Your words and opinions are that of a fraud named Smith, who could not even prove the existence of the original texts of your so-called “New Testament of Jesus Christ”.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Says who? You? Your church? Why should I believe your so-called “church”? You church makes Jesus a liar, I say again.The true Holy Ghost is the one that bears witness to the truth of the Restoration of the gospel in the latter days, and of the Book of Mormon. Any spirit that bears not witness to that but speaks against it, is not of God, but is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.
zerinus
R
roguejim
Guest
“Before you inquire, blame no man; and when you have inquired, reprove justly.”
ECCLESIASTICUS 11:7
“Our Lord has clearly commanded us to regard as heathens those who will not hear the Church.”
VEN POPE PIUS IX
“It is hereby condemned as error that, although it is clearly established that a man is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him, should you be unable to prove it.”
POPE ALEXANDER VII
“That we can have at least good hope for the salvation of all those who have never been in the true Church of Christ is hereby condemned as error.”
VEN POPE PIUS IX
ECCLESIASTICUS 11:7
“Our Lord has clearly commanded us to regard as heathens those who will not hear the Church.”
VEN POPE PIUS IX
“It is hereby condemned as error that, although it is clearly established that a man is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him, should you be unable to prove it.”
POPE ALEXANDER VII
“That we can have at least good hope for the salvation of all those who have never been in the true Church of Christ is hereby condemned as error.”
VEN POPE PIUS IX
S
swariffin
Guest
Dear Friends,
I admire your effort to defend our believe of Transubstantiation, and so do I respect Zerinus belief as the result of his interpretation. Off course, as a Catholic, I do believe in Transubstantiation. Please keep in mind that Zerinus is not a Catholic. So, if he has a different interpretation of the bible, it is completely normal and logical. I would refer to what Rabbi Gamaliel said in Acts 5:35-38. So, let Zerinus communicates what he has discovered from his study of the bible. We answer as much as needed. Whether he accepts/deny our explanation, it should be his right to do so. No need to feel offended either, cause it shows that we don’t love him as our neighbor. If he claims that he is the most right, it will not be our right to judge. Time will tell who is right and wrong, brothers, as our RCC has endured for the last 2 millenia.
I admire your effort to defend our believe of Transubstantiation, and so do I respect Zerinus belief as the result of his interpretation. Off course, as a Catholic, I do believe in Transubstantiation. Please keep in mind that Zerinus is not a Catholic. So, if he has a different interpretation of the bible, it is completely normal and logical. I would refer to what Rabbi Gamaliel said in Acts 5:35-38. So, let Zerinus communicates what he has discovered from his study of the bible. We answer as much as needed. Whether he accepts/deny our explanation, it should be his right to do so. No need to feel offended either, cause it shows that we don’t love him as our neighbor. If he claims that he is the most right, it will not be our right to judge. Time will tell who is right and wrong, brothers, as our RCC has endured for the last 2 millenia.
Z
zerinus
Guest
You mean apostate Christian history. Agreed. We don’t, and wouldn’t want to.Besides, you don’t expect us to accept Mormon authority on your word do you? It’s not good enough for us to simply agree with your claims that your Church is authoritative, since you do not have history on your side.
zerinus
Then you need to back it up with “genuine” Christian history. Of course “genuine” Christian history will indicate clearly when the great apostasy took place.You mean apostate Christian history. Agreed. We don’t, and wouldn’t want to.
zerinus
Where is it, please? I just want that event and the year it took place. And of course, it must be verifiable by unbiased secular authorities, i.e. neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Mormon. Because fact is fact regardless of religion. Such is the nature of historical study.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Slandering Joseph Smith does not help your cause any. It simply proves that you have run out of valid arguments, and do not have the courage to admit it. I suppose could respond by slandering the Pope if I wanted to. But I have better arguments to bring for my case than that.Your words and opinions are that of a fraud named Smith, who could not even prove the existence of the original texts of your so-called “New Testament of Jesus Christ”.
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
Says who? You? Your church? Why should I believe your so-called “church”? You church makes Jesus a liar, I say again.
Worthless debate. All addressed before. Nothing said that is new. No need to continue. Have a nice day.Then you need to back it up with “genuine” Christian history. Of course “genuine” Christian history will indicate clearly when the great apostasy took place.
Where is it, please? I just want that event and the year it took place. And of course, it must be verifiable by unbiased secular authorities, i.e. neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Mormon. Because fact is fact regardless of religion. Such is the nature of historical study.
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
Thank you. Somebody seems to be making some sense here.Dear Friends,
I admire your effort to defend our believe of Transubstantiation, and so do I respect Zerinus belief as the result of his interpretation. Off course, as a Catholic, I do believe in Transubstantiation. Please keep in mind that Zerinus is not a Catholic. So, if he has a different interpretation of the bible, it is completely normal and logical. I would refer to what Rabbi Gamaliel said in Acts 5:35-38. So, let Zerinus communicates what he has discovered from his study of the bible. We answer as much as needed. Whether he accepts/deny our explanation, it should be his right to do so. No need to feel offended either, cause it shows that we don’t love him as our neighbor. If he claims that he is the most right, it will not be our right to judge. Time will tell who is right and wrong, brothers, as our RCC has endured for the last 2 millenia.
zerinus
Okay, never mind slandering Joseph Smith.Thank you. Somebody seems to be making some sense here.
zerinus
But a simple question such as when the apostasy happened can be easily answered yes?
If you already posted it somewhere, tell me where it is. I just need the date and the event. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for my case, I’m not making any. I’m not defending anyone, and I’m not arguing the Catholic case. I, however, have no reason to trust you, your Church, and your Holy Spirit. I just want clear, historical proof of your assertions that the Christian church apostatized.
No, it has not been all addressed before. You simply claimed that an apostasy happened but nothing concrete. No event, no year, no dramatis personae.Worthless debate. All addressed before. Nothing said that is new. No need to continue. Have a nice day.
zerinus
I asked for only two things: an event and a date. What’s so difficult about that for a faithful Mormon as yourself?
If you already gave it in another post, please direct me to it.
Z
zerinus
Guest
In my OP in the Apostasy thread I gave a link to a Blog post in which all those questions have been answered.Okay, never mind slandering Joseph Smith.
But a simple question such as when the apostasy happened can be easily answered yes?
If you already posted it somewhere, tell me where it is. I just need the date and the event. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for my case, I’m not making any. I’m not defending anyone. I just want clear, historical proof of your assertions that the Christian church apostatized.
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
See previous post.No, it has not been all addressed before. You simply claimed that an apostasy happened but nothing concrete. No event, no year, no dramatis personae.
I asked for only two things: an event and a date. What’s so difficult about that for a faithful Mormon as yourself?
If you already gave it in another post, please direct me to it.
zerinus
Ah okay, perfect. Now we shall try to get somewhere.In my OP in the Apostasy thread I gave a link to a Blog post in which all those questions have been answered.
zerinus
We’ll deal with key portions of your blog post. First of all, you wisely refrain from putting an exact date or event. Good, that actually gives you some breathing space.
But nevertheless, there are problems. You indicated that the approximate time of the apostasy began with John’s death. But then you said that by the end of the first century, the apostasy was complete.
You also used the “head” analogy, such that when the head is cut off, the body decays. But the problem here is that the head is Christ. For the body to decay, the head must have been lopped of. Unfortunately, this contradicts Christ’s promise that he would be with his followers ALWAYS. Although he made this promise to those who witnessed his ascension, his use of the phrase ALWAYS (pasas tas hemeras, lit. all the days) clearly indicates that he would always be with his followers, i.e. his church. It can’t refer to the Twelve only, because the Twelve would not live till the end of the world. Therefore, for him to be “decapitated” so to speak is a direct contradiction to this promise.
Moreover, even if one does not accept that Peter is the foundation on which Jesus built his church, or that he was the rock on which the Church was built, Jesus did promise that the gates of hell/powers of death would not prevail against it. Even if you say, “Yes that’s why the LDS church is the restoration”, combine that with his promise in Matthew 28:20, and it makes a failure of Jesus’ promise.
Next, you try to give evidence of the apostasy. But as you tried to address later, these first off refer only to partial or individual fallings-away, which no one has denied. You, howerver, need to make the case for a TOTAL apostasy, on which your restoration theology rests. Unfortunately, when reading these verses in context, no reference is made to a total, 100% apostasy.
(BTW, the Protestants are not in apostasy according to the Catholic position. They are in heresy and schism. But they are not apostates).
Take, for example, your letter to Timothy, about falling away. The New Testament clearly uses “some”, not all. Forbidding to marry, taken in context, refers to the rejection of marriage as evil, something none of the “apostate” churches do. Clerical celibacy, which you are clearly alluding to, is voluntarily taken by those willing to accept this discipline by becoming Roman Catholic priests. But there are indeed married Catholic priests, so this accusation cannot be taken as evidence. Marriage is held as sacred by all the “apostate” churches.
Even your favorite from 2 Tim. 3 makes no reference to a “complete” apostasy. Your reference to “all” in Asia refers to the Roman Province of Asia, which is modern-day Turkey. Asia is hardly the entire Church.
Your attempt to distinguish between the priesthood and the keys of the priesthood are completely alien to Scripture, and have no reference. Keys are associated with the governing, not sacrificial or priestly functions. You are describing a uniquely Mormon theology, but one which has no basis in Levitical, Davidic, patriarchal or New Testament society. The New Testament mentions only two holders of keys: Christ and Peter.
(BTW, the Protestants are not in apostasy according to the Catholic position. They are in heresy and schism. But they are not apostates).
Take, for example, your letter to Timothy, about falling away. The New Testament clearly uses “some”, not all. Forbidding to marry, taken in context, refers to the rejection of marriage as evil, something none of the “apostate” churches do. Clerical celibacy, which you are clearly alluding to, is voluntarily taken by those willing to accept this discipline by becoming Roman Catholic priests. But there are indeed married Catholic priests, so this accusation cannot be taken as evidence. Marriage is held as sacred by all the “apostate” churches.
Even your favorite from 2 Tim. 3 makes no reference to a “complete” apostasy. Your reference to “all” in Asia refers to the Roman Province of Asia, which is modern-day Turkey. Asia is hardly the entire Church.
Your attempt to distinguish between the priesthood and the keys of the priesthood are completely alien to Scripture, and have no reference. Keys are associated with the governing, not sacrificial or priestly functions. You are describing a uniquely Mormon theology, but one which has no basis in Levitical, Davidic, patriarchal or New Testament society. The New Testament mentions only two holders of keys: Christ and Peter.
Z
zerinus
Guest
That is precise enough for a historical date as far as I am concerned.Ah okay, perfect. Now we shall try to get somewhere.
We’ll deal with key portions of your blog post. First of all, you wisely refrain from putting an exact date or event. Good, that actually gives you some breathing space.
But nevertheless, there are problems. You indicated that the approximate time of the apostasy began with John’s death. But then you said that by the end of the first century, the apostasy was complete.
You also used the “head” analogy, such that when the head is cut off, the body decays. But the problem here is that the head is Christ. For the body to decay, the head must have been lopped of. Unfortunately, this contradicts Christ’s promise that he would be with his followers ALWAYS. Although he made this promise to those who witnessed his ascension, his use of the phrase ALWAYS (pasas tas hemeras, lit. all the days) clearly indicates that he would always be with his followers, i.e. his church. It can’t refer to the Twelve only, because the Twelve would not live till the end of the world. Therefore, for him to be “decapitated” so to speak is a direct contradiction to this promise.
You do not appear to have read the rest of my Blog post. All of that has already been addressed in it. Furthermore, if you intend to continue with this subject, I recommend you do it in that thread, rather than here.Moreover, even if one does not accept that Peter is the foundation on which Jesus built his church, or that he was the rock on which the Church was built, Jesus did promise that the gates of hell/powers of death would not prevail against it. Even if you say, “Yes that’s why the LDS church is the restoration”, combine that with his promise in Matthew 28:20, and it makes a failure of Jesus’ promise.
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
All has been addressed and answered in my Blog post. See previous post.Next, you try to give evidence of the apostasy. But as you tried to address later, these first off refer only to partial or individual fallings-away, which no one has denied. You, howerver, need to make the case for a TOTAL apostasy, on which your restoration theology rests. Unfortunately, when reading these verses in context, no reference is made to a total, 100% apostasy.
(BTW, the Protestants are not in apostasy according to the Catholic position. They are in heresy and schism. But they are not apostates).
Take, for example, your letter to Timothy, about falling away. The New Testament clearly uses “some”, not all. Forbidding to marry, taken in context, refers to the rejection of marriage as evil, something none of the “apostate” churches do. Clerical celibacy, which you are clearly alluding to, is voluntarily taken by those willing to accept this discipline by becoming Roman Catholic priests. But there are indeed married Catholic priests, so this accusation cannot be taken as evidence. Marriage is held as sacred by all the “apostate” churches.
Even your favorite from 2 Tim. 3 makes no reference to a “complete” apostasy. Your reference to “all” in Asia refers to the Roman Province of Asia, which is modern-day Turkey. Asia is hardly the entire Church.
Your attempt to distinguish between the priesthood and the keys of the priesthood are completely alien to Scripture, and have no reference. Keys are associated with the governing, not sacrificial or priestly functions. You are describing a uniquely Mormon theology, but one which has no basis in Levitical, Davidic, patriarchal or New Testament society. The New Testament mentions only two holders of keys: Christ and Peter.
zerinus
You have a long article, so we’ll go through it slowly. But those are some of the key points which are at odds with Scripture and its context. I especially want to know how a complete apostasy reconciles with Jesus’ promises that he would never abandon the Church.
And also, even if the Church apostatized, there must still be manuscript evidence that they held to the same beliefs as the LDS do today, such as that Jesus is not the same as the Father, or that men will become gods on their own planets. Even the Catholic Church, whether or not it is the true church, has managed to preserve the writings of its heretics. Much of the heretical writings were understandably destroyed but much survives, especially from the Gnostics. So surely then, there must be first-century archaeological and critical evidence of 1st-century Mormon belief. It’s not possible to have destroyed everything.
And also, even if the Church apostatized, there must still be manuscript evidence that they held to the same beliefs as the LDS do today, such as that Jesus is not the same as the Father, or that men will become gods on their own planets. Even the Catholic Church, whether or not it is the true church, has managed to preserve the writings of its heretics. Much of the heretical writings were understandably destroyed but much survives, especially from the Gnostics. So surely then, there must be first-century archaeological and critical evidence of 1st-century Mormon belief. It’s not possible to have destroyed everything.
I AM addressing your blog post. Those are the questions that arise.All has been addressed and answered in my Blog post. See previous post.
zerinus
Fair enough. I will continue it there. Rest assured, I will read your blog post from top to bottom.That is precise enough for a historical date as far as I am concerned.
You do not appear to have read the rest of my Blog post. All of that has already been addressed in it. Furthermore, if you intend to continue with this subject, I recommend you do it in that thread, rather than here.
zerinus
- Status
- Not open for further replies.