The Bible is Catholic -

[mercygate]

As far as the establishment of the CC we may have to disagree on when it happened. Most of what I’ve seen points to 300 ad give or take. A big step away from the time right after Christ.

Um. There is ample written material from the sub-Apostolic age that provides a documented continuum showing how the Church was “catholic” from the period described in the New Testament.

There can be no serious disagreement about the existence of the Church before 300. The claim that the Catholic church emerged at such a late date is among the easiest to discredit. What Church was Irenaeus defending in 185? What Church did Polycarp serve as bishop until hlis martyrdom in 155? What Church was Justin Martyr defending in 130? For what faith did Ignatius of Antioch die in 110 A.D.?

 

[teancum79]

Um. There is ample written material from the sub-Apostolic age that provides a documented continuum showing how the Church was “catholic” from the period described in the New Testament.

There can be no serious disagreement about the existence of the Church before 300. The claim that the Catholic church emerged at such a late date is among the easiest to discredit. What Church was Irenaeus defending in 185? What Church did Polycarp serve as bishop until hlis martyrdom in 155? What Church was Justin Martyr defending in 130? For what faith did Ignatius of Antioch die in 110 A.D.?

That’s a perspective I do not share. I see a great difference between the church Christ set up and the one the produced the creeds the are so near and dear to the CC. Differences between the church that practiced baptisms for the dead and the one that labeled the practice a false teaching.

I won’t claim to be an expert in what happened what year, but I see a lot of things being different in the church recorded in the Bible and the one that Constantine put his two cents worth into.

 

[mercygate]

That’s a perspective I do not share. I see a great difference between the church Christ set up and the one the produced the creeds the are so near and dear to the CC. Differences between the church that practiced baptisms for the dead and the one that labeled the practice a false teaching.

I won’t claim to be an expert in what happened what year, but I see a lot of things being different in the church recorded in the Bible and the one that Constantine put his two cents worth into.

Tea, you don’t need to be an “expert”; all it takes is a rudimentary command of “what happened in what year.” You can get this information from secular sources - no need to trust the Catholic Church.

Can you point to the “two cents” Constantine put into the Church? Let me save you the effort of looking. Constantine had nothing whatever to do with formulating the creeds.

And how in the world can you TRUST a New Testament that was not assembled until 60 years after the supposed contamination introduced by Constantine?

 

[teancum79]

Tea, you don’t need to be an “expert”; all it takes is a rudimentary command of “what happened in what year.” You can get this information from secular sources - no need to trust the Catholic Church.

Can you point to the “two cents” Constantine put into the Church? Let me save you the effort of looking. Constantine had nothing whatever to do with formulating the creeds.

And how in the world can you TRUST a New Testament that was not assembled until 60 years after the supposed contamination introduced by Constantine?

I trust the original authors of the NT.

As far as what I have learned from historical sources. the good old empire held a meeting between religious leaders of differing opinions to occur. Many did not come. He used his position to influence the outcome of the decisions reached. Given that he was not a Christian until the end of his life (and as suggested by one teacher he was baptized while asleep) I don’t trust his (name removed by moderator)ut. That saints become something special to ask help from (a very polytheistic looking practice) and other changes from what I find in the Bible I can’t just assume that things just kept on the same track.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I trust the original authors of the NT.

As far as what I have learned from historical sources. the good old empire held a meeting between religious leaders of differing opinions to occur. Many did not come. He used his position to influence the outcome of the decisions reached. Given that he was not a Christian until the end of his life (and as suggested by one teacher he was baptized while asleep) I don’t trust his (name removed by moderator)ut. That saints become something special to ask help from (a very polytheistic looking practice) and other changes from what I find in the Bible I can’t just assume that things just kept on the same track.

Though Constantine was the one who CALLED this “meeting” (AKA Ecumenical Council, councils that occur even to this day, the most recent being Vatican II) he never presided over it nor participated in it as A BISHOP.

Now you seem to be certain that the “apostasy” occured by the time “Constantine usurped the church”, please correct me if I’ve misunderstood you.

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the Bible (including the New Testament that EVERY Christian sect and cult uses (Protestant, JW, and LDS alike) occured at the Council of Hippo AFTER the Council of Nicaea (you know the council that “Constantine convined and in which he usurped the church”)?

Either the “church” had gone corrupt by the time the Bible had been canonized (thus making the Bible corrupt) or the church had still been “the church” EVEN WHEN beliefs in

• a trinity
• veneration of saints and the BVM
• liturgical worship
• among other things

were employed, practices which to date only exist in Orthodox & Catholic churches.

 

[teancum79]

Though Constantine was the one who CALLED this “meeting” (AKA Ecumenical Council, councils that occur even to this day, the most recent being Vatican II) he never presided over it nor participated in it as A BISHOP.

Now you seem to be certain that the “apostasy” occured by the time “Constantine usurped the church”, please correct me if I’ve misunderstood you.

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the Bible (including the New Testament that EVERY Christian sect and cult uses (Protestant, JW, and LDS alike) occured at the Council of Hippo AFTER the Council of Nicaea (you know the council that “Constantine convined and in which he usurped the church”)?

Because the writings are from God despite the errors in them and some rather strange views on what is said John still wrote about the life of Christ. Paul really net around preaching and wrote letters to various groups of saints. It is way valuable. despite the errors I see in the CC I think a lot of its leaders where will intentioned and many people tried to keep the words of God’s chosen people for others to have.

Lets assume the Bible is prefect and you get stranded on an island and the only copy of the Bible has been burned in parts do you throw it away because it has some stuff missing or do you hold onto every bit of it you can?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Because the writings are from God despite the errors in them and some rather strange views on what is said John still wrote about the life of Christ. Paul really net around preaching and wrote letters to various groups of saints. It is way valuable. despite the errors I see in the CC I think a lot of its leaders where will intentioned and many people tried to keep the words of God’s chosen people for others to have.

Lets assume the Bible is prefect and you get stranded on an island and the only copy of the Bible has been burned in parts do you throw it away because it has some stuff missing or do you hold onto every bit of it you can?

I have an even better analogy. On that desert island you have a slightly burned, slightly illegible Bible and a pristine copy of the “Inspired Translation by Joseph Smith Jr.” (which exists in full as the version of the Bible employed by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA the Community of Christ). Which do you use? The faulty Protestant “King James” Bible (which ultimately has its origins from the Latin Vulgate) or the “error-free” version from Joseph Smith?

Also what about the matter of canonization? Certainly the JSJr version may correct any incorrect translations, but what about the fact that the actual BOOKS chosen to be in the Bible are IDENTICAL in all of Christianity?

Which is more likely, that the Catholic Church just got lucky and coincidentally placed the correct books in the canon while eliminating the incorrect ones, or that there was some kind of divine providence at work?

 

[teancum79]

I have an even better analogy. On that desert island you have a slightly burned, slightly illegible Bible and a pristine copy of the “Inspired Translation by Joseph Smith Jr.” (which exists in full as the version of the Bible employed by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA the Community of Christ). Which do you use? The faulty Protestant “King James” Bible (which ultimately has its origins from the Latin Vulgate) or the “error-free” version from Joseph Smith?

Also what about the matter of canonization? Certainly the JSJr version may correct any incorrect translations, but what about the fact that the actual BOOKS chosen to be in the Bible are IDENTICAL in all of Christianity?

Which is more likely, that the Catholic Church just got lucky and coincidentally placed the correct books in the canon while eliminating the incorrect ones, or that there was some kind of divine providence at work?

well given that JS was murdered before he finished fixing the errors in the Bible the JST version would not be complete. My KJV references the JST at times as well as Greek and Hebrew. Anyhow I’d hang on to both and use them both.

 

[JRKH]

I have an even better analogy. On that desert island you have a slightly burned, slightly illegible Bible and a pristine copy of the “Inspired Translation by Joseph Smith Jr.” (which exists in full as the version of the Bible employed by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA the Community of Christ). Which do you use? The faulty Protestant “King James” Bible (which ultimately has its origins from the Latin Vulgate) or the “error-free” version from Joseph Smith?

Also what about the matter of canonization? Certainly the JSJr version may correct any incorrect translations, but what about the fact that the actual BOOKS chosen to be in the Bible are IDENTICAL in all of Christianity?

Which is more likely, that the Catholic Church just got lucky and coincidentally placed the correct books in the canon while eliminating the incorrect ones, or that there was some kind of divine providence at work?

xixxvmcm85,
First let me welcome you to the Boards and to the Faith. (I checked your profile. Praise God.
I hope that you have better luck with Teancum79 than we have had so far.
He prefers to drop his own opinions with only vague allusions to his sources and utterly refused to provide anything factual.

Perhaps as a former LDS member you could help me out. Do the Mormons hold that the Bible is the innerrant word of God or not? (Tea refused to answer that question earlier.)

Peace
James

 

[teancum79]

xixxvmcm85,
First let me welcome you to the Boards and to the Faith. (I checked your profile. Praise God.
I hope that you have better luck with Teancum79 than we have had so far.
He prefers to drop his own opinions with only vague allusions to his sources and utterly refused to provide anything factual.

Perhaps as a former LDS member you could help me out. Do the Mormons hold that the Bible is the innerrant word of God or not? (Tea refused to answer that question earlier.)

Peace
James

Sorry if I missed that one. We don’t we been teaching that it has issues for a very long time.

 

[JRKH]

Sorry if I missed that one. We don’t we been teaching that it has issues for a very long time.

What do you base this belief on?

Peace
James

 

[teancum79]

A prophet saying so.

The LDS leaders have taught that there are errors in the Bible.

LDS Articles of faith:

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

 

[JRKH]

A prophet saying so.

The LDS leaders have taught that there are errors in the Bible.

LDS Articles of faith:

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

So I can assume then that you see this as being one of the erroneous verses:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! (Galatians 1:8)

James

 

[teancum79]

I’ve seen some different wording, but the concept is right and well accepted by LDS. Where we are likely to disagree though is in our position that what we now preach is the same gospel taught in NT times.

 

[teancum79]

Some of the errors would be when the OT records God sending evil spirits, doing evil, needing to repent etc.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I trust the original authors of the NT.

As far as what I have learned from historical sources. the good old empire held a meeting between religious leaders of differing opinions to occur. Many did not come. He used his position to influence the outcome of the decisions reached. Given that he was not a Christian until the end of his life (and as suggested by one teacher he was baptized while asleep) I don’t trust his (name removed by moderator)ut. That saints become something special to ask help from (a very polytheistic looking practice) and other changes from what I find in the Bible I can’t just assume that things just kept on the same track.

Why dont you describe to us how was the Church then? and how is the Church of Christ suppost to look like today?

"[SIGN]I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… [/SIGN]

 

[mercygate]

I trust the original authors of the NT.

As far as what I have learned from historical sources. the good old empire held a meeting between religious leaders of differing opinions to occur. Many did not come. He used his position to influence the outcome of the decisions reached. Given that he was not a Christian until the end of his life (and as suggested by one teacher he was baptized while asleep) I don’t trust his (name removed by moderator)ut. That saints become something special to ask help from (a very polytheistic looking practice) and other changes from what I find in the Bible I can’t just assume that things just kept on the same track.

It would derail this thread to chase down the trail of “your” historical sources. But they appear to be highly “inflected” to say the least.

As for the Communion of Saints, it is documented in Scripture perfectly well, and your phrase “polytheistic looking practice” bespeaks a pejorative outlook that has condemned the history before the history has been properly learned.

To say that Constantine was “not a Christian” until the end of his life implies that he was something else: Gnostic? Arian? Pagan? but this is not true. His mother was a devout Christian and very influential on Constantine. The delayn of baptism until near death was fairly common at the time because penance for post-baptismal sin was extremely lengthy and difficult.

One of Constantine’s last imperial edicts, BTW (and off topic), was to abolish the cross as a means of execution in honor of Our Lord’s death.

 

[teancum79]

It would derail this thread to chase down the trail of “your” historical sources. But they appear to be highly “inflected” to say the least.

As for the Communion of Saints, it is documented in Scripture perfectly well, and your phrase “polytheistic looking practice” bespeaks a pejorative outlook that has condemned the history before the history has been properly learned.

To say that Constantine was “not a Christian” until the end of his life implies that he was something else: Gnostic? Arian? Pagan? but this is not true. His mother was a devout Christian and very influential on Constantine. The delayn of baptism until near death was fairly common at the time because penance for post-baptismal sin was extremely lengthy and difficult.

One of Constantine’s last imperial edicts, BTW (and off topic), was to abolish the cross as a means of execution in honor of Our Lord’s death.

Well if your are right you’d better correct the worlds schoolers the info I posted was from history teachers who frankly could not care less whither or nor the CC is right or wrong.

 

[teancum79]

Why dont you describe to us how was the Church then? and how is the Church of Christ suppost to look like today?

"[SIGN]I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… [/SIGN]

In a word LDS.

Many of the details are very unclear in the Bible as to what was done and was it done because it was a doctrine or was it just a way of doing it. A living mouth peace of God though was present and is today.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

xixxvmcm85,
First let me welcome you to the Boards and to the Faith. (I checked your profile. Praise God.
I hope that you have better luck with Teancum79 than we have had so far.
He prefers to drop his own opinions with only vague allusions to his sources and utterly refused to provide anything factual.

Perhaps as a former LDS member you could help me out. Do the Mormons hold that the Bible is the innerrant word of God or not? (Tea refused to answer that question earlier.)

Peace
James

Thanks for the warm welcome.

Yes the LDS believe that the Bible has errors in it (which are said to boil down to incorrect translating). For this reason Joseph Smith Jr. compiled his own “inspired” translation that the LDS currently only use parts of, while appealing mostly to the KJV. (The second largest “Latter Day” branch is the RLDS and they do in fact use the entire JST version of the Bible, though from what I’ve been told, it is their RLDS church that owns the copyright, so this may be the reason why the LDS do not use that version rather only “major important parts”).

As Teacum has pointed out, the LDS believe the Bible is inspired but not inerrant whereas the Book of Mormon is both inspired and inerrant. (Though I think the former belief would not apply to the JST version).

The exact verses that the LDS use from the JST along side with the KJV are found in the “Pearl of Great Price” under the books of “Moses” (which is the JST version of Genesis) and “JST Matthew” (parts of the gospel according to St. Matthew translated by JSJr.)

What a lot of people don’t understand is that the vast majority of the “controversial”, unorthodox teachings of the LDS church are not found in the Book of Mormon, rather they are found in the D&C and in the JST of the Bible itself. It would seem that Joseph Smith in the end couldn’t reconcile some of his heretical teachings (such as the pre-existence of all souls) with the actual Bible so he ventured out and created his own. (The doctrine of the pre-existence of souls is first taught in the “Mormon version” of Genesis, the Pearl of Great Price’s “Book of Moses”).