Were the first christians mormons or catholics?

[Jstanford1026]

I agree with Usige’s response with this. With all due respect, do you have any actual evidence that is not taken out of context? We can imagine and theorize over 1 Corinthians 15:29 all that we want, but there doesn’t seem to be any other historical evidence of the church practicing it or of church fathers saying that people should practice it.

Once again, with all due respect, while Mr. Witherington’s words may be a theory of eternal marriage, it is not evidence of the early church believing in it. The only way that Mormons can prove that it was originally a true doctrine is if there is evidence of it being practiced in the early church, or if early church fathers told Christians to practice it.

Besides that point, while that is a viable argument, it brings up another question. In Romans 7:2, Paul clearly says that the marriage has ended when either the man or the woman has died. If the marriage ended at death, then it ended before they entered heaven. Whenever we enter heaven, we don’t enter married because at death, our marriage ends.

 

[Jstanford1026]

Yes, the bible does refer specifically to God being an invisible spirit. This is a belief of Judaism, which the first Christians were Jews. Along with those passages stating that God is a spirit, we have a few others. For example, 1 Timothy 1:17 and Colossians 1:15 both refer to an invisible God. This aligns with Luke 24, as a spirit does not have flesh and bones, thus making it invisible. We also see a belief of the early church fathers that align with this. Tatian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, and others talk about God as being invisible and eternal. This idea of God being invisible and omniscient and omnipotent are Jewish ideas, and ideas even expressed in the prologue of John’s gospel. If God is the creator of all things (including matter) and existed before all things, then he cannot have a physical body. Matter was simply one of his creations.

I also think you are mistaking the difference between “being” a spirit and “having” a spirit. All of us, as humans have spirits, but God is a spirit. We have both physical bodies and spirits as humans. The scriptures clearly state that God IS a spirit, not that he has a spirit.

Lastly, aren’t we all silly and uneducated?.. lol

God bless.

 

[RuthAnne]

But… I am silly and uneducated.

You’re starting to see what we already knew.

 

[CelticWarlord]

I think Jesus was telling the Pharisees exactly what they needed to hear.

I’m reminded of the Matrix and the Oracle who told Neo what he needed to hear. Yes, I agree, the lessons can seem cruel at times but are exactly what we need in that moment.

 

[Walk-worthy]

practicing and believing Mormon doctrine such as baptism for the dead, celestial marriage, the idea that God has a physical body, the idea that man can become gods, etc.?

I’m really confused by your question. I would say the first followers of Christ were neither Catholic nor Mormon. Catholicism, according to my understanding, had it’s origins after all the apostles had already died and followers started to branch out into different home churches. I believe the word catholic is Latin and was probably used to describe the followers being of different nationalities.
Mormonism was founded in the 1800’s and as far as I know has nothing to do with the early Christian church.

 

[gazelam]

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

I was addressing the comment “Paul never says that we should be doing it and never explains it”, and the Findlay explanation shows that Paul is associating himself with those who do.

Findlay does not support the LDS practice and roundly rejects it.

I would expect that from a Protestant but he did acknowledge the language showing Paul’s association.

With all due respect, do you have any actual evidence that is not taken out of context? We can imagine and theorize over 1 Corinthians 15:29 all that we want, but there doesn’t seem to be any other historical evidence of the church practicing it or of church fathers saying that people should practice it.

I doubt there are any ancient baptismal fonts which included a sign stating “Vicarious baptisms done here”. All I can do is go with other scholars.

Commenting on 1 Cor 15:29 and the reference to baptism for the dead, Jesuit priest and NT scholar, Scott M. Lewis, wrote:

Verse 29 is one of the most vigorously disputed passages in the NT. On the surface, it seems rather simple . Using the statement of the opposition as a springboard—there is no resurrection—Paul points to the inconsistency and futility of a practice of the Corinthians, i.e., being baptized on behalf of the dead. Despite the numerous attempts to explain this passage away, or get out of the difficulties and discomfort it causes, it seems better to accept the obvious surface meaning of the passage: Some Corinthians practiced a form of vicarious baptism . What is meant exactly by that, and when and under what circumstances it was practiced is impossible to answer . . . . (Scott M. Lewis, So That God May Be All in All: The Apocalyptic Message of 1 Corinthians 15,12-34 [Rome: Editrice Pontificia Universitá Gregoriana, 1998], 70-71, emphasis added)

 

[gazelam]

Once again, with all due respect, while Mr. Witherington’s words may be a theory of eternal marriage, it is not evidence of the early church believing in it. The only way that Mormons can prove that it was originally a true doctrine is if there is evidence of it being practiced in the early church, or if early church fathers told Christians to practice it.

I disagree with the notion that the teachings Early Church Fathers are what determine true Christianity. For one thing, it’s not hard to find disagreements among them. In the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve were married before death came into the world, and were therefore married forever.

Genesis 3:6 The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it

In Romans 7:2, Paul clearly says that the marriage has ended when either the man or the woman has died. If the marriage ended at death, then it ended before they entered heaven.

Romans 7:2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her living husband; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law in respect to her husband.

It is my personal opinion that this refers to those only married “til death do you part”. I think “law” here could also be “Earthly law”.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

is there any evidence of the early church (approximately 30 AD to 130 AD) practicing and believing Mormon doctrine such as baptism for the dead, celestial marriage, the idea that God has a physical body, the idea that man can become gods, etc.?

No. Certain Mormon posters here will do mental gymnastics to reinterpret vague biblical verses or cherry pick quotes from early church writers to support LDS doctrines, but the truth is that the Early Church did not believe in such things. The attempts of Mormon apologists to prove otherwise are quite pathetic. They excel at making vague arguments, and at using circular logic and unfounded extrapolation. The overwhelming amount of evidence from early church writings show their beliefs to be thoroughly Catholic. That is one reason why Protestants who study the history of the Early Church tend to convert to Catholicism and not Mormonism.

 

[Jstanford1026]

The reason that I keep saying that I want evidence is that there is clear evidence of Catholic doctrines and practices going all the way back to the apostles, and are directly related to the apostles through apostolic succession. From this, we know that the doctrine is true because it was taught by Jesus to the apostles, and the apostles to their successors and so on. If the practice or belief was evident in the time of the apostles or the early church fathers, then we know that it is a true practice and belief. If there is no evidence of it in the beginning, then it is fair to speculate that it is a man-made belief or practice. We obviously both agree that there is no early evidence of vicarious baptism in the early church. The problem that arises is that you can’t prove something existed if there is no evidence. That being said, we can reasonably assume that it was not a practice of the early church because we do have records of the early church’s beliefs and practices. From the trinity to transubstantiation, from the early Catholic mass to the believe of the divinity of Christ, from the belief that God is a Spirit and not a body to the practices of confession, the Catholic Church’s Doctrine today is strongly congruent with the church that Jesus founded on Peter and the apostles. If we have all of this evidence, then why is there no evidence of vicarious baptism? If all of these practices can be traced to the early church, then why can’t vicarious baptism? My guess is because it wasn’t a true practice of the church that Jesus founded. If it was, then the apostles would have said to do it and the early church fathers would have most likely written about it and not just about it, but also in favor of it.

Once again, the words of Mr. Lewis are fair and on the table, but it is no more than a speculation. You are trying to support this entire argument based off of one line in scripture that is not expounded upon and is not preached by Paul. I am not saying that this interpretation is incorrect, because it very well could be correct. But even if this is the correct interpretation, there is once again no greater evidence that shows that this was a true practice taught by the apostles and practiced by the church. We should also take into account the context of Corinthians chapter 15. In this chapter, Paul is speaking to the Corinthian church about their false beliefs and teachings. In other words, the church is astray and Paul is trying to lead them back to the true teaching of Jesus. We already know that a lot of the people at the church of Corinth were misunderstanding the church’s true teaching. If anything, it is fair to say that vicarious baptism is a false practice of these Corinthians because we already know that many of them had false beliefs and were already doing false practices.

 

[Jstanford1026]

If you disagree with the notion that the teachings of the early church fathers are what determines true Christianity, then you are destroying the Mormon argument just as much as the Catholic one. Catholic’s claim that Jesus established his one, true church with all of its practices and doctrine. He then handed it to the apostles and the apostles handed it on to the early church fathers (who were bishops and priests). Mormons believe the same thing, except sometime after the apostles, the true practices and doctrine fell away from the church, only to have God restore the true church in the 1800s. Well, then how do we find out who is right? The only way to find out who is right is to look at the early church. If the early church has the same practices and beliefs as the Catholic church does today, did yesterday and did over the past 2000 years, then we know that Catholicism is right. If we see that the early church’s practices and doctrines are the same as the Mormon church today, then we know that Mormonism is right, and that Jesus did establish his true church and over time, the church changed its doctrine and practices away from Gods teachings. This is the whole argument right here.

As for Adam and Eve, yes they were married before death came into the world, but did they not die?

And once again, we could further argue over bible passages, but if you know that Celestial marriage is the true doctrine taught by Jesus, then where is the historical evidence of it? Did the early church infallibly teach this and believe it?

 

[Chris-Wa1]

You make good points, but know that even when Mormons realize they cannot win the early church argument, they just pull out the prophet card. It’s the get-out-of-jail card that allows them to say whatever they want; the argument that because they have what they call “prophets,” God can reveal anything new. It’s the ultimate card for justifying anything their church teaches, especially when it’s something bizarre. There is an infamous quote from LDS leadership that says once the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.

 

[Usige]

I was addressing the comment “ Paul never says that we should be doing it and never explains it ”, and the Findlay explanation shows that Paul is associating himself with those who do.

But, as per usual, you are cherry picking quotes to support your narrative while ignoring the context of the quote or scriptural passage.

You use Findlay as proof to say 1 Corinthians 15:30 shows that St Paul associates himself with those who do “it”, and then proceed to assert that the “it” Findlay is supporting is vicarious baptism of the dead. In fact, Findlay roundly rejects 1 Corinthians 15:29 as being related to the LDS practice of baptizing the dead in the 3 sentences immediately following your quote.

… Paul associates himself with the action of “those baptised for the dead,” indicating that they and he are engaged on the same behalf.

This last consideration excludes the interpretation, at present widely adopted, that Paul alludes to a practice then (it is conjectured) in vogue at Corinth, which existed much later amongst the heretical Cerinthians and Marcionites viz ., that of the vicarious baptism of living Christians as proxies for relatives or friends dying unbaptised. With such a proceeding Paul could not have identified himself, even supposing that it existed at this time in the Church (of which there is no evidence), and that he had used it by way of argumentum ad hominem . An appeal to such a superstitious opus operatum would have laid the Apostle open to a damaging retort.

It is intellectually dishonest to take a quote and imply it supports your position when the very next sentence flatly rejects that position.

Perhaps you have never read “Expositor’s Greek Testament” and were unaware, but I am staring at my study copy right now. If you don’t have a copy, here is a link to a scan of the two pages you and I have quoted from.

The expositor's Greek Testament; : Nicoll, W. Robertson (William Robertson), Sir, 1851-1923 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Your quote starts on the bottom of the first column of the first page (p 930) and concludes at the top of the second column. Immediately after you will see the quote above refuting that 1 Corinthians 15:29 is about vicarious baptism as there is no historical evidence for the practice. My initial quote about Findlay’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29 can be found on the second page (p 931) starting on the 14th line of the first column (approximately 1/3 of the way down the page).

I’m sure you will find some other way to cherry pick another quote to show how I and others are misreading things and how everyone knows if A=B and C=D then A= ζ.

 

[gazelam]

The reason that I keep saying that I want evidence is that there is clear evidence of Catholic doctrines and practices going all the way back to the apostles, and are directly related to the apostles through apostolic succession. From this, we know that the doctrine is true because it was taught by Jesus to the apostles, and the apostles to their successors and so on.

I disagree with this assertion in some areas.

Regarding infant baptism, Kurt Aland wrote…

It can be no accident… that all of our information about the existence of infant baptism comes from the period between A.D. 200 and 250….For the time before this we do not possess a single piece of information that gives concrete testimony to the existence of infant baptism… To this day [1963] nobody can prove an actual case of the baptism of an infant in the period before A.D. 200…. That our entire sources, at least when allowed their literal sense, have in view only the baptism of adults, or at best the baptism of older children, can as little be contested. (Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, pp. 101, 102)

Papal Supremacy - W. H. C. Frend notes that there is no trace in what he terms the “sub-apostolic” period (the period of time following the death of the original apostles) of a single bishop in Rome with full authority for the church there and elsewhere in Christendom prior to the time of Hegesippus. (175 AD) (Frend, The Rise of Christianity, page 146)

Baptism by immersion only - Will Durant observed: By the ninth century, the early Christian method of baptism by total immersion had been gradually replaced by aspersion - sprinkling - as less dangerous to health in the Northern climes… (Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, pg 738)

Regarding the veneration of images -

Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott , stated the following, showing the late development of Catholic dogma of the veneration of images (which would become defined at the Second Council of Nicea in 787):

Owing to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over paganism . The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God (Can. 36). The original purpose of the images was that of instruction. The veneration of images (by kissing, bowing down before them, burning of candles, incensing) chiefly developed in the Greek Church from the fifth to the seventh centuries . (Ludwig Ott, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma , 320-21)

If the practice or belief was evident in the time of the apostles or the early church fathers, then we know that it is a true practice and belief. If there is no evidence of it in the beginning, then it is fair to speculate that it is a man-made belief or practice.

By your own criteria infant baptism, papal supremacy, baptism without immersion, and veneration of images are open for investigation since there is no evidence these practices in the early church.

 

[gazelam]

Once again, the words of Mr. Lewis are fair and on the table, but it is no more than a speculation.

A balanced statement - thank you.

If you disagree with the notion that the teachings of the early church fathers are what determines true Christianity, then you are destroying the Mormon argument just as much as the Catholic one. Catholic’s claim that Jesus established his one, true church with all of its practices and doctrine. He then handed it to the apostles and the apostles handed it on to the early church fathers (who were bishops and priests). Mormons believe the same thing, except sometime after the apostles, the true practices and doctrine fell away from the church, only to have God restore the true church in the 1800s.

Catholics claim that the Apostles handed things off to the bishops (and priests) as you say. That’s the problem!! Nowhere does the Bible state that Bishops are meant to provide worldwide leadership. Bishops are local authorities meant to keep a close eye on their flock. We Latter-day Saints believe that the office of Apostle was restored to the Earth and that Apostles continue guiding the Church today. How could the ancient Church stay in the right path without Apostles?

Well, then how do we find out who is right? The only way to find out who is right is to look at the early church.

The way to find out which is right is study and prayer. Knowing the history regarding these matters is a good thing, but ultimately we need to get a direct confirmation from God as to whether the path we’re choosing is correct.

Perhaps you have never read “Expositor’s Greek Testament” and were unaware, but I am staring at my study copy right now. If you don’t have a copy, here is a link to a scan of the two pages you and I have quoted from.

https://archive.org/stream/expositorsgreekt02nico#page/930/mode/2up

I appreciate the link. Take care and God bless.

 

[Jstanford1026]

If we look at the catacombs of Rome, we see images of young children being baptized. We look further to the writings of the church fathers. Irenaeus says “He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men.” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]). In the scriptures as well, it is clearly stated that Jesus and salvation are for all. This means the jews and the gentiles, the rich and the poor, the young and the old. If baptism is a Grace of God and if there is such an importance of baptism stated in the bible, then why exclude anyone including infants? Jesus explicitly states that no one can enter heaven unless they have been born of water and spirit in John chapter 3. Once again, he also says that he is for all.

There are also images in the catacombs that depict people being baptized by having water sprinkled over them. Also in the Didache, an early christian writing, it explicitly explains to "pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Before this, it also refers to other forms of baptism, but it also says, in the quote provided, that baptism by immersion was not the only way to baptize.

There is also early evidence of Papal Supremacy. The best example of this is Clement I of Rome, who was one of the first Popes, holding office from about 80 to 100 AD. In this time, when the apostle John was still alive, other christian church’s looked to Rome and the bishop of Rome for authority. The Corinthian church appealed to Clement about issues that they were having, and we have Clements letters to the Corinthians from that time. If the bishop of Rome didn’t have primacy, then why would any church appeal to them especially when John the apostle was still alive? Also why did they appeal to the church of Rome and not the church of Antioch, Jerusalem or Alexandria? Other evidences of Papal Primacy can be found in the Shepherd of Hermas and the letters from St. Ignatius, both written well before 200 AD. It is also worthy to note that in the catacombs, there are many people depicted, the most being Jesus who is depicted over 400 times. The next most depicted person is Peter, who is depicted over 200 times. The early church understood the importance of Peter’s role in the church and that it was a position that would continue through succession.

As far as statues and pictures go, I hope you understand that Catholic’s don’t actually worship images. This is a common misunderstanding of Catholicism and you can find articles explaining it on Catholic.com. It is clear that there are many images, such as the ones that you’ll see in Catholic churches today, in the catacombs of Rome. I will admit that there is no evidence of this in physical churches of the first few centuries but that is only because physical churches weren’t built until the 4th century because in the first 3 centuries the christians were persecuted so much by the Romans that the Romans didn’t let them build churches. All of their meetings were at homes, or underground in the catacombs, which do have similar images in them that catholic churches do have today.

 

[Jstanford1026]

Jesus gave authority to the apostles. It is silly to believe that this authority would not be passed on by the apostles to their successors, and Jesus also says that he will be with his church until the end of the age. The bishops weren’t merely local church leaders, but they are the men that hold the power to bind and loose that Jesus gave to the apostles. This authority is clearly expressed in the early church. The office of a Bishop is just an extension of the authority and the power that the apostles did have, this is where we claim apostolic authority.

I agree, study and prayer. We study history to find the truth, which is why we study the early church. God also gave us logic and reason, which guides us to truth. Prayer and study do help us to find God and to find truth.

 

[DeusNobisAuxilium]

From Apostles to Bishops would be a good place for you to start your actual research on apostolic succession. Francis Sullivan, S.J. does a wonderful job.

 

[Apache78]

How could the ancient Church stay in the right path without Apostles?

This where your misunderstanding and lack of faith in God come into play. You see God different from what we do. God is perfect. Your god is not so its okay for him to make mistakes and let men corrupt his words.

 

[gazelam]

If we look at the catacombs of Rome, we see images of young children being baptized.

To what year are these images dated?

We look further to the writings of the church fathers. Irenaeus says “He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men.” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Irenaeus is correct and does not mention baptism. (As an aside, Latter-day Saints believe that all who are incapable of belief are automatically covered by Christ’s atonement.)

In the scriptures as well, it is clearly stated that Jesus and salvation are for all. This means the jews and the gentiles, the rich and the poor, the young and the old. If baptism is a Grace of God and if there is such an importance of baptism stated in the bible, then why exclude anyone including infants?

The Bible always equates baptism with belief (of which infants are incapable) and there are no mentions of infant baptism in the New Testament. And when little children were brought to Jesus, did he baptize them? No, He blessed them.

Mark 10:13-16 And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it. 16 Then he embraced them and blessed them, placing his hands on them.

Jesus explicitly states that no one can enter heaven unless they have been born of water and spirit in John chapter 3. Once again, he also says that he is for all.

True. Even Catholics believe this is not hard and fast given the doctrine of Baptism of Desire. (For Latter-day Saints, Baptism for the Dead covers this gap.)

There are also images in the catacombs that depict people being baptized by having water sprinkled over them. Also in the Didache, an early christian writing, it explicitly explains to "pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Before this, it also refers to other forms of baptism, but it also says, in the quote provided, that baptism by immersion was not the only way to baptize.

I’m aware of the Didache passage. Around 250 AD, Cyprian was asked the question: Could those who were sick and infirm merit God’s grace and be “accounted legitimate Christians” if they had only been sprinkled and not immersed? ( The Ante-Nicene Fathers , 5:400)

It seems an odd question to ask were affusion already an accepted practice.

 

[gazelam]

There is also early evidence of Papal Supremacy. The best example of this is Clement I of Rome, who was one of the first Popes, holding office from about 80 to 100 AD. In this time, when the apostle John was still alive, other christian church’s looked to Rome and the bishop of Rome for authority. The Corinthian church appealed to Clement about issues that they were having, and we have Clements letters to the Corinthians from that time. If the bishop of Rome didn’t have primacy, then why would any church appeal to them especially when John the apostle was still alive? Also why did they appeal to the church of Rome and not the church of Antioch, Jerusalem or Alexandria?

Regarding Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, Francis Sullivan says the following:

The church of Rome wrote this letter to exhort the Corinthians to end the strife and restore the unity and harmony they had lost. In the past, catholic writers have interpreted this intervention as an early exercise of Roman primacy, but now it is generally recognized as the kind of exhortation one church could address to another without any claim to authority over it. (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, pg 91)

Other evidences of Papal Primacy can be found in the Shepherd of Hermas and the letters from St. Ignatius, both written well before 200 AD.

And others can be found to the contrary. Firmilian wrote about Pope Stephen I (254-257)…

He who so glories in the place of his episcopate and contends that he has the succession from Peter on whom the foundation of the church was established, should introduce many other rocks and constitute new buildings of many churches while he maintains by his authority that baptism is there. (Ep. 75.17) (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy , WIPF and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR, 1990, p. 64)

Robert Eno goes on to say:

Since we do not have Steven’s own letters, such a comment, however sarcastic, is precious insofar as it indicates Steven’s own view of the source of his authority, the authority by which he directs not only Carthage but far distant Cappadocia to change their basic customs and conform to Roman ways. This is the first known appeal of a Roman bishop to Peter’s authority, indeed to the classical Petrine gospel texts. But we must note as well that Firmilian not only does not except the claim, he seems never to have heard of it before. He notes for example that in many liturgical customs. Rome differs from Jerusalem. There are variations from one church to another. “And yet, on account of this, there has been no withdrawal at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church”. “How can you live in communion with such a person?” Rome insists on uniformity but other bishops, such as Irenaeus and Firmilian note that all have gotten along well up until now with varying customs. (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, WIPF and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR, 1990, p. 64)