Reading through Luke with my Mormon Friends

[gazelam]

If we are going to take random church fathers and cite what they say here is another:

Pope Clement I:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they [the apostles] appointed those [bishops and deacons] who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they [bishops and deacons] should die, other approved men should succeed to their [bishops and deacons] ministry” ( Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

I’d say that’s pretty early to understand that bishops were being appointed and succeeding the Apostles. I have a lot more than that if you’d like. Also, taking the writings of a Modern theologian, who is writing about a single specific church father who wasn’t that clear on Apostolic Succession is far from “proof” that Apostolic Succession didn’t exist.

In the Clement “quote” above I added bold bracketing to show my understanding. A couple of points: 1) the author is not named in this epistle, and it wasn’t until 170AD that someone named Clement as the author, 2) the general consensus is that this epistle is dated around 95AD, 3) Nowhere does the epistle state that replacement bishop and deacons won’t be named by other apostles, 4) as Sullivan points out on page 96 that "“office of bishop” could also be translated “ministry of oversight” and that Clement I “contains no reference to a bishop in the later sense of a single pastor over a local church” (You’ll recall that the earliest Christian writings infer that local churches were governed by councils of elders/overseers. “Ministry of oversight” could refer to anyone in these oversight councils.)

Tell me, who else can “verify” this claim beside the account of Joseph Smith himself…pretty convenient

As the author in 1 Clement says “test by the Spirit”. The Holy Spirit will confirm to the sincere believer. How does anyone know that Christ appeared to Paul? There is no way to prove empirically. How does anyone kow that Jesus walked on water? It can’t be proven in a laboratory. How do we know Jesus is divine?

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore, I tell you that nobody speaking by the spirit of God says, “Jesus be accursed.” And no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the holy Spirit.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

There is no personal interpretation here. The Quote is the quote. Your “interpretation” of the quote doesn’t change the fact that men were appointed to succeed the Apostles.

Also…where in the world are you getting these claims from? you are saying these things without any reference. The Quote is from Clement! There were bishops appointed to succeed the Apostles that is a historical fact.

How does anyone kow that Jesus walked on water? It can’t be proven in a laboratory. How do we know Jesus is divine?

Because we have twelve Apostles who taught their successors their teachings, what they saw, how they understood it, how to carry it on…at this point I really don’t know how to explain to you that it is simply logical to understand these things.

Also, lets do a thought experiment on your statement:

As the author in 1 Clement says “test by the Spirit”. The Holy Spirit will confirm to the sincere believer.

The Holy Spirit tells us both something. I say the Apostles appointed Bishops to take over for them. You say otherwise. Both claims cannot be true. There must be a way to decide because OBVIOUSLY one of us must be wrong, or both of us must be wrong, but we can’t both be right…Which means that one of us is lying, or wrong. This is why I appeal to the Church Fathers…what did the men who lived during this time (Clement) have to say? Its pretty cut and dry to me. Maybe someone can help me out on something I am missing.

 

[gazelam]

Your constant appeal to testimony and lack of scope concerning the scholarship and sources you cite is evidence enough to support the claim. Also, you quite frequently carbon copy answers from FAIR.

Example:

You frequently refer to Origen when evidencing the claim that The Father is embodied. When it has been demonstrably settled by HONEST scholarship that he held to the incorporeality of The Father.

You misunderstood what I put forward earlier. Below is the quote again. I know full well that Origen believed that god is incorporeal. However, to his credit he acknowledges what the Bible plainly teaches. And then he admits that you have to “take pains” to believe otherwise (which he clearly did do.)

If, therefore, we hear these words [Gospel of John] plainly, and do not take more pains about them, we are bound to say God is a body. (Robert E. Heine, trans., “Origen Commentary on the Gospel of John Books 13-32,” in The Fathers of the Church (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1993), 89:93-100)

Please show me where this quote is found in FAIRMormon.

Also, would still love to know what that conversation between you and The Holy Spirit was like… why can I never get you to remark on what true confirmation from the spirit looks like?

Read the Bible!!

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”

Luke 24:32 Then they said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning [within us] while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?”

1 Kings 19:11, 12
“Go out and stand before me on top of the mountain,” the LORD said to him. Then the LORD passed by and sent a furious wind that split the hills and shattered the rocks–but the LORD was not in the wind. The wind stopped blowing, and then there was an earthquake–but the LORD was not in the earthquake.

After the earthquake there was a fire–but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire there was the soft whisper of a voice.

 

[rIz0]

Didn’t say your quote from Origen came from FAIR (though I will check) only that a large body of your work is often carbon copied from their articles and you know this true (if I remember correctly your tag line below your profile name used to read: proudly refers to FAIR Mormon for answers… or something to that affect)

I also didn’t misunderstand what you put forward, I simply interpreted what you wrote plainly. The plain reading of the quote as when read in the context of what you had written in its entirety (as when following an argument that God has a body) seems to function as evidence for your position BECAUSE Origen ALSO believed that God has a body. Not that your syllogism is validly inferred BECAUSE Origen mentions that a clear reading of scripture lends itself more palatably to the assertion that He does. My apologies though and I resend my accusation

Also, one doesn’t have to take very many pains to see that The Father is described as being both disembodied and embodied in the Bible; so to say it PLAINLY teaches He does is more than contentious. It is also curious that you would use this source instead of scripture to prove your point. Unless the ECF’s ‘speaking your language’ is somehow important to a religious sect that openly advertises that The Church fell into total apostasy after the death of the last apostle (or thereabouts…since we don’t have a definitive date ). Dare me thinks this sort of pleading be akin to tacit admission that perhaps these writings are critical in evaluating the truth claims of various religious secs? Hmmm go figure Wait… even when they teach true presence, purgatory, and when their descriptions of liturgical practices are so eerily similar to Catholic liturgical practices that one would could very easily and reasonably assert that they were Catholic

And I didn’t ask for you to quote me what the Bible says. I want to know what your subjective confirmation of the spirit was like and I’d like to know what makes said subjective experience non-trivial in light of the fact that countless such testimonies exist. What is one to do when competing subjective experiences do not corroborate the same story? The standard academic approach to evaluating the validity of competing theories is to prefer those which explain the most with the least amount of effort.

I’m afraid the blatant apprehension on part of the Mormon scholastic circle to submit their work for peer review anywhere outside of BYU on topics such as the BOA translation and the BOM geography undoubtedly arises from a knowledge that no scholar considers their work compelling given the inexplicable voids in the presupposed truth claims.

It’s also fallacious to assume that all religious inquiry cannot be empirically deduced. There are a many instances where empirical methods can be used to test the validity of religious claims. You know like when JS claims the Bible contains errors in translations. That claim is not restricted to the realm of faith. It is not a metaphysical claim. We can test it and the best you can offer is: we don’t know because those parts of the Bible are gone. Which doesn’t even address errors in translation

 

[gazelam]

Also…where in the world are you getting these claims from?

I already said a couple of times - from the book “From Apostles to Bishops” by Francis A. Sullivan, SJ. It is the definitive book on the topic. Other fellow CAFers from time to time refer me to it. Now I quote from it and you’re asking where the quotes came from!!

Because we have twelve Apostles who taught their successors their teachings, what they saw, how they understood it, how to carry it on…at this point I really don’t know how to explain to you that it is simply logical to understand these things.

And how do you know that what has been passed onto you is correct?

Also, lets do a thought experiment on your statement:

gazelam:

As the author in 1 Clement says “test by the Spirit”. The Holy Spirit will confirm to the sincere believer.

The Holy Spirit tells us both something. I say the Apostles appointed Bishops to take over for them. You say otherwise. Both claims cannot be true. There must be a way to decide because OBVIOUSLY one of us must be wrong, or both of us must be wrong, but we can’t both be right…Which means that one of us is lying, or wrong. This is why I appeal to the Church Fathers…what did the men who lived during this time (Clement) have to say? Its pretty cut and dry to me. Maybe someone can help me out on something I am missing.

Obviously mistaken interpretations happen - we’re all learning to interact with God. But let’s look at James 1:5, 6 and I’ll use it as a hypothetical situation.

But if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and he will be given it. But he should ask in faith, not doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed about by the wind.

Both claims cannot be true is correct.

Suppose one petitions God in faith and another petitions God, but with doubts. Let’s say that petitioning “in faith” means that the petitioner will do whatever God tells him to do, whereas the doubting petitioner is unsure if he will follow God’s guidance. God may hold back an answer to the doubting petitioner - since after all we’re commanded to “ask in faith”.

Given 1 Corinthians 12:3 - wouldn’t you rather have a communication from the Holy Spirit confirming that Jesus is the Christ instead going your whole life hoping the Bible is right about Jesus?

 

[rIz0]

So when the inquisitor who receives confirmation from the spirit comes to hold beliefs contrary to yours he does so without faith? Really…

 

[gazelam]

“Sons of God” was technically a term for angels in early Old Testament… so that does not actually show much.

Can you provide any references or documentation regarding this?

KJV included translation errors which Joseph Smith also included in his translation, so KJV is basically only used because that was what Joseph Smith used for translations, and that seems to be primary reason from objective perspective.

Please clarify. I cannot determine whether you’re referring to Joseph Smith’s translation work of the Book of Mormon, or of the Bible.

What I have also learned is that there is a passage in Book of Mormon indicating that there were bees in America before Spanish came… but that is not true. What is your position on this? Was Joseph Smith simply describing what he saw by english word “bee” for lack of a better word or not?

From this question it appears that you’re learning about the Book of Mormon from an anti-Mormon website. In the Book of Mormon there are two accounts of families traveling from the Old World to the New World (and then there’s a brief reference to a third such voyage). In one of the accounts there are references to bees while the family is in the Old World, but never after the family arrived at the New World. Even this tract on our own beloved Catholic Answers attempts to make hay of the bee reference. When will they ever fix it?

I am very glad you are debating with us. I don’t think what you are doing is wrong whatsoever. Debates bring consensus, consensus brings us closer to Truth and God did say “I am Truth”.

I agree!. Take care and God bless you!

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

And how do you know that what has been passed onto you is correct?

Well I’m glad you asked. Because we have the writings of the earliest Christians. The Church Fathers. We have the writings of what they practiced, how they practiced it, what they believed. These were the earliest writings and if what you do today doesn’t line up with that…then you know something is up, and you’re probably wrong partially if not fully. This is why apostolic succession and the teaching of the Catholic Church can be compared with what the Church Fathers believed all the way down to the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ…that is what the fathers believed.

Here is a great website: https://www.churchfathers.org/

wouldn’t you rather have a communication from the Holy Spirit confirming that Jesus is the Christ instead going your whole life hoping the Bible is right about Jesus?

In your own words: we should test everything by the spirit, right? who is to say the spirit in question being tested is not evil? This is why God has given us the opportunity to compare our beliefs with the Church Fathers. If anything, today, more than any other time in history we have the resources to truly and relatively quickly find out what is true and what is not…now of course we have to sift through the bias…but when it comes down to it, historically the Catholic Church has been doing the same things for 2000 years…and yes the development of tradition has occurred, but the same thing happened in the old testament. The Catholic Church believes what the early Church Fathers believed. The link I provided attests to this.

I fail to see how the Church Fathers attest to anything in the Mormon Church when viewed on a all-encompassing lens.

Edit* and in the right context. IE if you are reading into the text with your previously held beliefs. Such as differences in the definitions, understanding of terms. You have to understand the Fathers how THEY understood their beliefs, not what you assume they are talking about.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Please clarify. I cannot determine whether you’re referring to Joseph Smith’s translation work of the Book of Mormon, or of the Bible.

Apologies, I meant the Bible. In particular, I found this.

In one of the accounts there are references to bees while the family is in the Old World, but never after the family arrived at the New World.

I see. Thank you for clarification.

Also, wikipedia has nice information about “Sons of God”.

 

[rIz0]

(125) If, then, we should listen to these words literally, making no inquiry beyond the letter, we would have to say that God is a body . Now most people are incapable of knowing what absurd things we encounter when we say this, for few have had an understanding concerning the nature of bodies, and especially of bodies fitted out by reason and providence. And yet they assert as a general definition that the body that provides has the same essence as those that have been provided. The body that provides is perfect, but nevertheless it resembles that which has been provided. Those who wish God to be a body accept the absurd conclusions that present themselves to their argument because they are incapable of opposing those arguments that reason clearly presents.

Bought a copy of this book. I see what has you confused. You are reading too much into Origen’s use of the word ‘body’ without understanding who his audience is and which philosophical tradition molded his word choice. These are definitely important characteristics of this chapter in his commentary as both seriously undermine the soundness of your syllogism: that he believed a clear reading of scriptures indicates that God has a body of flesh and bones. When he says, “…we would have to say that God is a body .” The operative function of the word ‘body’ as is used in this quote is incongruent with what your definition of a body is. As such it is not an appropriate source for you to quote in support of your position. In fact it is entirely irrelevant to your point. Let me clarify:

The dissenters whom he is addressing in this portion of the commentary were either stoics themselves -or- heavily influenced by the Stoic tradition; Stoic ontology holds that all existent things are bodies; although not all bodies are bodies of flesh and bone. That’s why he gives special treatment to light, fire, and spirits as bodies in his refutations. Stoics viewed spirits, light, and fire as being corporeal; though again their definition of corporality would also differ drastically from yours. Thus, they would have conventionally referred to light, spirit, and fire as ‘bodies’. However, they would have undoubtedly looked at you in astonishment were you to suggest to them that what Origen was referring to was a God of flesh and bone. His admission that God is a body is true if, and only, if Stoic ontology is assumed. Which he himself does not assume and even if he did he still wouldn’t be making the same point you are trying to make.

You noticed nothing peculiar in Origen’s careful choice of words? He says,“…God is a body,” rather than what you wish he would have said, “God has a body.” A subtle distinction but one that makes a world of difference when the assumption is that God has a literal body of flesh and bone.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

One day, my children came to celebrate my birthday and a dog also came among them.

Ruth, may I ask what kind of personality you have … it seems suspiciously close to my own. The only problem is that Irony doesn’t work on everyone. eg: our neighbors DO insist that their dog is a child.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hmm … @Lucy_1, it seems you may just be brewing a fight with the wife?
That’s not something I would recommend…

But, Luke also wrote Acts. And, I can tell you how the local mormon church in St. Helens refuse to send missionaries to my ex-wife’s house any more; eg: because of a question I asked them and which they could not answer when we were still married.

There is a prophecy that Luke talks about, “the Sun will be darkened and the moon will not give it’s light” … etc. I recalled they really get into that not being fulfilled and that very much confused me so I asked a question about it:

I mean, Luke also wrote Acts of the Apostles. And it’s Peter, the first Catholic Pope, who Luke writes about telling EXACTLY how those prophecies were seen by the Israelites when Jesus was in their midst.

Acts 2:20-22.

They’ve never bothered my ex wife again. I’m told, we were “blacklisted” whatever that means. My ex-wife likes it, though. It’s easier for her not to deal with missionaries.

So, I don’t get why they’re still waiting for prophecies to be fulfilled in order to make Joseph Smith’s unfulfilled prophecies excusable. The temple on the east coast has not been built in the time period Smith said it would. It’s a fraud prophecy.