The Apostle John, The Three Nephites and the "Great Apostasy"

[Allweather]

“But he himself that justifies also defies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. “For he has given them power to become the sons of God” (John 1:12). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.” (Augustine, On the psalms, 50.2.) zerinus

Here is the rest of 50.2 that Zerinus neglects, starting with the selection he used, quoted above:

""But He that justifies does Himself deify, in that by justifying He does make sons of God. “For He has given them power to become the sons of God.” John 1:12 If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect of Grace adopting, not of nature generating. For the only Son of God, God, and one God with the Father, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, was in the beginning the Word, and the Word with God, the Word God. The rest that are made gods, are made by His own Grace, are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He, but that by favour they should come to Him, and be fellow-heirs with Christ. For so great is the love in Him the Heir, that He has willed to have fellow-heirs. What covetous man would will this, to have fellow-heirs? But even one that is found so to will, will share with them the inheritance, the sharer having less himself, than if he had possessed alone: but the inheritance wherein we are fellow-heirs of Christ, is not lessened by multitude of possessors, nor is it made narrower by the number of fellow-heirs: but is as great for many as it is for few, as great for individuals as for all. “See,” says the Apostle, “what love God has bestowed upon us, that we should be called, and be, the sons of God.” 1 John 3:1 And in another place, “Dearly beloved, we are the sons of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be.” We are therefore in hope, not yet in substance. “But we know,” he says, “that when He shall have appeared, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” 1 John 3:2 The Only Son is like Him by birth, we like by seeing. For we are not like in such sort as He, who is the same as He is by whom He was begotten: for we are like, not equal: He, because equal, is therefore like. We have heard who are the gods that being made are justified, because they are called the sons of God: and who are the gods that are not Gods, to whom the God of gods is terrible? For another Psalm says, “He is terrible over all gods.” And as if you should enquire, what gods? He says, “For all the gods of the nations are devils.” To the gods of the nations, to the devils, terrible: to the gods made by Himself, to sons, lovely. Furthermore, I find both of them confessing the Majesty of God, both the devils confessed Christ, and the faithful confessed Christ. “You are Christ, the Son of the living God,” Matthew 16:16 said Peter. “We know who You are, You are the Son of God,” said the devils. A like confession I hear, but like love I find not; nay even here love, there fear. To whom therefore He is lovely, the same are sons; to whom He is terrible, are not sons; to whom He is lovely, the same He has made gods; those to whom He is terrible He does prove not to be gods. For these are made gods, those are reputed gods; these Truth makes gods, those error does so account.""

 

[zerinus]

Here is a short snip from this article, which I am currently reading:

---

That’s a formidable source, Zerinus.

I wasn’t interested in his personal theology or religious affiliation. I quoted him mainly because of his references to the ECFs on the deification of man, which is what Nan S had inquired about. This is the main part that I wanted her to take not of. I have tried to preserve the original formatting as much a spossible:

It is good to quote Professor Harnack, the church historian. He makes the bold statement that the doctrine of deification was a primary teaching of all the scholars of the first Christian community. Harnack states:

“After Theophilus, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Origen, the idea of deification is found in all the Fathers of the ancient Church, and that in a primary position. We have it in Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Apollinaris, Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius, and others, as also in Cyril, Sophronius, and late Greek and Russian theologians. In proof of it, Psalm 82:6 (“I said, Ye are gods”) is very often quoted.” (Inge, p. 358)

---

Let us now look at what some of the early theologians (who lived in the four centuries after Christ) had to say about the biblical teaching of the deification of man.

Theophilus said “that a man, by keeping the directions of God, may receive from him immortality as a reward and become God” (ad Autol. ii.27).

Clement of Alexandria said mankind was to become immortal: “to be imperishable is to share in Divinity [to be like God]” (Strom. v.10:63).

Hippolytus stated it even more clearly:

“Your body shall be immortal and incorruptible as well as your soul. For you have become God. All the things that follow upon the divine nature God has promised to supply to you, for you were deified in being born to immortality” (Philos. x.34).

One of the principal developers of the Nicene Confession was Athanasius. His works are filled with the doctrine of deification. “For He [Christ] was made man that we might be made God” (De Incar. Para.54). “The Word was made Flesh in order to offer up this body for all, that we might be deified” (De Dec. para. 14). “He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us” (Orat. I…para.39).

Chrysostom said: “Christ came to us, and took upon him our nature and deified it.”

Gregory of Nyssa said that Christ coming in flesh has now “deified everything kindred and related to mankind” (Catechism xxxv).

This doctrine of deification was also reflected in the teachings of Eusebius, the first historian of the Christian community. He was acquainted with all the top scholars before his time and was aware of the principal theological concepts then being taught throughout the whole of Christendom. When all his works are surveyed, it shows what real knowledge of early New Testament truth was understood at the time. Though he balked at the Council of Nicea (325 C.E.) and finally gave into a false ecclesiastical theology to abate the anger of the emperor Constantine, he nonetheless was able to present to us the main theological discussions of his time.

In regard to the doctrine of salvation in Christ, Eusebius hit the nail right on the head. In fact, he merely stated what all knowledgeable scholars were aware of at the time. Note what Eusebius said about the meaning of Christian salvation:

“The Word of God [Christ] is now God as He had been man, in order to deify mankind together with himself” (Demonst. iv.14). It was clearly understood by Eusebius that mankind is on earth finally to become, through Christ, as divine as Christ Jesus is now Himself divine.

Professor Ferrar, who translated Eusebius’ work Demonstratio Evangelica, gave an overall view of Eusebius’ understanding of salvation and how he reflected the general belief of all major theologians of his time. Ferrar said the doctrine of human deification which came by union with Christ is “perhaps the greatest theological system of antiquity, and it is obvious how it [deification] lies behind and beneath all that Eusebius says” (Intro. Proof of the Gospel, vol. I. p.xxvii).​

I am not interested in the rest of his theology.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

I wasn’t interested in his personal theology or religious affiliation.

I am not interested in the rest of his theology.

zerinus

I gathered that, even though there appear to be, as I point out in another post, striking resemblences between what the author believes, and what Mormons believe. The point isn’t whether YOU are interested, but whether WE are interested, and I assure you, we are.

As far as the ECF references, personally, I think they are way, way too brief to serve any of your purposes. When you quote a small piece of Augustine, you fail to notice that Augustine was a Christian, a Catholic, who would have found Mormonism too far afield of Christian thought to even be considered a worthy heresy.

The only thing that really matters is what the Catholic Church teaches by means of the Magisterium, and what it has always taught. By this, we know that the Mormon version of “deification” is a false teaching, even blasphemous:

From Webster:

Blasphemy. 1: a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

 

[zerinus]

I gathered that, even though there appear to be, as I point out in another post, striking resemblences between what the author believes, and what Mormons believe. The point isn’t whether YOU are interested, but whether WE are interested, and I assure you, we are.

As far as the ECF references, personally, I think they are way, way too brief to serve any of your purposes. When you quote a small piece of Augustine, you fail to notice that Augustine was a Christian, a Catholic, who would have found Mormonism too far afield of Christian thought to even be considered a worthy heresy.

The only thing that really matters is what the Catholic Church teaches by means of the Magisterium, and what it has always taught. By this, we know that the Mormon version of “deification” is a false teaching, even blasphemous:

From Webster:

Blasphemy. 1: a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

Frankly I don’t care, and I and not interested in what you think about anything. I was discussing this subject with Nan, and she wanted references to ECF writings on the deification of man, and I gave her some.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

It is good to quote Professor Harnack, the church historian. He makes the bold statement that the doctrine of deification was a primary teaching of all the scholars of the first Christian community. Harnack states:

I hope you’ll forgive me if I just pick at this a little. Professor Harnack. I assume that this is referring to Adolf Harnack. If not, correct me. Here is a link:

bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Harnack.htm

And here is a short quote from an article at that site:

""Harnack, Adolf (1851-1930) German scholar, Son of the Lutheran scholar Theodosius Harnack (1817-89) He taught at Leipzig (1874) before becoming professor at Giessen (1879), Marburg (1886), and Berlin (1889-1921). The last appointment was challenged by the church because of Harack’s doubts about the authorship of the fourth gospel and other NT books. His unorthodox interpretations of biblical miracles including the Resurrection and this denial of Christ’s institution of baptism. (see his History of Dogma, 7 vols. 1894-99) (New International dictionary of the Christian Church, J.D. Douglas, 1974, p 452)

“Harnack started with anti-Christian and anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions . . . Harnack’s methods and assumptions forced him to reject major doctrines of Christianity such as the Virgin birth, the deity and pre-existence of Jesus, the Resurrection of the body, the possibility of miracles, the existence of demons, exorcism and Jesus as the promised Messiah.”

More can be read about the Great Harnack at the site.

One interesting thing about this site is that it is an anti-Jehovah’s Witnesses site, as near as I can tell. If you go there and read a little, you will find that the writers are complaining about JWs doing pretty much the same thing that the Mormons are doing in the form of Zerinus.

Zerinus, did you think that using as a source a 19th century renegade theologian, even by Lutheran standards, would be convincing?

 

[Allweather]

Frankly I don’t care, and I and not interested in what you think about anything. I was discussing this subject with Nan, and she wanted references to ECF writings on the deification of man, and I gave her some.

zerinus

That’s cool. I’ve been reading the dialog, and think it is fascinating. I can’t hold a candle to NanS when it comes to the nuts and bolts of theology. She can take you to task in her own ways, as I am sure she will.

And, I don’t care that you “(are) not interested in what I think about anything.” I am interested in the fallacious driftwood that you set afloat here, in this forum, and I will comment upon it as I see fit. You’re free not to like it, and you’re free to ignore, and, frankly, I hope you will, so that I can comment upon your “stuff” with greater ease and less clutter.

 

[zerinus]

I hope you’ll forgive me if I just pick at this a little. Professor Harnack. I assume that this is referring to Adolf Harnack. If not, correct me. Here is a link:

bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Harnack.htm

And here is a short quote from an article at that site:

""Harnack, Adolf (1851-1930) German scholar, Son of the Lutheran scholar Theodosius Harnack (1817-89) He taught at Leipzig (1874) before becoming professor at Giessen (1879), Marburg (1886), and Berlin (1889-1921). The last appointment was challenged by the church because of Harack’s doubts about the authorship of the fourth gospel and other NT books. His unorthodox interpretations of biblical miracles including the Resurrection and this denial of Christ’s institution of baptism. (see his History of Dogma, 7 vols. 1894-99) (New International dictionary of the Christian Church, J.D. Douglas, 1974, p 452)

“Harnack started with anti-Christian and anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions . . . Harnack’s methods and assumptions forced him to reject major doctrines of Christianity such as the Virgin birth, the deity and pre-existence of Jesus, the Resurrection of the body, the possibility of miracles, the existence of demons, exorcism and Jesus as the promised Messiah.”

More can be read about the Great Harnack at the site.

One interesting thing about this site is that it is an anti-Jehovah’s Witnesses site, as near as I can tell. If you go there and read a little, you will find that the writers are complaining about JWs doing pretty much the same thing that the Mormons are doing in the form of Zerinus.

Zerinus, did you think that using as a source a 19th century renegade theologian, even by Lutheran standards, would be convincing?

You are doing your nuts my man just to oppose me. It can’t be good for yor health you know. Your brain is already seizing up. First of all I didn’t quote Harnack. Harnack was quoted by Inge, who was quoted by Martin, who was edited by Sielaff, who was quoted by me with regard to his refs mainly to the ECF. Secondly, I just did a search for Harnack, and from all reliable sources I can gather he appears to have been a very respectable and influential Christian scholar, historian, and theologian. Here are the refs:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_von_Harnack
answers.com/topic/adolf-harnack
bookrags.com/Adolf_von_Harnack
religionfacts.com/christianity/people/harnack.htm
answers.com/topic/adolf-von-harnack
britannica.com/ebc/article-9001567
amazon.com/Adolf-Harnack-Making-modern-theology/dp/0005991315

All reliable sources present him as a very respectable and influencial Christian theologian and historian. It looks like your brain has stopped working altogether. Let me guess. I think that because his name was Adolf, you thought he was Hitler’s uncle.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

First of all I didn’t quote Harnack. Harnack was quoted by Inge, who was quoted by Martin, who was edited by Sielaff, who was quoted by me with regard to his refs mainly to the ECF.

Well, then, you miss the point entirely, but since you’ve already admitted that you don’t read these posts very carefully, I am not surprised at this. You provided a link to an article in which reasonings have been made with regard to the ECF by people with highly questionable credentials, and once you get even just a leeetle bit into their backgrounds you quickly find out they are mostly cultists with dimestore degrees and mail-order ordinations. Zerinus apparently is proud of these sources. I wouldn’t be.

Secondly, I just did a search for Harnack, and from all reliable sources I can gather he appears to have been a very respectable and influential Christian scholar, historian, and theologian.

I realize that, Zerinus. This is the Zerinus stock-in-trade. Baffle with bluff. Make google your best friend. Grab a link, any link. Throw it out there, hope nobody actually checks on it. As for Adolf Harnack, I never heard of him until today. But, it didn’t take me long to find out that, yes, he is respected among some very liberal types, but that he is not respected among conservatives. Any theologian who denies the Virgin Birth of our Lord could hardly be considered worthy of being a source of anything except derision, IMO. I’m surprised that a Mormon would use such a source, and doubly surprised that a Mormon would consider such a theologian to be “respectable.” But, then, Zerinus sometimes surprises. I will just have to file this away in my catalog of New Things From Mormonism.

This, from the review you linked me to at Amazon:

“The son of a church history professor, he (Harnack) spent his life in the academy, becoming known as a biblical scholar, an historian, and a theologian. Because of his views on scripture, resurrection and sacraments, he was attacked both by the Roman Catholic establishment for anti-Christian teaching, and by his own Lutheran church, who never permitted him into the ranks of the clergy.”

That’s pretty bad, when a theologian is SO off-base he is attacked by both the Catholic AND the Lutheran churches.

Let me guess. I think that because his name was Adolf, you thought he was Hitler’s uncle. zerinus

Honestly, Zerinus, you guys need to work on your sense of humor, not to mention your sense of timing and delivery. You’re about as funny as a polygamist at Vacation Bible School.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

communion changed? you mean like moving from D&C 20 bread and wine to todays bread and water?

I dont know the details of DC20 but I have heard they use water instead of wine…I cant understand where such a thing came from or on what grounds it was promoted.

Okay, let’s have a look at what the passage you are referring to actually says:John 21:

21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?Again, it is a case of understanding plain English. Perhaps English is not your first language, and you have difficulty understanding it correctly. If so, perhaps you ought to go and learn. But to my way of reading, this does NOT say that John will NOT stay alive until Jesus returns. The closest that we can come to that is that IF Jesus intended to keep him alive until then, He did not want everyone to know about it. He wanted to keep it a shhhh “secret”! Guessed it? A “mystery,” which was not disclosed to everyone, but to a select few, like Paul.
zerinus

The “plain english” here is Jesus telling Peter to not worry (be envious) about what He has in store for others.
Verse 23 is very clear Jesus did NOT say “He shall not die”…the whole point of v23 is for St John to officially denounce the misunderstanding spreading “abroad among the brethren” that Jesus said John would not die.

In modern day english here is what Jesus said “HEY Peter, IF I decided to keep John alive whats it to you? Are you jealous or something Peter? Dont worry about others, be content with your own calling.”

I might have missed an LDS response earlier but I simply cant understand what John was doing all these centuries on earth while the Gospel had supposedly been lost.

Better yet, I think the biggest support for Mormonism would be if John, while in hiding all these years, actually appeared in the flesh among the LDS today. Think about it, the Gospel is restored in this age…yet where is John? Logically he should have shown up if the Gospel was restored.

 

[Nan_S]

One of the finest studies on the subject of deification as Christian salvation, is found in the scholarly book Christian Mysticism, by W. R. Inge. He gave eight lectures before the University of Oxford and these were published by Methuen & Co., London, 1899. He has a major section called “The Doctrine of Deification” in which this subject is dealt with at length. In my view, every theologian and preacher in the world ought to read that section—and start to believe and preach it to the world! It represents nothing less than the central truth of the Gospel of Christ and without understanding it, a person will remain completely ignorant of what salvation in Christ is all about.
The whole article is most interesting, and I highly recommend you to read it. You can find it here: askelm.com/doctrine/d040202.htm

zerinus

Associates for Scriptural Knowledge has quite a website. “Interesting” is an understatement. I certainly hope it wasn’t recommended to you by your theology instructor. Quoting A.S.K. does more to undermine your argument than support it. And that’s putting it charitably - very charitably.

A.S.K. is not by any stretch of the imagination a group that has any credibility in legitimate theology. These people definitely went off the deep end and kept going. Down. Waaayyy down.

Just for everyone else’s amusement, here are a few more gems posted by A.S.K.:

But some 90 percent of Christian teachers and ministers today (including even those who claim to have direct contact with God through their “tongues speaking” and similar “spiritual experiences”) teach and pro-mote the so-called “Immortality of the Soul.” They will tell you that each of us has an “Immortal Soul” and our “soul” will experience a future life either in heaven with Christ and the Father or in an ever burning “hell” with Satan and his fallen angels. This is an absolute LIE!

http://bestsmileys.com/evil/11.gif

The exterior part of the “Gothic church,” with its spires and steeples and obelisks located in front of the entrance (the female genitalia), symbolically represented the male genitalia in their reproductive stance….the pointed arches and spires/steeples were esoterically designed female and male genitalia….most doorways and windows shaped with pointed arches and superimposed with filigrees (the clitoral region) which augmented and highlighted the symbolic role of the female genitalia in church architecture were allowed to remain, but these mystical displays were only permitted to exist in a subtle and esoteric manner http://bestsmileys.com/blushing/2.gif

The truth is, there is not a man, woman, child, angel, archangel or cherub who has any mediatorial role to play in our individual relationships with the Father. Christ is that ONLY Mediator!
So, what does this mean in detecting “false prophets”? This means that you and I need no Pope. We need no men as Priests. We need no Ministers. We need no Evangelists. We need no Faith Healers that you or I must seek out for healings or other blessings. We need no Prophets nor do we need any person whatever!

http://bestsmileys.com/religous/3.gif

We put up the image of Jesus but it is not the true image at all. It is of a false god, Zeus or of Serapis, and we start worshipping it. We do not think we do, but we do. It makes no a difference if you are Catholic, or Greek Orthodox, or a Protestant. It seems everyone wants this image of a long haired Jesus, and yet it is nothing more than a pagan god, a pagan angelic creature that they are worshipping; and a bad angel.

Any “god” with long hair in the form of man, it is a form of shame and it is not be done.

http://www.smilieland.com/graphics/smilie_schreck.gif

Israel was not monotheistic, as you will see. Israel is shown throughout the Old Testament as having a religious belief system called “henotheism,” which is simply defined in Webster’s New World Dictionary

as “belief in one god, without denying the existence of others.” Clearly it was Israel’s biblical understanding that gods other than YHWH existed.
YHWH, as the chief Elohim, reserved Israel to himself. YHWH was the Elohim of Israel, and the only Elohim of Israel. The gods of the other nations were the Sons of Elohim, beni ha-Elohim, which other nations could worship with YHWH’s permission, but they were to stay away from Israel. http://bestsmileys.com/movingeyes/1.gif

I remember seeing this last quote about henotheism coming from one of your fellow Mormons about two weeks ago, except that he called it monolatry. Now I know where he got it.

By “highly recommending” A.S.K. as if it were a legitimate authority, you’re shooting yourself in the foot. Honestly, you have got to do better than this.

Nan

 

[zerinus]

Associates for Scriptural Knowledge has quite a website. “Interesting” is an understatement. I certainly hope it wasn’t recommended to you by your theology instructor. Quoting A.S.K. does more to undermine your argument than support it. And that’s putting it charitably - very charitably.

A.S.K. is not by any stretch of the imagination a group that has any credibility in legitimate theology. These people definitely went off the deep end and kept going. Down. Waaayyy down.

Just for everyone else’s amusement, here are a few more gems posted by A.S.K.:

I remember seeing this last quote about henotheism coming from one of your fellow Mormons about two weeks ago, except that he called it monolatry. Now I know where he got it.

By “highly recommending” A.S.K. as if it were a legitimate authority, you’re shooting yourself in the foot. Honestly, you have got to do better than this.

Nan

As I have already said in post 62, I was only interested in his references to deification by the ECFs, and a particular book on the subject that he had mentioned. I was not endorsing the rest of his theology. Quit beating about the bush! Get to the subject please.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

According to Mormon theology not all of the original twelve apostles, including three Nephite apostles, did not die.

D&C 7:1-3
1 And the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you.
2 And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee.
3 And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.
and

3 Nephi 28:4-9
4 And when he had spoken unto them, he turned himself unto the three, and said unto them: What will ye that I should do unto you, when I am gone unto the Father?
5 And they sorrowed in their hearts, for they durst not speak unto him the thing which they desired.
6 And he said unto them: Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.
7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.
8 And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father.
9 And again, ye shall not have pain while ye shall dwell in the flesh, neither sorrow save it be for the sins of the world; and all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand.

I think this brings up a lot of questions.

1. If John the Apostle has not died and is supposedly still among us teaching, how did God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit through John allow the church to enter into apostasy? Did his Apostolic Authority disappear or simply stop? How does this reconcile with your apologetics of “The Great Apostasy” when according to your own doctrine, not all the apostles died.
2. Why didn’t John prevent any writings, practices, and dogma of the Early Church from being lost if he is truly around to have kept them safe?
3. When Joseph Smith received the Melchizedek Priesthood and apostleship from Peter, James, and John; did John actually stroll up in his immortal flesh while Peter and James appeared in their angelic form?
4. Why are John and the three Nephites missing in action from the scene in the “True and Restored Church” in Salt Lake City? Why is John the Apostle who was given this authority directly by Christ during His ministry on Earth, not the head of his church? The same question applies to the three Nephites.

Pax Christi,

Catholic Guy

If I were a Mormon, I would simply say that the Three Nephites and John may have tried to keep things going, but the people were too wicked and apostate and rejected their message.

But then I don’t know why we even worry about Mormonism. All you need to know about the Book of Mormon can be found in these two videos:

lhvm.org/vid_dna_med.htm

lhvm.org/vid_bible_med.htm

These videos can be watched on-line and are excellent presentations.

There is also a very good article on the Catholic Answers web site:

catholic.com/library/Prob…_of_Mormon.asp

 

[zerinus]

If I were a Mormon, I would simply say that the Three Nephites and John may have tried to keep things going, but the people were too wicked and apostate and rejected their message.

Luckily you are not!

But then I don’t know why we even worry about Mormonism. All you need to know about the Book of Mormon can be found in these two videos:

The Book of Mormon is true, no doubts about it. The videos prove nothing. Worthless anti-Mormon propaganda.

zerinus

 

[VWcrazy]

The Book of Mormon is true, no doubts about it.

The Book of Mormon is about as true as the National Enquirer. Hmmm, maybe I shouldn’t be so insulting to the National Enquirer.

 

[christianley]

The Book of Mormon is about as true as the National Enquirer. Hmmm, maybe I shouldn’t be so insulting to the National Enquirer.

The problem the Mormons have is that we now live in the information age in which many of the facts about it can be easily delivered right to the desktop of inquisitive people. You no longer have to buy books or go to the library to find the answer.

 

[zerinus]

Hmmm, maybe I shouldn’t be so insulting to the National Enquirer.

The National Enquirer would be insulted if you praised it.

zerinus

 

[VWcrazy]

At least the National Enquirer was honest enough to admit that their stories are fake and they really didn’t expect anyone to believe them. Just wish the publishers of the BoM were honest enough to admit their stories are also fake.

 

[nd_smc_02]

But then I don’t know why we even worry about Mormonism. All you need to know about the Book of Mormon can be found in these two videos:

lhvm.org/vid_dna_med.htm

lhvm.org/vid_bible_med.htm

These videos can be watched on-line and are excellent presentations.

There is also a very good article on the Catholic Answers web site:

catholic.com/library/Prob…_of_Mormon.asp

Thanks for the link to the video. Very informative about the Mormon church…I am a visual and auditory learner. Just be careful of the message at the end. We are not saved by faith alone. The body and blood of Christ through the Eucharist and the holy Catholic Church has saved us. We need the Magisterium and Church Tradition as well as the Bible to guide us safely and protect us from false interpretations.
Great link! Thanks!

 

[Nan_S]

As I have already said in post 62, I was only interested in his references to deification by the ECFs, and a particular book on the subject that he had mentioned. I was not endorsing the rest of his theology. Quit beating about the bush! Get to the subject please.

zerinus

I do want to thank you for the other specific references. I will be attempting to find them myself. It will be a little more difficult for me than you because I don’t have access to Bettenson’s book. Therefore I will be looking for the ECFs own writings.

I haven’t addressed your quotes thus far because I want to read them in context first. Knowing that someone can “prove” any contrary doctrine from the Bible by quoting it out-of-context, and knowing that “man can become a god” is not a conclusion of any well-studied Christian theologist outside of Mormonism, I’m suspicious of these ECF quotes. But I’ll not address them until I’ve read more.

Nan

---

Personal aside to AllWeather:
Kodos to you for the answers you gave Zerinus in the interim. :tiphat:
You keep saying I’m the theologian and you are the amateur. Methinks thou art merely humble.

 

[zerinus]

I do want to thank you for the other specific references. I will be attempting to find them myself. It will be a little more difficult for me than you because I don’t have access to Bettenson’s book. Therefore I will be looking for the ECFs own writings.

You may be able to buy a used edition of Bettenson’s book quite cheaply on the Internet. I looked, and found many copies on sale, of which these look promising:

amazon.com/Early-Christian-Fathers-Athanasius-Paperbacks/dp/0192830090
amazon.ca/Early-Christian-Fathers-Selection-Athanasius/dp/0192830090
alibris.com/search/books/author/Bettenson,%20Henry
spckonline.com/spck/chhist005.asp

If you put this search term (all of it, including the inverted commas) in Google: {“the early christian fathers” “henry bettenson”} you will discover many copies for sale.

I haven’t addressed your quotes thus far because I want to read them in context first. Knowing that someone can “prove” any contrary doctrine from the Bible by quoting it out-of-context, and knowing that “man can become a god” is not a conclusion of any well-studied Christian theologist outside of Mormonism, I’m suspicious of these ECF quotes. But I’ll not address them until I’ve read more.

The other books I had mentioned, especially The Divinization of the Christian according to the Greek Fathers, appear to be even more interesting than Bettenson’s book. I haven’t read these books to be honest, but Bettenson’s is just a very small selection of their writings. It does not focus specifically on deification, and its scope is quite limited. It has no quotes from Augustine for example, or from Eusabius. And of course, it gives no analysis of the subject. But those other books, especially the latter, focus specifically and comprehensively on this subject. Anyways, good luck with your research, and tell us what you find!

zerinus