What Was the Apostasy?

[inJESUS]

That really is an ineffective argument… that unless one agrees with your particular interpretation of scripture, then one denies Christ or his message. Actually, I agree with the Bible, just your with your view, no offense intended, of it.

it is not about interpreting scriptures but about trusting Jesus. Jesus who died to prove His message will not abandon it for thousands of years and if He abandonned it once, He can abandon it twice and thrice.

 

[Snow]

it is not about interpreting scriptures but about trusting Jesus. Jesus who died to prove His message will not abandon it for thousands of years and if He abandonned it once, He can abandon it twice and thrice.

I trust Christ. You - not so much, no offense intended.

 

[inJESUS]

I trust Christ. You - not so much, no offense intended.

i don’t understand. I never questioned His faithfulness. It is you who don’t seem like trusting Him before, what makes you trust Him now? in other words, do you trust He won’t abandon your church as He allegdly did at the beginning ?

 

[Snow]

i don’t understand. I never questioned His faithfulness. It is you who don’t seem like trusting Him before, what makes you trust Him now?

I trust Him then, now and forever. It is your opinion or interpretation that I don’t trust. I think you know that so pretending that I don’t of didn’t trust him is simply obfuscation.

in other words, do you trust He won’t abandon your church as He allegdly did at the beginning ?

Yes. As a matter of faith - just as you have faith in your beliefs.

 

[mfbukowski]

Most people don’t care. And as I have said, this subject has been addressed. Several times. From Mormons and others who believe in an apostasy.

In the end, Mormons take it on faith that Christ’s Church failed. I don’t know how many times it has to be explained that to believe this, is to believe that Christ Himself failed.

Catholics have faith that Jesus succeeds.

Mormons believe in agency. We get to mess up and reap the consequences. Maybe that is why so many catholics are politically liberal. You can mess up, go to confession, and poof, all is well. You can have a corrupt church and poof, the priesthood is still valid.

 

[mfbukowski]

In the end, Mormons take it on faith that Christ’s Church failed. I don’t know how many times it has to be explained that to believe this, is to believe that Christ Himself failed.

Christ didn’t fail any more than a parent who’s child goes astray-- we don’t punish parents for what their children do. It’s the child’s failure, not the parent’s.

 

[mfbukowski]

What happened to with God all things are possible?

IMO it is not a very persuasive argument that God couldn’t. Or that God wouldn’t. The idea that God would stick with us and work with what he had (in terms of people) seems very much in keeping with what’s seen in the OT and IMO much more in keeping with the revealed nature of God.

In spite of all the LDS protestations otherwise the whole “apostasy” can not be seen as anything less than an abandonment by God of his people.

I am curious though if you say “the apostasy can’t be disproven” and you understand the “apostasy” can’t be proven, why are you here arguing? I’m beginning to believe those who say your point here is to proselytize.

Yes and look at all the converts lining up! If I was here to proselytize I would at least be nice.

I am here because I don’t like video games.

 

[mfbukowski]

Sort of like the covenant that the nation of Israel made with God with one of the blessings that no nation would have power over her as long as she remained faithful. You know the history of Israel correct? She was destroyed by Rome and scattered to the four corners of the earth for 1800 years.

No, the people abandoned God. A chosen people who have made covenants with God have the Holy Ghost guiding them. Direct revelation from God. Disobedience to God, and you lose the spirit guiding you. After that you are left with a dead religion. One where people analyze and debate the words of a dead people who once had the living light. The rabbis and doctors replace the prophets.

 

[mfbukowski]

What is your definition of “this stuff?”

The apostasy or lack thereof cannot be proven by evidence.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mormons believe in agency. We get to mess up and reap the consequences. Maybe that is why so many catholics are politically liberal. You can mess up, go to confession, and poof, all is well. You can have a corrupt church and poof, the priesthood is still valid.

You did not learn the Catholic faith very well.

It is not any Catholic here who convinces you of the truth. It is the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. The One Triune God, which is the True God. The One you have chosen to deny.

Remain deceived, apparently it suits you.

 

[Snow]

You did not learn the Catholic faith very well.

It is not any Catholic here who convinces you of the truth. It is the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. The One Triune God, which is the True God. The One you have chosen to deny.

Crock. No one here denies God… just your interpretation of God.

One wonders why nobody in the NT demonstrated any understanding the God of the Trinity???

Note: This is a rhetorical question. I know you are not capable of answering it.

The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.[P Achtemeier, editor, Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099.]

A Catholic encyclopedia notes that Trinitarianism doesn’t really appear until the last 25 years of the 4th century:

Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.[RL Richard, “Trinity, Holy”, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967), 14:295.]

A Jesuit [Catholic] scholar says this:

There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there…The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35.]

 

[Snow]

Most people don’t care. And as I have said, this subject has been addressed. Several times. From Mormons and others who believe in an apostasy.

In the end, Mormons take it on faith that Christ’s Church failed. I don’t know how many times it has to be explained that to believe this, is to believe that Christ Himself failed.

Catholics have faith that Jesus succeeds.

Dishonesty is such a vile trait.

No one believes that Christ Himself failed. Claiming that one believes He did unless one agrees with you is a child’s argument.

 

[inJESUS]

I trust Him then, now and forever. It is your opinion or interpretation that I don’t trust. I think you know that so pretending that I don’t of didn’t trust him is simply obfuscation.

am trying to understand you. When you believe in an apostacy, don’t you believe He abandoned His church?

Yes. As a matter of faith - just as you have faith in your beliefs.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Dishonesty is such a vile trait.

Such a deceptive trait you have going here.

No one believes that Christ Himself failed. Claiming that one believes He did unless one agrees with you is a child’s argument.

Of course that is Mormonism’s claim. You or any Mormon has yet to address Christ’s promises. All you do is claimed people failed. Yet, nowhere does Christ say, I will be with you always, unless of course you screw up.

Christ established His Church. It is HIS. For it to fail it would mean HE failed. A weak god that could not keep His own Church together.

That is of course the god of mormonism…merely some guy who grew up to be a god.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Crock. No one here denies God… just your interpretation of God.

One wonders why nobody in the NT demonstrated any understanding the God of the Trinity???

Note: This is a rhetorical question. I know you are not capable of answering it.

The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.[P Achtemeier, editor, Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099.]

A Catholic encyclopedia notes that Trinitarianism doesn’t really appear until the last 25 years of the 4th century:

Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.[RL Richard, “Trinity, Holy”, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967), 14:295.]

A Jesuit [Catholic] scholar says this:

There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there…The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35.]

Yours is the child’s proof snow. You take everything you can out of context and twist it to suit your needs. While, ignoring the evidence that Christ’s Church is alive, well, containing all the promise and authority that Christ gives to it because the Church is HIS.

All you have is an endless drone of “apostasy” with no evidence. None.

That you refuse to acknowledge the One True God says nothing about the Catholic Church. It says everything about you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Dishonesty is such a vile trait.

Name calling is the first, middle and last resort of those who who lack the ability to engage in honest, factual debate.

 

[ryanoneil]

From what I understand, preterists (those that believe that some or most of the prophecies re the end times actually happened in the first century or so) identfiy the beast with Imperial Rome or Nero.

Historists such as the 7th day Adventists hold that hte beast is the papacy.

Futurists say it is an anti-Christ that will come after the rapture.

Jehovah’s Witnesses say it’s world power

Aleister Crowley claimed it was him.

I assumed you where using the Rev 13:7 quote to argue a first century total apostacy.
Is that correct?

That is why I brought up Nero. Just as the OT forshadowed the NT, Nero could forshadow the anti-christ at the end of time.

 

[ryanoneil]

I think that he was talking to the entire body of believers.

the Greek term episkopos literally means “one who oversees” or “one who supervises”.

Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and ministers: (Phil 1:1)

Matter of interpretation. I don’t think that it is explicit what he means but given the totality of biblical scripture on the matter, a complete apostasy is one reasonable interpretation.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. Remnant doesn’t suggest complete to me.

In that their will be a famine, that men will stagger and wander from sea to sea / coast to coast searching for the word of God and will not find it.

A famine in the land of ancient Israel but not the whole world.

The house of Jacob is a remnant of Israel. While God intended to destroy “this sinful kingdom” not all of Jacob’s descendants were to be destroyed.

If Amos 8:11-12 is used to be applied to the early church, doesn’t it make sense to to apply Amos 9:8-10 as well?

This is evidence that the apostasy of this time would not be total. In Israel’s history there were several apostasies, but never a total one.

No - I don’t think anyone can. Who or what the son of perdition is is a matter of opinion or interpretation.

Some think it refers to someone that will come during the end times.

Some think it refers to the RCC

Some think it might be Nero or Caligula or John of Giscala.

I think the LDS understanding is that it refers to a symbol of evil such as Satan.

OK, but how does this apply to a first century total apostacy?

You cite 2 Thessalonians 2:3 in reference to the second coming of Christ and give NT examples that the beginnings of the apostasy was already under way. Then you say that the apostacy was complete by the middle of the following century. But Christ did return as they thought He would.

So why should we believe a total apostacy took place?

I don’t think the verse is saying: Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first (followed by thousands of years and then) the lawless one is revealed.

As far as I can tell they will occur at the same time.

Peace

 

[truthsilence]

I have often seen this argument, and it is spurious. Do you really think (1) that an apologist for the church would have written a commentary on the apostasy of his own church and that (2) such a document would have survived, being copied over and over by later scribes and monks?

An honest apologist would have told the truth, just as he would tell the truth now; and pray the Holy Spirit take care of the rest.

That’s how RCIA works. There is no history that is hidden, or sugar coated, or taboo subjects to be avoided in discussion. There is no scandal happening that we are encouraged to ignore or not to think about.

It is quite miraculous, actually. The Truth remains in all things. Right in the middle of all the difficulties of a fallen world.

 

[mfbukowski]

the Greek term episkopos literally means “one who oversees” or “one who supervises”.

Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and ministers: (Phil 1:1)

We’ll have to agree to disagree. Remnant doesn’t suggest complete to me.

A famine in the land of ancient Israel but not the whole world.

If Amos 8:11-12 is used to be applied to the early church, doesn’t it make sense to to apply Amos 9:8-10 as well?

This is evidence that the apostasy of this time would not be total. In Israel’s history there were several apostasies, but never a total one.

OK, but how does this apply to a first century total apostacy?

You cite 2 Thessalonians 2:3 in reference to the second coming of Christ and give NT examples that the beginnings of the apostasy was already under way. Then you say that the apostacy was complete by the middle of the following century. But Christ did return as they thought He would.

So why should we believe a total apostacy took place?

I don’t think the verse is saying: Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first (followed by thousands of years and then) the lawless one is revealed.

As far as I can tell they will occur at the same time.

Peace

I’m hungry. Oh here’s an apple. It’s just a little rotten. Yummie