Were the first christians mormons or catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jstanford1026
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jstanford1026 said:
As far as statues and pictures go, I hope you understand that Catholic’s don’t actually worship images.
Click to expand...
The quote referred to veneration, not worship. But the point was that one group of bishops was opposed to veneration of images and another approved. Which group was passing on the teachings of the Apostles?
Jstanford1026 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Again Francis Sullivan on this topic:

" No doubt proving that bishops were the successors of the apostles by divine institution would be easier if the New Testament clearly stated that before they died the apostles had appointed a single bishop to lead each of the churches they had founded. Likewise, it would have been very helpful had Clement, in writing to the Corinthians, said that the apostles had put one bishop in charge of each church and had arranged for a regular succession in that office. We would also be grateful to Ignatius of Antioch if he had spoken of himself not only as bishop, but as a successor to the apostles, and had explained how he understood that succession. Unfortunately, the documents available to us do not provide such help. " (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, pg 223)
DeusNobisAuxilium said:
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.
Click to expand...
Friend, we’re on the same page. I have the book and just quoted him a couple of times in my responses. If you’d like a Latter-day Saint take on the topic please refer to Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity by Hugh Nibley.
 
I’m familiar with Nibley’s work in the field of Mormon apologetics. However, his grasp on the Early Church is a little misguided as his ontology is biased by the Mormon assumption on apostolic succession. If he approached the subject neutrally and took off his Mormon hat and eye glasses then he might have been much more enlightening.
 
Last edited:
As the first Messiah believers were Jews, they worshipped in their synagogues w Torah readings as usual. BUT in Acts 2, they met after Temple in private hiomes to break bread & take meat.
The Jews got upset eventually, & asked them not to return to the Temple. Those did not accept Jesus as the Messiah.
The term Christian was first used in Antioch, while the Apostles were still alive.
Jews, in the Torah, believe in Gehinem, a place of purification. They have prayers for the dead.
These are Mormon beliefs but Mormonism wasn’t around then. Moroni appeared to John Smith in 1823. Of course, the message would include church beliefs that were established. Polygamy comes from the Old Testament. That got changed in the NEW TESTAMENT w the Cana wedding.
 
It still seems to me that there is no evidence that the early church was anything close to the current Mormon Church/
 
tweedlealice said:
Moroni appeared to John Smith in 1823.
Click to expand...
I think you mean Joe Smith, not John, but that’s beside the point.

It was Nephi who visited him according to their early records, but they later changed it to Moroni. Another thing that can’t seem to make up their mind about.
 
True, Joseph Smith. 72 yo posting at strange hours. TEEHEE.
Blessings to all
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top