Were the first christians mormons or catholics?

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Oh! Excuse me… the man who called the Pharisees “FOOLS”, “HYPOCRITES”, and “WHITEWASHED TOMBS FULL OF DEAD MEN’S BONES.” Would never call people names! LOL I’m sorry I must have made a mistake.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Oh! Excuse me… the man who called the Pharisees “FOOLS”, “HYPOCRITES”, and “WHITEWASHED TOMBS FULL OF DEAD MEN’S BONES.” Would never call people names! LOL I’m sorry I must have made a mistake.

I regard ridicule in the right circumstances as a loving act. When Jesus ridicules the Pharisees was he being unloving? I think Jesus was telling the Pharisees exactly what they needed to hear.

 

[meltzerboy2]

That’s the same argument that atheists use when they say that G-d murders but gives humans the commandment not to murder. What G-d does (or says) is on a different level of understanding than what man does or says. It’s similar to the fact that parents are allowed to do things that children are not allowed to do. The Law is for the betterment of mankind, not for the betterment of G-d. Thus when Jesus says these things–and Christians believe that Jesus is G-d–He is doing so, perhaps, to instruct humans not to follow those who are hypocritical. There is a godly reason for doing so. That does not mean we humans are entitled to instruct humans in the same way. The commandment forbids us to do so.

BTW, Jesus did NOT believe all the Pharisees were hypocritical. He differentiated between the hypocrites and the true believers.

 

[Thom18]

Oh! Excuse me… the man who called the Pharisees “FOOLS”, “HYPOCRITES”, and “WHITEWASHED TOMBS FULL OF DEAD MEN’S BONES.” Would never call people names! LOL I’m sorry I must have made a mistake.

Your tone most certainly is regrettable.

 

[Thom18]

Btw, there’s at least a small difference between calling someone a hypocrite or fool, and mocking an address for an important (to some) religious figure. One is correction, the other is (as another user said) being rude for the sake of being rude.

 

[ReaderT]

But these words by Mr. Rogers do indeed express the most important teaching of Jesus.

I’m not sure that’s true: Jesus Himself called the Pharisees “hypocrites” and a “family of snakes”, and called the money changers “thieves”. That’s a far way from “never hurting anyone’s feelings”, heheh

 

[meltzerboy2]

And some Jews point that out to show that Jesus was NOT G-d. But I, a Jew, am defending Jesus in saying this. Please see my prior post on this thread.

 

[Thom18]

If I were you, I’d take a step back and think for a bit. You’re coming off as arrogant and aggressive. I think you’d benefit from some time away from here, and some time in prayer.

 

[Thom18]

What’s wrong with mocking an address to a religious figure who is clearly a tool of Satan? Go and study Islam for a few years and you’ll see it.

I don’t have to study Islam to tell you that it is wrong to throw the venom that you are. I only need to know what God says.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

What if I told a believer of Baal that he needed to pray louder because maybe their false god couldn’t hear their prayers because he was in the bathroom? To put it nicely… “At noon Elijah began to taunt them “Shout louder!” he said.“Shout louder! “He’s a god, so maybe he’s busy. “Maybe he’s relieving himself. “Maybe he’s busy someplace. “Maybe he’s taking a nap and somebody needs to wake him up.” So the prophets of Baal cried even louder and slashed themselves with swords and lances…” Kings 18:27-28

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Ok… listen I want to clarify something here. You seem to think that I would do this all day and every day. Now, if I had met you when you were a Lutheran I would not open up our conversation or debate with ridicule or insults directed at Martin Luther especially if I thought you were capable of having a rational discussion. However, if I saw that your reverence for Martin Luther was clouding your mind and hindering your ability to question his validity then yes, some ridicule would be in order. Not too long ago I discussed with a Protestant who seemed to believe that Luther was a shining example of someone who loved the Jews and because of that he admired Luther to an obscene degree. My response was to say that Luther was a madman and the grandfather of the Nazis. I went on to explain using the sources I had available. As for Muslim converts to Christianity I say with full confidence that yes it works. The first step to bring them down to reality is to not join them in showing reverence to a false prophet and pedophile.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

how about all the ones that weren’t converted that way? How about cases like myself?

There is no one method that fits all. It really comes down to knowing who are talking to and what their world view is. A method that works for Muslims who have been thoroughly indoctrinated would not work for a Lutheran. I know that. I wouldn’t use the same approaches for everyone.

 

[Thom18]

What if I told a believer of Baal that he needed to pray louder because maybe their false god couldn’t hear their prayers because he was in the bathroom? To put it nicely… “At noon Elijah began to taunt them “Shout louder!” he said.“Shout louder! “He’s a god, so maybe he’s busy. “Maybe he’s relieving himself. “Maybe he’s busy someplace. “Maybe he’s taking a nap and somebody needs to wake him up.” So the prophets of Baal cried even louder and slashed themselves with swords and lances…” Kings 18:27-28

You sound much like the Roman soldiers who put our Lord to death, rather than our Lord Himself, as we ought to.

The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him vinegar, and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” Luke 23:36-37

Curiously enough, the jeering of these soldiers did not change Christ’s mind, nor did it win the hearts or minds of His disciples. Rather, Christ’s meekness won the day, and the soul of the Centurion who proclaimed His divinity.

If you desire to win souls for Christ, you will do so only by imitating Him, and one who imitates the Messiah does not have such poison as those Romans had under their tongues.

 

[Canvas]

It just seems clear to me that if Jesus did found a church with Mormon doctrine before the apostasy, then we would see it in history, but I can’t find any evidence.

You cannot find any evidence because this evidence does not exist.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Seriously? I cited the verses when Jesus called the Pharisees all kinds of names. I showed you the example making a whip and forced everyone out of his father’s house. must I post them here again? Jesus was furious as they what they had done to his father’s house. We shouldn’t be too? Jesus meekness on the cross was for a reason and a purpose! He wasn’t meek when he kicked out the people who turned his father’s house into a market. he wasn’t meek in his rebuke to the Pharisees. I ask you if that’s what he had to say to the Pharisees and people in the temple what Jesus would say to a man who proudly said that God promised him that he would have Jesus’ mother Mary as one of his wives in heaven? I’ll give you a clue… it was moham of Islam who said such vileness.

Perhaps you’d like to take a lesson from St.Eulogius of Córdoba martyred in 859. Eulogius of Cordoba, an indigenous Christian of Muslim-occupied Spain, once wrote, “I will not repeat the sacrilege which that impure dog [Muhammad] dared proffer about the Blessed Virgin, Queen of the World, holy mother of our venerable Lord and Savior. He claimed that in the next world he would deflower her.”

As usual, it was Eulogius’ offensive words about Muhammad—and not the latter’s offensive words about Mary—that had dire consequences: he, as well as many other Spanish Christians vociferously critical of Muhammad, were found guilty of speaking against Islam and publicly tortured and executed in “Golden Age” Cordoba in 859..

In a hadith that was deemed reliable enough to be included in the renowned Ibn Kathir’s corpus, Muhammad declared that “Allah will wed me in paradise to Mary, Daughter of Imran” (whom Muslims identify with Jesus’ mother). (Note: the Arabic word for “wed” denotes “legal sexual relations” and is devoid of Western, “romantic,” or Platonic connotations.)

I want to make something absolutely clear to you. I don’t hate Muslims as people. I hate their ideology and I hate the satanic messages it carries. for some Muslims who have been deeply indoctrinated they need to hear stern and harsh words. If you patronize them or are submissive in any way they won’t be able to reason and instead they will bask in what they believe to be a god given victory. Of course not every Muslim is the same. Some are open to reason and others are not. Sometimes it takes effort but out of love for them you have to be tough, uncompromising, and unwilling to allow them to think even for a moment that they have even a drop of victory. In their desperation as their world view crumbles around them they will seek the truth and they will find it in Jesus Christ.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Martyred priest of Cordoba, Spain, slain by the Moors. Arrested in 850 , Eulogius, a noted scholar of Scripture, wrote Exhortation to Martyrdom for two young virgin martyrs, Flora and Mary, who were beheaded. Released, Eulogius was named archbishop of Cordoba or Toledo. Before being consecrated, he aided Leocritia, a young Moorish woman who had converted to Christianity. They were caught and beheaded. Eulogius also wrote: The Memorial of the Saints and an Apologia.

 

[gazelam]

I have been told by a Mormon Church leader that the Great Apostasy probably started to take place somewhere between 100 and 200 AD.

Who is the Latter-day Saint leader that told you this?

BTW, Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus on the subject of false teachers and referring to the condition of the Church about the close of the first century:

The Church continued until then as a pure and uncorrupt virgin, whilst if there were any at all that attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving Gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats: but when the sacred choir of Apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combinations of impious errors arose by the fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the Apostles left, henceforth attempted without shame, to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, bk. 3, ch. 32)

Still, I find this hard to believe because we still have writings from early Christians such as the Didache, letters of St. Clement I, St. Ignatius, etc. that all point toward the Catholic Church, not any Mormon Teachings.

Here are some Early Church Fathers with teachings that point away from the catholic Church and then a summary by John Henry Newman regarding the teachings of various church fathers.

Justin Martyr refers to two distinct Gods:
“[T]here is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is called an Angel…. I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things – numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56[ANF 1:223])

Justin Martyr refers to creation ex-materia:
And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man’s sake, create all things out of unformed matter ; (First Apology X [ANF: 1:165], emphasis added)

Ignatius of Antioch states that he is not an Apostle:
Seeing that I love you I thus spare you, though I might write more sharply on his behalf: but I did not think myself competent for this, that being a convict I should order you as though I were an Apostle. (Ignatius of Antioch quoted in The Apostolic Fathers, 73)

John Henry Newman wrote:
If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered as a Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes. and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian … Tertullian is heterodox on the doctrine of our Lord’s divinity … Origen is. at the very least, suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian. (Newman, Essay, 43)

 

[gazelam]

One line from scripture is hardly evidence for baptism for the dead, especially since Paul never says that we should be doing it and never explains it. There are many ways to interpret “baptized for the dead” and once again, Paul, and all the other apostles, never teach it in scriptures. Furthermore, if it were a teaching of the church, wouldn’t we have further evidence of it occurring?

On the question of whether Paul affirms the propriety of “baptism for the dead” in 1 Cor 15:29, Protestant G.G. Findlay, in the Expositor’s Greek Testament commentary, wrote:

In following up 1Co 15:29 with the words of 1Co 15:30 (τί καὶ ἡμεῖς κινδυνεύομεν P[aul] associates himself with the action of “those baptised for the dead,” indicating that they and he are engaged on the same behalf (for καὶ ἡμεῖς) associating “we” with persons aforementioned, cf. 2Co 4:13, Gal 2:16; Gal 4:3, Eph 2:3, etc.). (G. G. Findlay, St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, in W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Volume II [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1970], 930, italics in original)

As for celestial marriage, is there any evidence of the church believing in it outside of the bible? because there are bible verses that go against it as well, such as Mark 12:25 and Romans 7:2.

A non-LDS scholar stated…

The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact which prompts the question: Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection?..Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms “γαμουσιν” (gamousin) and “γαμιζονται” (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state .” (Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, p. 328, italics added)

 

[gazelam]

In the bible there are many metaphors of Gods being, but there are verses that also claim that he is a spirit such as John 4:24 and Luke 24:39.

Does John 4:24 really mean that God ontologically is only a spirit? Please note these verses that refer to people with physical bodies as “spirit”.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [Christ] was made a quickening spirit.

1 Corinthians 6:17 17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit .

Once again you are taking true Scripture and twisting it to fit your own narrative. Stop. It makes you look silly and uneducated.

But… I am silly and uneducated.

 

[Usige]

the question of whether Paul affirms the propriety of “baptism for the dead” in 1 Cor 15:29, Protestant G.G. Findlay, in the Expositor’s Greek Testament commentary, wrote:

In following up 1Co 15:29 with the words of 1Co 15:30 (τί καὶ ἡμεῖς κινδυνεύομεν P[aul] associates himself with the action of “those baptised for the dead,” indicating that they and he are engaged on the same behalf (for καὶ ἡμεῖς) associating “we” with persons aforementioned, cf. 2Co 4:13, Gal 2:16; Gal 4:3, Eph 2:3, etc.). (G. G. Findlay, St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, in W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Volume II [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1970], 930, italics in original)

That is taking one sentence from Findlay out of context. If you read that whole section you would see that he explicitly denies that 15:29 could reference vicarious baptism in the next two sentences. On the following page from your quote he gives his interpretation of 15:29-30

Paul is referring to a much commoner, indeed normal experience, that the death of Christians leads to the conversion of survivors, who in the first instance ‘for the sake of the dead’ (their beloved dead) and in the hope of re-union, turn to Christ—e.g… when a dying mother wins her son by the appeal ‘Meet me in heaven!’ Such appeals, and their frequent salutary effect, give strong and touching evidence of faith in the resurrection… some recent example of the kind may have suggested this ref. Paul designates such converts “baptised for the dead,” since Baptism seals the new believer and commits him to the Christian life with all its losses and hazards (cf. 30).

The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Volume II, p 931

Findlay does not support the LDS practice and roundly rejects it. While he discounts the common interpretation I provided earlier, his explination is that Saint Paul was talking about people who are baptized, while still alive, in the hope of reuniting with the deceased loved ones. That’s about 180 degrees from LDS practice of “baptizing” the dead in hope that the person getting wet in the Temple may see them in heaven.