What Was the Apostasy?

[mfbukowski]

Was there a great apostasy of Christ’s established Church?

“…and the gates of hell SHALL NOT prevail against it [THE CHURCH]”

Matthew 16

We finished off that fantasy in another thread of the same title. Look it up.

 

[RebeccaJ]

We finished off that fantasy in another thread of the same title. Look it up.

What we did was explain until the cows came home and all you had was, Is Not.

Every wonder what God means by “stiff necked”?

 

[Stephen168]

Do you have ANY verses that speak to Homoousios? Any at all?

JOHN 1:1-14:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

 

[Snow]

Stephen168:
You must of misunderstood the question. Let me clarify:

Do you have ANY verses that speak to Homoousios? Any at all?

 

[ryanoneil]

Thanks for responding.

I said that I thought he was talking to the entire body of believers. I don’t see how your post disputes that.

the entire body of believers are “all the holy ones” and they are with the episkopos - “overseers” and diakonoi - “ministers”

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)

Obviously, episkopos doesn’t mean bishop at this point in time even though the office was already developing into the bishopric.

The point is that overseers are differentiated from the entire body of believers.

Okay - we disagree.

OK. Paul is legitimately handing his authority to Timothy and warning that people will find their own teachers.

This verse is talking about apostacy FROM the Church not OF the Church leadership.

I believe that phrases sea to sea and coast to coast - searching and not finding indicate really, really widespread famine.

As I recall my point was that Amos 8 applied to the remnant of Israel, not the early Christian movement specifically.

Were you using this as evidence of total apostacy in the early church then?

I don’t understand your point. Christ has not yet returned. 2 Thess was speaking of the future.

I guess I don’t understand why you are including this verse as evidence of a first century total apostacy then.

If you are Catholic, I don’t think you should - it would cause too much cognitive dissonance.

It’s all a matter of faith.

If it was the truth I would definately want to know about it.

Peace

 

[mfbukowski]

Bukowski knows that Hinduism isn’t valid, that, or he isn’t a Christian.

It is bukowski changing the subject. Dodging the truth with an relativistic: your truth is different than my truth and how do you know that your truth is any more valid than mine. It’s secular nonsense that I know well because I used to live it.

There is One Truth, which is found in a Person, Jesus Christ. He founded One Church. Which is of One Faith.

You do not believe in One God, THE GOD, THE ONLY GOD, you believe in A God. You know it and I know it so you can stop pretending.

A god, who is one among many…Hinduism has many gods, so maybe your god is one among those.

I beg your pardon? Snow is right on the money as usual. I don’t even know this guy, and he always knows what I am thinking. Why? Because we both understand the same truths you will never understand.

My point was that it is impossible to disprove Hindusim.

And as for “relativisim” all I have said is that God teaches us where we are. We don’t know what path he has for us to learn the truth. And we all will have a chance, even you guys

Mormons are not polytheists. You say so over and over. The trinity can be seen as a polytheistic belief. If you don’t believe me, ask a Muslim.

You want to see polytheism? How about the saints? I know you say you don’t worship them. Baloney. You “venerate” them. What the heck does that mean? I don’t venerate anyone but God.

What’s there to venerate about some guy who lived here just like me? Don’t bother to answer, it won’t matter. Rebecca, you really get to me, I should just ignore you I guess.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I beg your pardon? Snow is right on the money as usual. I don’t even know this guy, and he always knows what I am thinking. Why? Because we both understand the same truths you will never understand.

My point was that it is impossible to disprove Hindusim.

And this point is for what?

I can disprove Hinduism.

Polytheistic.

Denies Jesus Christ.

Done.

Why are you not able to? Do you believe there is a possibility that Hinduism is valid?

(I looked at Hinduism pretty thoroughly myself.)

And as for “relativisim” all I have said is that God teaches us where we are. We don’t know what path he has for us to learn the truth. And we all will have a chance, even you guys

Not really what you said.

Mormons are not polytheists. You say so over and over. The trinity can be seen as a polytheistic belief. If you don’t believe me, ask a Muslim.

You keep trying to prove something by pointing to other religions.

You are polytheistic. You clarify by saying you worship One God, but you have a belief in many gods. And though you deny it, your Gospel Principles manual teaches that God the Father once lived on a planet, living a human life the same as us which obviously means he had a God who created the planet he was living on…I guess obvious…unless you believe he created this planet before becoming a god.

Islam has the Trinity more messed up than Mormons do.

Christians have always believed in One God, not a multiplicity of gods. It is so clearly written yet you are unable to see it because Joseph Smith has blinded you with his lies.

 

[mfbukowski]

Christians have always believed in One God, not a multiplicity of gods. It is so clearly written yet you are unable to see it because Joseph Smith has blinded you with his lies.

You haven’t even read what I said about Joseph Smith. There is really no point whatsoever in continuing this.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You haven’t even read what I said about Joseph Smith. There is really no point whatsoever in continuing this.

Hi, I was a BIC Mormon, went atheist, studied mormonism again…for 2 years straight.

I know all about Joseph Smith.

 

[ryanoneil]

You must of misunderstood the question. Let me clarify:

Do you have ANY verses that speak to Homoousios? Any at all?

If you’re looking for that specific word you are not going to find it. If you’re looking for the essence of it:

God replied, “I am who am.” Then he added, “This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.” (Exodus 3:14)

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” (John 8:58 )

 

[Snow]

And this point is for what?

I can disprove Hinduism.

Great. I’ll pay money for this one.

Go ahead and prove that God rejects Hinduism.

You claimed you can do. Now let’s see you deliver.

Note to self: expect another non-delivery.

Note to Rebecca: saying a bunch of words that reflect your opinion is proof of nothing other than your public opinion.

 

[Snow]

If you’re looking for that specific word you are not going to find it. If you’re looking for the essence of it:

God replied, “I am who am.” Then he added, “This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.” (Exodus 3:14)

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” (John 8:58 )

I know that the word isn’t there. It was borrowed from Greek influences much, much later.

What I am looking for is the concept of the same ontological substance. John 8:58 says nothing whatsoever about it. Please read your posts before posting.

 

[Snow]

so?

Perhaps you can disprove it.

Care to try. I’m guessing no.

 

[Snow]

Not all of them were. You need to read the book I already recommended…“In Sacred Lonliness”

And while you are at it, explain how it is that this is NOT adultery. Seriously bukowski, this is the fruit of Mormonism. It has people so upside down in their thinking that YOU ARE DEFENDING ADULTERY.

“The husband gave permission.” So the hell what! This is what we call today, swinging. Why don’t you write a letter to your favorite apostle in SLC and ask if swinging is adultery.

Hmmm,

Distasteful perhaps but I’d stack up LDS morality to Catholic morality any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Where to start:

Pre-marital sex rates?

Children born out of wedlock?

Rates of abortion?

The latest scandals in the news?

Rates of incarceration?

Burning witches maybe? No?

How about lifestyles of the rich and… er well you get the idea.

 

[paul_c]

You must of misunderstood the question. Let me clarify:

Do you have ANY verses that speak to Homoousios? Any at all?

Snow, we can show you the versus, but we can’t actually make you read or understand them…

 

[paul_c]

I did not “cite” BY as a “basis” for the belief in the Mormon sacrament.

It was YOU who mentioned that you thought that my position was not Mormon. I cited BY to show that my position was the same as his. I didn’t even find that quote until after I had written what I wrote to you. It is not a basis of my belief. I am the basis of my belief as I am with all Mormon doctrines.

I had a set of beliefs before I joined the church. I believed that if God had once revealed himself to prophets, he must do so today. I believed that there was no way that Catholicsm could possibly have apostolic succession after all that checkered history. I believed the sacrament was symbolic only – even while I was Catholic. I did not believe that Mary should be venerated-- before I was Mormon. I believed that we should be the best people we possibly could be, and I believed that in some sense we could participate in becoming like God. I believed that we lived before we came to this life. And I considered becoming a catholic priest at age 13. I went to a seminary to try it out, and received a revelation that I should in fact become a priest. But I also received a revelation that I should be married and have a family, which made no sense to me at the time. A married Catholic priest? No, a Married Mormon priest.

Every belief I have in Mormonism is something I believed before I joined the church. It was an incredible experience to find everything I already believed in one place. And I did not know how it all fit together until I was taught that in the church.

Every belief I have, I came up with myself. Another way to put it was that all these beliefs were revealed to me. And then I found the church. I was baptized within 6 weeks of my hearing the message of the church, which at that time was required by the Mormons. I was ready two days after I heard it all. And I have not looked back. Joseph Smith was only an incidental. It had to be true-- how else could anyone put together everything I knew was true?

And in the temple now I have learned so much more. So much more. It would not even be visible to you. The language of symbols taught there is beyond human understanding and may only be revealed by the spirit.

Why do I come here? Because you misrepresent my beliefs and my church. You make caricatures of what I find sacred. It is my effort to try to correct some of those misconceptions, but no one here will listen. It seems that you are all so insecure you cannot even look at the possibility that there may be other interpretations to what you believe.

MF Bukoswki,
this is actually an excellent and revealing post. Thanks for sharing.

Just three comments from me:
One, keep in mind that just because you believe something doesn’t make it true. That said, you need to follow your own conscience but continue to seek the truth.

Two, I’m surprised to see that you are here to defend the Mormon religion. Its not as if this site is specifically designed to attack Mormonism. In fact, I would say that Catholics don’t think twice about Mormonism when considering their own spirituality. The only reason it even comes up on a board like this is when Mormon’s bring it up. Unlike Mormons or Protestants, we don’t have to demonstrate that another religion is flawed or has apostasized to justify our existence so we don’t spend a lot of time analyzing other religions. Instead, we spend our time understanding how to apply our own teachings in the search for holiness.

Three, You are not giving us enough credit. We do listen to what you say. We then go look at the evidence and then we come back and disagree. There is a fundamental difference between not listening (which means we don’t consider what you are writing) and simply disagreeing (after careful consideration). Keep in mind also, that most of the Catholics who frequent this board are interested in Apologetics and therefore have spent considerable time pondering these subjects already. I for one, can tell you that I researched your comments pretty thoroughly before responding.

 

[Stephen168]

Snow, we can show you the versus, but we can’t actually make you read or understand them…

I would have to agree. Just denial on her part.

 

[Stephen168]

Perhaps you can disprove it.
Care to try. I’m guessing no.

I never understand why this matters to Protestants and non-Christians. By the year 107 AD, the Church started by Christ was called catholic. We know the date and the person that started most non-Christian and Protestant groups. How does trying to show that Peter was not left in charge of Christ’s church support the validity of their church? What does it have to do with apostasy?

 

[ryanoneil]

I know that the word isn’t there. It was borrowed from Greek influences much, much later.

What I am looking for is the concept of the same ontological substance. John 8:58 says nothing whatsoever about it. Please read your posts before posting.

If no god was formed before or after “I AM” wouldn’t they have to have the same ontological substance?

Is. 43:10; “You are my witnesses,” says the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

What other option is there?

 

[paul_c]

I never understand why this matters to Protestants and non-Christians. By the year 107 AD, the Church started by Christ was called catholic. We know the date and the person that started most non-Christian and Protestant groups. How does trying to show that Peter was not left in charge of Christ’s church support the validity of their church? What does it have to do with apostasy?

The obvious answer is that if Jesus gave the keys to his kingdom to Peter, its pretty hard to argue that The Catholic Church is not really the church founded by Jesus. However, if they can create some nuance, where it appears that Peter didn’t really recieve the keys, then they feel they can discredit the claims of the Catholics to being the Church that Christ founded. That gives them at least some basis for legitimacy. Unfortunately for them, scripture is clear and favors the Catholics.