a “church” with no one who could speak for him. In obedience to Jesus, where would you go? The LDS did not exist yet. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He would never lead us astray or command us to follow error. If the true church did not exist on this earth for 1,800 years, then Jesus misguided millions into obeying error-filled churches with no apostolic authority. That would be unthinkable."
What about it… did Christ abandon his followers from 33 AD until 1830 with no authoritative Church to which they could go?
What’s wrong? I didn’t claim that doctrine establishes truth. What are you talking about?Wrong. Doctrine doesn’t establish a truth, any more than the law of gravity established gravity.
If that is true, please demonstrate homoousias from the scriptures.The truth of the Trinity always existed, including in the early Church.
Nope - what the original text says is not “Church” or “church” as you understand it. It says: “ekklesia” in Greek.Since you’ve matured, can you please answer this conundrum posed by Tim Staples (when you examine and come to truth, it will lead you truly to Christ):
"According to Matthew 18:15-18, Jesus gave us a definitive commandment. He said:
Mormons and Catholics agree that Christ was directing the faithful to obey the Church that he established and that we can be confident about doing so because the true Church to which Jesus was leading us would never steer us away from God. The question is: To what Church is he referring? Mormons say it is the LDS “church.” Catholics say it is the Catholic Church. How do we know which is true?Code:If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you . . . If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
One way to know is to ask another simple question: What if you were living in, let’s say, 1785, and you were to read this very passage from Matthew. You know that Jesus would never lead you to a “church” with no one who could speak for him. In obedience to Jesus, where would you go? The LDS did not exist yet. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He would never lead us astray or command us to follow error. If the true church did not exist on this earth for 1,800 years, then Jesus misguided millions into obeying error-filled churches with no apostolic authority. That would be unthinkable."
No, that’s not exactly what I believe. I believe that people, the church or movement “fell away.” In short, they, not Christ did the abandoning. Of course it is much more complex than that but it was God who abandoned…What about it… did Christ abandon his followers from 33 AD until 1830 with no authoritative Church to which they could go?
You said that “since the doctrine of the Trinity, as understood today, was not formulated until the 4th and 5th century, early Christians were not Trinitarian”What’s wrong? I didn’t claim that doctrine establishes truth. What are you talking about?
That Christ is God is Supported in many Scriptures. Christ is not simply of similar essence.If that is true, please demonstrate homoousias from the scriptures.
You just proved the point I was making, in which the LDS makes no sense whatsoever, and in teaches then that Christ misled his faithful.Nope - what the original text says is not “Church” or “church” as you understand it. It says: “ekklesia” in Greek.
What “ekklesia” means is 'the local body."
-an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
- a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
- an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
What you are claiming is that it means a formal institutional organization. You cannot use Matthew 18 as a prooftext to show that Christ founded a formal church as we understand “church.”
No, that’s not exactly what I believe. I believe that people, the church or movement “fell away.” In short, they, not Christ did the abandoning. Of course it is much more complex than that but it was God who abandoned…
… and yes, I believe that though there were Christians and good people and faith, and even those that received inspiration from God, there was no “authoritative church” from the time of the falling away until 1830.
Thank you for responding. I will review your citations.You said that “since the doctrine of the Trinity, as understood today, was not formulated until the 4th and 5th century, early Christians were not Trinitarian”
Your claim is that since the doctrine wasn’t in place, the faithful didn’t believe it. That is wrong. Doctrine didn’t establish this truth in the 4th or 5th century, but recognized something that existed all along in Christ’s Church.
This verse instructs in whose name to baptize. It says nothing of the relationship between the three.The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
That Christ is God is Supported in many Scriptures. Christ is not simply of similar essence.
Agreed - Christ is God. This verse, however, says nothing of consubstantiality.Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12 - Jesus tells satan, “you shall not tempt the Lord your God” in reference to Himself.
Does not address consubstantiality.Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20; 7:48 - Jesus forgives sins. Only God can forgive sins.
Does not address consubstantiality.Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5 - Jesus says that He is “Lord of the Sabbath.” He is the Lord of God’s law which means He is God.
Does not address the Trinity.Matt. 18:20 - Jesus says where two or three are gathered in His name, there He is in the midst of them.
Does not address consubstantiality.Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:70 - Jesus acknowledges that He is the Son of God.
The verse does not om(name removed by moderator)resence or consubstantiality.Matt. 28:20 - Jesus said He is with us always, even unto the end of the world. Only God is omnipresent.
Does not address consubstantiality.Mark 14:36 - Jesus calls God “Abba,” Aramaic for daddy, which was an absolutely unprecedented address to God and demonstrates Jesus’ unique intimacy with the Father.
Nothing here either.Luke 8:39 - Luke reports that Jesus said “tell how much God has done for you.” And the man declared how much Jesus did.
Doesn’t speak to the TrinityLuke 19:38,40 - Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. If these were silent, the very stones would cry out.
Equal does not mean consubstantial - of the same substanceJohn 5:18 - Jesus claimed to be God. The Jews knew this because Jesus called God His Father and made Himself equal to God. This is why Jesus was crucified.
“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).**
Also, the Chruch Fathers:**
Ignatius of Antioch
“[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
Says nothing about consubstantiality.
Justin Martyr
“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).
This is actually a view promoting subordinationism, which contradicts Trinitarian belief.
Does not address consubstantialityTheophilus of Antioch
“It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom” (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).
What was the prevailing belief prior to Nicea?
‘Subordinationism’, it is true, was pre-Nicean orthodoxy." Henry Bettenson, editor and translator, The Early Christian Fathers:A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius, (Oxford University Press: 1969), 239.
“Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical…Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were ‘of one substance’, beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it.” RPC Hansen, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD”, in Rowan Williams, editor, The Making of Orthodoxy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 151–152.
“It [subordinationism] is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as St. Justin and Origen…Where the doctrine [of the Trinity] was elaborated, as e.g. in the writing of the Apologists, the language remained on the whole indefinite, and, from a later standpoint, was even partly unorthodox. Sometimes it was not free from a certain subordinationism.” FL Cross and EA Livingston, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd edition, (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 1319, 1394.
If you believe that the “Church” - an institutional organization - is the only method whereby man can follow God - that man cannot rely upon the Holy Ghost or Light of Christ to guide him with priests and clergy to intercede and command him - then I guess you have a point.You just proved the point I was making, in which the LDS makes no sense whatsoever, and in teaches then that Christ misled his faithful.
If you say that there was no ““authoritative church” from the time of the falling away until 1830”, then how could one abide by what Christ admonished? He would then have given them instructions to do something that was impossible to do, and would be misleading them. If there was no authoritative church until 1830, then Christ did not give the people the means to accomplish what He asked them to do. How is that?
That’s not true or at the very least cannot be demonstrated as true. In 323 CE, in his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius quoted a statement by Papias that Matthew wrote his “logia” in Aramaic. No Aramaic gospel of Matthew has ever been found. Scholars say that it is evident that the Matthew we have is not a translation but is a Greek original. Therefore some believe that the author of Matthew may have written an abbreviated version of the book in Aramaic before writing the larger work in Greek for a larger circle of readers. New Open Bible, Nelson, p. 1366Other comments… Your analysis doesn’t make sense, nor does it answer the question. First, a technicality here in that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic as the original text, not Greek. It was translated from Aramaic into Greek.
That’s all an opinion. I do not begrudge you your opinion. I mentioned that I also believe that Christ founded a church but that such cannot be explicitly proven from the evidence and lots of people disagree.Secondly, you make a false argument about the establishment of the Church… the hierarchy of the Church was established in Matthew 16. It was established on the rock of Peter. It is the Body of Christ, a visible organization. It has expanded, but is the kind of Church we know now, with the office of Peter as the visible head. The essential nature of this Church was “the “assembly” (Greek, ekklesia), or community, of those “called out” to be his followers. Please refer to St. Paul who employed the word “Church” to designate the entire body of Christians, and he explicitly called this collectivity nothing else but “the body of Christ” itself: “You are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (1 Cor. 12:27). The Church was not merely a voluntary association of like-minded people who had come to accept the message of Jesus. It functioned under hierarchical leaders who had been appointed by Jesus himself and had been given sacred powers and authority by him.”
Thank you for responding. I will review your citations.
This verse instructs in whose name to baptize. It says nothing of the relationship between the three.
Agreed - Christ is God. This verse, however, says nothing of consubstantiality.
Does not address consubstantiality.
Does not address consubstantiality.
Does not address the Trinity.
Does not address consubstantiality.
The verse does not om(name removed by moderator)resence or consubstantiality.
Does not address consubstantiality.
Nothing here either.
Doesn’t speak to the Trinity
Equal does not mean consubstantial - of the same substance
I am going to guess that you put your best scriptures first.
None of them addresses the issue of homoousious.
Note below scholarly opinion on the matter. You will also not that a number of the quotes below are from Catholic scholars:
“The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.” P Achtemeier, editor, Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099.
“Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.” RL Richard, “Trinity, Holy”, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967), 14:295.
“There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there…The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.”
Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35.
“…there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts…nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine [in the New Testament] of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head…These passages * give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula…but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine…[Paul] has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a Trinitarian problem…in John there is no trinitarian formula.” Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 14,16, 22-23, 29.
… to be continued*
I obviously disagree with the false conclusions you’ve proposed, and so does the authoritative Church established by Christ. It’s not laid out in Scriptures so simple that even a child can understand, so deceivers will try to do their dirty work.
It does describe the Trinity. That you refuse to understand, or desire to twist it is another issue altogether. You’ve shown your willingness to believe in false prophets, by following Joe Smith…
Your question was regarding same essence as opposed to similar essence. Your argument (or rather the argument you borrowed) is a bit misleading. I really don’t think you understand what it means to be of the same essence.
The doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons in one God.
Are you arguing that there are three separate gods?
If you’re looking for something even a child could not misunderstand, then you won’t find it. Once again, nothing but distortion and deceit. You seem to have an affinity for false prophets.continued:
“When we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity, we are confronted by a peculiarly contradictory situation. On the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distinctive element in the Christian idea of God, that which distinguishes it from the idea of God in Judaism and in Islam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism. Judaism, Islam, and rational Theism are Unitarian. On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word “Trinity”, but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith.
**The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine…” ** Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236. [bold mine]
“In order to argue successfully for the unconditionally and permanence of the ancient Trinitarian Creeds, it is necessary to make a distinction between doctrines, on the one hand, and on the terminology and conceptuality in which they were formulated on the other… Some of the crucial concepts employed by these creeds, such as “substance”, “person”, and “in two natures” are post-biblical novelties. If these particular notions are essential, the doctrines of these creeds are clearly conditional, dependent on the late Hellenistic milieu.” George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), 92.
“It is clearly impossible (if one accepts historical evidence as relevant at all) to escape the claim that the later formulations of dogma cannot be reached by a process of deductive logic from the original propositions and must contain an element of novelty…The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas.” Maurice Wiles, The Making of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 4, 144.