LDS Priesthoods Not Found In The Writings Of The Early Church Fathers

dzheremi · Dec 15, 2020

Peter1000 said:
In your belief or your churches belief, what happens to us right after our mortal body dies?

This is not a question that I've ever asked anyone in my own Church, but I found the following from HG Bishop Youssef from the Southern United States Diocese website's Q&A, concerning paradise:

What is the difference between paradise and the kingdom of heaven? Aren't they both joyous places of praise and joy? If everyone in paradise will enter the kingdom what is the point of having a waiting place?

Paradise receives each deserving soul into a comfortable resting place awaiting the end of all tribulation and the Day of Judgment. The battle may be over for the departed soul; but the war persists for the rest of humanity until the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in His glory. "When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, 'How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?' Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed" (Revelation 6:9-11).

From this scripture we learn there is a place in the next life where the inhabitants are separated by a large gulf. One place is certainly more comfortable than the other.
The Church of Jesus Christ teaches that after death our spirits go to one of 2 places, and so does the bible.
1) paradise, where Jesus took the thief on the cross, and where Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham. (pleasant)
2) spirit prison, where Jesus went and preached to the spirits in prison, and where the rich man went. (unpleasant)
This belief corresponds nicely with the parable of Lazarus.

What doesn't is your religion's idea of switching between one and the other based on accepting the teaching of spirit missionaries or whatever.

Then why did Jesus go and preach unto the spirits in prison between when he died and was resurrected?

Are you somehow missing the part where I'm talking about your own ability to affect your own fate? That's different than what Jesus can do, since Jesus is God and we are not. I think I was very clear in this, so I'm not sure where the confusion lies.

Isn't the harrowing of hell, the emptying out of hell?

No. Eternal life is offered to the righteous who died before Christ's incarnation, not everyone.

If a person does not know Jesus, to us that presents a problem. For you that problem is taken care of by Jesus himself. He makes the decision as to whether they are accepted into heaven or not.

Yeah. Because He's God, and that's God's judgment to make.

To us, we believe this person needs to come to know Jesus and to decide whether they believe or not. Whether they will do what Jesus has ordained for them to do or not, just like men on earth.

What does this even mean in this context? Do they have to also do 'baptisms for the dead' when they themselves are in Hades, or something like that? And if they still have 'stuff' to do at that point, then what are the proxy baptisms or other works living Mormons are supposedly doing for them actually accomplishing?

We do not deny or mock God as Pantocrator. He is absolutely Pantocrator. Just because we do not believe as you as to God's solution to people not knowing anything about Christ in their earth life, doesn't mean we mock and deny God as Pantocrator? Get serious.

I am being serious.

You believe God has a solution for all those billions of people that never had an opportunity to even hear his name while they lived on earth.

Yes! Of course! What sort of God would not be the solution for the billions of people He has created? Not any kind of God I would recognize or waste even a second of my life thinking about, let alone worshipping. Not the God of Christianity -- the one and only God there actually is.

That is good, but so do we, and just because ours is not the same as yours, does not mean we mock or deny God as Pantocrator. How superior you must think of yourselves.

What are you talking about? In no place did I even hint that I thought I was somehow superior to you. I just don't belong to an anti-Christian cult like you do, but neither do any of the other Christians here, and you don't see any of us predicating our arguments on us or our churches somehow being 'superior' to you or Mormons more generally.

How do these quotes distinguish between milk and meat.
Please explain that.

You can read the rest of the passage, or better yet the rest of the work. I'm not exactly inclined to help you out after yet more of this:

There you go with your superior knowledge of things.

I was not aware that not claiming to know what is in St. Paul's head was me claiming to be superior. I'd like it if you could either point out where I said that or stop putting words in my posts that I didn't put there myself.

You don't think Paul's words in the bible are sufficient to explain what is in his head?

Do you? Because you're the one going beyond that and making up this entire taxonomy that isn't in there, and isn't in the fathers.

Without asking a church father, I think I was spot on. Paul, I'm sure was disappointed in the Corinthians, so he wrote for all generations to know of his disappointment. Is his disappointment not recorded in the bible for all to read for generations?

If you read it that way, I guess. I don't, because I don't think this establishes an occultic, gnostic understanding of revelation. I think it is as I've put it several times already by now: a different understanding of the same material that is presented to everyone, commensurate with what different people among the listeners would've understood.

And so to the heart of the discussion, what did Paul think was the milk, and what did he think was the meat (which the Corinthians would not partake?)

Whatever the matters he had been teaching them on were.

Yes, you seem to understand the milk. But that is not the whole discussion. Tell me what the church fathers think the "meat" is?

I'm pretty sure I just explained that: the same material as 'the milk', just received differently, as there is no room for 'secret' teachings only to be given to the initiated (that's Gnosticism, not Christianity). Church fathers who dealt with this passage used it to make exactly that point. For example, from Augustine of Hippo, in his 98th tractate on John (emphasis added):

From the words of our Lord, where He says, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now," there arose a difficult question, which I recollect to have put off, that it might be handled afterwards at greater leisure, because my last discourse had reached its proper limits, and required to be brought to a close. And now, accordingly, as we have time to redeem our promise, let us take up its discussion as the Lord Himself shall grant us ability, who put it into our heart to make the proposal. And the question is this: Whether spiritual men have anything in doctrine which they should withhold from the carnal, but declare to the spiritual. For if we shall say, They have not, we shall meet with the reply, What, then, is to be made of the words of the apostle in writing to the Corinthians: "I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto babes in Christ, I have given you milk to drink, and not meat to eat: for hitherto you were not able; neither yet now are you able; for you are yet carnal?" (1 Corinthians 3:1-2) But if we say, They have, we have cause to fear and take heed, lest under such a pretext detestable doctrines be taught in secret, and under the name of spiritual, as things which cannot be understood by the carnal, may seem not only capable of being whitewashed by plausible excuses, but deserving also to be lauded in preaching.

If he says Mormonesque kinds of things, we appreciate that

I think it is better said that you manufacture that out of what you'd like to see in order to give your religion some kind of patristic backing which it does not have.

it does not mean he is a Mormon, but that in some of his statements he sound like things said by JS. Is that so horrible.

It would be horrible if true; as it is, it's horrible when false and claimed to be true, to the supposed benefit of an anti-Christian religion.

JS preached many things that are straight out of the bible is that OK?

So what that he did? That means nothing. I don't take the ability of anyone to preach 'straight out of the Bible' as some kind of guarantee of the soundness of whatever it is they are actually preaching, and you shouldn't either. After all, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Nestorians, probably also Baha'i and other 'one world religion' types, can and do preach 'straight out of the Bible', and yet you don't agree with any of these in their particulars insofar as they disagree with Mormonism, do you?

Mormonism is a Christianity-based replacement religion, and the Bible is the book of the Christian religion, so we should expect Mormons to preach things out of the Bible. Again, that doesn't mean anything in itself.

BigDaddy4 · Dec 15, 2020

Peter1000 said:
The Nicean Trinity doctrine I guarantee, escapes your understanding too. Oh, you have the first level down, but from that point, you could not hold a successful conversation or articulate a position for very long.

Your lack of understanding is not dependent upon the depth of any person's ability to articulate it. Some have explained it in great detail. Others have posted this simple diagram. You just don't get it.

He is the way · Dec 15, 2020

dzheremi said:
You're switching the emphasis from where BigDaddy4 put it. Mormonism teaches that Jesus is only a God of many. You don't seem to dispute this, though you are very obviously trying to distract people with everything you write subsequent to "Of course Jesus is a God"...you could've stopped there and been significantly more honest than you are currently being, but noooo, you had to go back to the Constantine well, as though Constantine's baptism (whether by Arian or not) does Mormonism any favors. It doesn't. If Constantine had never been baptized, Mormonism would still be just as false as it already is.

As a counterbalance to your false history and its insinuations, consider, for instance, how India has had a Christian presence since the first century AD, and its Christian people accepted the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed together with the rest of Christianity (being administered by Syrians from Mesopotamia from some indeterminant point in the past until the arrival of the Portuguese in the 16th century or so). This ought to be setting off alarm bells in your head re: your idea about Christianity and Roman imperial power because, surprise surprise, India has never had a Christian monarch, and lies entirely outside of the Roman Empire. So there was no conceivable reason for the Indian Christians to accept anything on the basis of what Constantine did or didn't do. The same was I suppose technically true to a more limited extent for the Axumites in East Africa (modern Ethiopia and Eritrea), in the sense that they were likewise an independent kingdom not beholden to whatever the Roman or Byzantine empires were doing, though numismatic evidence from the 320s (around the time when the Kingdom converted to Christianity following the conversion of the king 'Ezana) indicates that they were trading with the Romans by that time, and their Church did receive a little while later its first bishops from HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic, who was at that time the Pope of the Egyptian Church (and Egypt was definitely within the Byzantine Empire; so they're less far removed from events in the Byzantine empire, but still in no way controlled by them).

It should be underlined here that this would not be so much of a controlling influence over the Ethiopians as much as a persistent cultural one, e.g., with the Ethiopians receiving not just some of their anaphoras from Egypt but also their calendar (the Ethiopian calendar matches the Coptic calendar, just with different month names, since the Ethiopians never spoke Coptic). This Byzantine Egyptian influence did not stop the Ethiopians and Eritreans from developing a much larger Biblical canon than the Copts (indeed larger than any other Church), from developing their own musical tradition with a unique form of notation, etc. So the extent to which it could be claimed that the Axumites had some kind of debt to Constantine in particular is much more diffuse, if it should even be claimed at all. Christianity was never really illegal or heavily repressed in Ethiopia and Eritrea, since they didn't convert as a kingdom until c. 330, which was after the end of the Diocletian persecutions in 313, and even if they had it wouldn't have mattered since, again, the Axumite Kingdom was not in any way under the political control of Rome or Byzantium ever. No foreign Christian political power would ever really control Christian Ethiopia until the arrival of the Portuguese and Spanish in the 16th century, and even then they only managed it for ten years following their conversion of Emperor Susenyos in 1622, and that experiment would end so poorly that the Jesuit missionaries would be banned by his successor, Emperor Fasilides (r. 1632-1667) -- a ban which would last for about two centuries.

Armenian Christianity could also be argued to be as non-Byzantine as it is Byzantine, particularly considering that Byzantine control over Armenia only lasted for about 150 years (387-536), significantly postdated Armenia's conversion to Christianity (301 AD; the first recognizable country to do so in the entire world), and only applied to Western Armenia in the first place -- i.e., just those parts that are in what is today eastern Turkey/Anatolia, not Eastern Armenia ('Armenia proper', you could say; the country that is in the Caucasus next to Georgia and Azerbaijan). Eastern Armenia was at the time of its conversion and for a considerable time afterwards (until 428) ruled by the Arsacid Dynasty, a Parthian (Iranian) dynasty which was effectively an 'Armenianized' branch of the same dynasty that ruled parts of what is today Iran and Turkmenistan until its absorption into the much larger neighboring Sassanid Empire, which would thereafter rule Eastern Armenia until the coming of the Arabs in 646. If you know anything about the history of the Byzantines and the Sassanids, you'd know that the last thing the Armenians in Persia would want to do if they cared at all about allying themselves with government power is agree with the Byzantines in religious matters, and yet they did just that from the time of their Christianization (which, like that of the Ethiopians, was prior to Constantine's conversion) until 506, when they rejected the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon (and that was on theological grounds; the Sassanids didn't really care one way or another, since they already had a Church that had been positioning itself as the distinctly Persian Church for almost a century by that point in the form of the Church of Seleucia-Ctesiphon/'East Syrian'/Nestorian Church, which declared itself independent of whatever the Byzantine Church was doing as early as 424 AD via their Synod of Dadisho', and had earlier reorganized itself at the diocesan level at the behest of the Sassanian king Yazdgerd I in 410).

So, y'know, once again, your lack of historical knowledge fails you, since whatever Constantine did or did not do would have had best very minimal effects on any of the communities described above, seeing as how they were either mostly or entirely outside of and/or disconnected from the Roman/Byzantine Empire.

Sorry to crush you dream of a worldwide apostasy that is supposedly proven by whatever a Byzantine Emperor was doing, but you'll have to try a lot harder than that here, because I can do this basically all day (thanks, shelter-in-place orders...again ), and I actually really love talking about this stuff (even outside of poking holes in what Mormonism thinks it knows about early Christianity, which is shooting fish in the proverbial barrel.)

Which is more important, the gospel of Jesus Christ or history and tradition? The Lamanites lived by the traditions of their parents instead of the gospel of Jesus Christ. They were a blood thirsty people not a LOVING people. As I can see you have a great understanding of the history of the early church. That does not mean that the acceptance of man made creeds make what I believe according to what Jesus Christ said wrong. Jesus did not sat that He and the Father are one in substance or substance. He did NOT say that the worlds were created out of nothing. Jesus did say Ye are Gods.

(Old Testament | Psalms 82:6)

6 I have said, Ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

He reiterated what He said in the New Testament:

(New Testament | John 10:34 - 35)

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods?
35 If he called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

I can also tell you that there was NO capitalization in the Koine Greek used to write the New Testament, capital letters were added later.

He is the way · Dec 15, 2020

BigDaddy4 said:
Your lack of understanding is not dependent upon the depth of any person's ability to articulate it. Some have explained it in great detail. Others have posted this simple diagram. You just don't get it.

This is NOT the description Jesus gave of how He and the Father are one. They are one in unity, glory, and perfection.

dzheremi · Dec 15, 2020

He is the way said:
Which is more important, the gospel of Jesus Christ or history and tradition?

You tell me. You tried to trash Christianity by bringing up Constantine, which certainly involves a number of historical claims on your part. And unlike you, I answer historical claims with historical facts, not piffle about "LOVE" that means whatever I want it to mean and doesn't need to be connected to anything in the actually-existing world.

The Lamanites lived by the traditions of their parents instead of the gospel of Jesus Christ. They were a blood thirsty people not a LOVING people.

The Lamanites never existed.

As I can see you have a great understanding of the history of the early church. That does not mean that the acceptance of man made creeds make what I believe according to what Jesus Christ said wrong.

No, the actual content of what you believe is what makes it wrong.

Jesus did not sat that He and the Father are one in substance or substance.

One in substance or...substance.

I see. :scratch:

Anyway, we don't say that we believe it because Jesus used that exact terminology, but because it is a true encapsulation of the teaching that the apostles brought to us, which they were taught by Christ. As far as the vocabulary itself is concerned, the history of this way of speaking is very clear and not hidden from anyone. Just read HH St. Athanasius' treatise in defense of the definition of Nicaea known as De Decretis, if you actually want to learn why it is accepted. This goes some ways into discussing the objections of the Arians and answering them.

He did NOT say that the worlds were created out of nothing.

Yeah. The second book of the Maccabees, written two centuries before the incarnation of Christ and included in the canons of both Catholic and Orthodox Churches, says that the world was created out of nothing.

Jesus did say Ye are Gods.

Yep. He also didn't take his own words out of context, like you are doing right now by cutting off the citation from John before it gets to His point. In context (as an answer to the Jews who sought to stone Him for blasphemy), it makes perfect sense what Jesus was saying, and it's actually somewhat the opposite point of the one you are making, if by that you intend to prove Mormonism's deeply heretical notion that men are 'gods in embryo' or whatever. John 10:34-36 has Jesus responding to the Jews in this way:

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

+++

In other words, it's not just a declarative statement, like "Hey guys, remember how it is written 'You are gods'!", but a question, with a point -- namely, if you are called 'gods' for having received the word of God, why are you now acting like it's blasphemy for Me to call Myself the Son of God when I was sanctified by the Father and sent into this world by Him (which is not true of any of you)?

Jesus was making a point about Himself, not establishing the supposed orthodoxy of the particularly Mormon understanding of a phrase from the Psalms.

I can also tell you that there was NO capitalization in the Koine Greek used to write the New Testament, capital letters were added later.

What is this in response to? There's nothing in the post you're replying to about capitalization in Koine Greek.

Boy...just when you think you can post one reply without having to remind Mormons that you're a linguist in your off-board life... :doh:

He is the way · Dec 16, 2020

dzheremi said:
You tell me. You tried to trash Christianity by bringing up Constantine, which certainly involves a number of historical claims on your part. And unlike you, I answer historical claims with historical facts, not piffle about "LOVE" that means whatever I want it to mean and doesn't need to be connected to anything in the actually-existing world.

So who is Constantine that Anyone should adhere to his word? He was a king not a pope or church authority. He used his position for his own betterment. God is LOVE and there is only one way to know God:

(New Testament | 1 John 4:20 - 21)

20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

dzheremi said:
The Lamanites never existed.

We will have to agree to disagree about this.

dzheremi said:
No, the actual content of what you believe is what makes it wrong.

Anyone can read what Jesus said about how He and the Father are one.

dzheremi said:
One in substance or...substance.

I see.

Anyway, we don't say that we believe it because Jesus used that exact terminology, but because it is a true encapsulation of the teaching that the apostles brought to us, which they were taught by Christ. As far as the vocabulary itself is concerned, the history of this way of speaking is very clear and not hidden from anyone. Just read HH St. Athanasius' treatise in defense of the definition of Nicaea known as De Decretis, if you actually want to learn why it is accepted. This goes some ways into discussing the objections of the Arians and answering them.

I meant to say One in substance or essence. The Arians noted that the Father was superior to Christ as Jesus taught:

(New Testament | John 14:28)

28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

dzheremi said:
Yeah. The second book of the Maccabees, written two centuries before the incarnation of Christ and included in the canons of both Catholic and Orthodox Churches, says that the world was created out of nothing.

I found this verse:

I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.

We know that the planets and mankind did not exist in the same manner as they do now. there was chaos.

dzheremi said:
Yep. He also didn't take his own words out of context, like you are doing right now by cutting off the citation from John before it gets to His point. In context (as an answer to the Jews who sought to stone Him for blasphemy), it makes perfect sense what Jesus was saying, and it's actually somewhat the opposite point of the one you are making, if by that you intend to prove Mormonism's deeply heretical notion that men are 'gods in embryo' or whatever. John 10:34-36 has Jesus responding to the Jews in this way:

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

+++

In other words, it's not just a declarative statement, like "Hey guys, remember how it is written 'You are gods'!", but a question, with a point -- namely, if you are called 'gods' for having received the word of God, why are you now acting like it's blasphemy for Me to call Myself the Son of God when I was sanctified by the Father and sent into this world by Him (which is not true of any of you)?

Jesus was making a point about Himself, not establishing the supposed orthodoxy of the particularly Mormon understanding of a phrase from the Psalms.

There are more scriptures relating to this:

(New Testament | Ephesians 4:13)

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

(New Testament | Philippians 2:5 - 6)

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(New Testament | Philippians 3:14 - 21)

14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.
17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

dzheremi said:
What is this in response to? There's nothing in the post you're replying to about capitalization in Koine Greek.

Boy...just when you think you can post one reply without having to remind Mormons that you're a linguist in your off-board life...

Sometimes God was written god when it should have been written as God. Not always, but sometimes.

dzheremi · Dec 16, 2020

He is the way said:
So who is Constantine that Anyone should adhere to his word?

What 'word' is that -- where he was baptized by an Arian and still the Church did not accept the Arian positions, or the one where he had HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic exiled from his see an an Arian installed in his place and the Church did not accept that?

Looks to me like his word was not adhered to. The Church accepted and taught the Nicene faith even as the particular group he was partial to did not.

He was a king not a pope or church authority.

Yep.

He used his position for his own betterment.

I'm not sure how much more 'betterment' you can have when you're already the emperor, but okay. This has nothing to do your claims about Christian history.

God is LOVE and there is only one way to know God:

(New Testament | 1 John 4:20 - 21)

20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

Okay.

Please let me know when you get to a point that has something to do with your historical claims. This doesn't.

Anyone can read what Jesus said about how He and the Father are one.

Indeed they can.

I meant to say One in substance or essence. The Arians noted that the Father was superior to Christ as Jesus taught:

We already know you're on the side of the Arians...there's no need to mutilate scripture in the process of showing how.

We know that the planets and mankind did not exist in the same manner as they do now. there was chaos.

I don't know how this anything to do with the verse from the Maccabees that you quoted.

There are more scriptures relating to this

As always, I'm very happy for you that you can do a word search. That's a very handy function for a computer to have; it's just not very convincing in lieu of actual arguments that tie together whatever material you are referencing.

Sometimes God was written god when it should have been written as God. Not always, but sometimes.

How can you use the fact that there were no capital letters in Koine Greek as support for this stance? I'm not seeing the connection. It seems to me that if there are no capitals, then there is no way to know if it should be rendered in English with a capital G or a lower-case g, unless you make an actual argument as to why one or the other should be preferred in a particular context. But you didn't do that. Instead you just stated that there were no capital letters without any clue or reason as to why that had anything to do with anything, just like you're now stating that sometimes the translations were not capitalized properly without any reason as to why you think that.

He is the way · Dec 16, 2020

dzheremi said:
What 'word' is that -- where he was baptized by an Arian and still the Church did not accept the Arian positions, or the one where he had HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic exiled from his see an an Arian installed in his place and the Church did not accept that?

Looks to me like his word was not adhered to. The Church accepted and taught the Nicene faith even as the particular group he was partial to did not.

That word was Constantine's words to the churches to straighten things out, thus the Nicene faith saying that Jesus Christ and God the Father are one in substance, but they aren't of the same substance. They are one in unity, glory, and perfection as Jesus said.

dzheremi said:
I'm not sure how much more 'betterment' you can have when you're already the emperor, but okay. This has nothing to do your claims about Christian history.

Constantine did not want to deal with the bickering any longer.

dzheremi said:
Please let me know when you get to a point that has something to do with your historical claims. This doesn't.

We already know you're on the side of the Arians...there's no need to mutilate scripture in the process of showing how.

So how did I mutilate the scripture? It is what it is even if you do not like it.

dzheremi said:
I don't know how this anything to do with the verse from the Maccabees that you quoted.

God did not make the universe out of planets, suns, and moons that already existed as the matter was in chaos instead He brought order to the universe.

dzheremi said:
As always, I'm very happy for you that you can do a word search. That's a very handy function for a computer to have; it's just not very convincing in lieu of actual arguments that tie together whatever material you are referencing.

Yes I can do a word search to find the scriptures that that back up what I believe. That was not the case here though. These are scriptures I read and knew. I didn't even use LDS resources.

How can you use the fact that there were no capital letters in Koine Greek as support for this stance? I'm not seeing the connection. It seems to me that if there are no capitals, then there is no way to know if it should be rendered in English with a capital G or a lower-case g, unless you make an actual argument as to why one or the other should be preferred in a particular context. But you didn't do that. Instead you just stated that there were no capital letters without any clue or reason as to why that had anything to do with anything, just like you're now stating that sometimes the translations were not capitalized properly without any reason as to why you think that.[/QUOTE]
I guess you did not notice the changes I made to the scriptures I quoted. Okay that's fine.

dzheremi · Dec 17, 2020

He is the way said:
That word was Constantine's words to the churches to straighten things out, thus the Nicene faith saying that Jesus Christ and God the Father are one in substance, but they aren't of the same substance. They are one in unity, glory, and perfection as Jesus said.

I think you missed the point that I was making, which was that the Church did not follow Constantine in embracing the Arian theological formulas.

Saying that his 'word' was that he wanted the Church to get together and decide which theology to follow doesn't really mean anything if everyone makes a different choice than the one he did, because that's the exact opposite of them following the emperor. You know...the thing you're apparently trying to prove happened.

Constantine did not want to deal with the bickering any longer.

So what? How's that related to your idea that he somehow used the council for his own betterment?

So how did I mutilate the scripture? It is what it is even if you do not like it.

By doing what you literally always do: performing a word search, copying whatever verses come up that contain the words you are looking for, and then presenting the bare verses as though they make your argument for you. That's not making an argument. That's just cutting up scripture so that you can put it in whatever context you think best serves Mormonism -- hence, mutilating it.

God did not make the universe out of planets, suns, and moons that already existed as the matter was in chaos instead He brought order to the universe.

God didn't make the universe out of matter period.

Funny how when you can take a verse out of context like John 14:28 and present it by itself to the supposed proof of your theological point, you'll say "It is what it is even if you don't like it", but when such a bare reading of a verse as in the Maccabees doesn't shake out in your favor, suddenly that's not good enough and you have to insist that it's really about some other principle, like what 'state' the matter was in (and not, as the verse says, "that God did not make them out of things that existed"). Whatever happened to "it is what it is"?

I guess you did not notice the changes I made to the scriptures I quoted. Okay that's fine.

No, I didn't. If it was changes to the capitalization of 'God', then my point still stands: a lack of capitalization in the original can't tell us what the capitalization should be in translation. That's for the translator to make, and as such is inherently motivated by their own theology. (Read: it wouldn't mean anything to me if you did make changes, since the original doesn't reflect that distinction in the first place, and you and I already don't agree on theological matters.)

He is the way · Dec 17, 2020

dzheremi said:
I think you missed the point that I was making, which was that the Church did not follow Constantine in embracing the Arian theological formulas.

Saying that his 'word' was that he wanted the Church to get together and decide which theology to follow doesn't really mean anything if everyone makes a different choice than the one he did, because that's the exact opposite of them following the emperor. You know...the thing you're apparently trying to prove happened.

So what? How's that related to your idea that he somehow used the council for his own betterment?

"Constantine ruled the Roman Empire as sole emperor for much of his reign. Some scholars allege that his main objective was to gain unanimous approval and submission to his authority from all classes, and therefore chose Christianity to conduct his political propaganda, believing that it was the most appropriate religion that could fit with the Imperial cult (see also Sol Invictus). Regardless, under the Constantinian dynasty Christianity expanded throughout the Empire, launching the era of State church of the Roman Empire.[1][full citation needed] Whether Constantine sincerely converted to Christianity or remained loyal to Paganism is a matter of debate among historians (see also Constantine's religious policy).[2] His formal conversion in 312 is almost universally acknowledged among historians,[1][3][full citation needed] despite that it was claimed he was baptized only on his deathbed by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia in 337;[4][5][6] the real reasons behind it remain unknown and are debated also.[2][3] According to Hans Pohlsander, Professor Emeritus of History at the University at Albany, SUNY, Constantine's conversion was just another instrument of realpolitik in his hands meant to serve his political interest in keeping the Empire united under his control:"

From: Constantine the Great and Christianity - Wikipedia

dzheremi said:
By doing what you literally always do: performing a word search, copying whatever verses come up that contain the words you are looking for, and then presenting the bare verses as though they make your argument for you. That's not making an argument. That's just cutting up scripture so that you can put it in whatever context you think best serves Mormonism -- hence, mutilating it.

Is that because you do not agree with what the Bible says?

dzheremi said:
God didn't make the universe out of matter period.

Funny how when you can take a verse out of context like John 14:28 and present it by itself to the supposed proof of your theological point, you'll say "It is what it is even if you don't like it", but when such a bare reading of a verse as in the Maccabees doesn't shake out in your favor, suddenly that's not good enough and you have to insist that it's really about some other principle, like what 'state' the matter was in (and not, as the verse says, "that God did not make them out of things that existed"). Whatever happened to "it is what it is"?

You put a lot of stock in a book written in 100 BC by an unknown author. The author of 2 Maccabees has confessedly exercised much freedom. Not only was Jason's work abridged, but also added to, and probably altered according to Gilman, D. C.; Peck, H. T.; Colby, F. M., eds. (1905). "Jason of Cyrene" . New International Encyclopedia (1st ed.). New York: Dodd, Mead.

dzheremi said:
No, I didn't. If it was changes to the capitalization of 'God', then my point still stands: a lack of capitalization in the original can't tell us what the capitalization should be in translation. That's for the translator to make, and as such is inherently motivated by their own theology. (Read: it wouldn't mean anything to me if you did make changes, since the original doesn't reflect that distinction in the first place, and you and I already don't agree on theological matters.)

Nor do our theological differences mean that you are right and I am wrong.

Daniel Marsh · Dec 17, 2020

scrolled thru to here, interesting discussion friends,
Daniel

PS have the virus for 12th time.

dzheremi · Dec 17, 2020

May God preserve and comfort you, Daniel.

dzheremi · Dec 17, 2020

He is the way said:
"Constantine ruled the Roman Empire as sole emperor for much of his reign. Some scholars allege that his main objective was to gain unanimous approval and submission to his authority from all classes, and therefore chose Christianity to conduct his political propaganda, believing that it was the most appropriate religion that could fit with the Imperial cult (see also Sol Invictus). Regardless, under the Constantinian dynasty Christianity expanded throughout the Empire, launching the era of State church of the Roman Empire.[1][full citation needed] Whether Constantine sincerely converted to Christianity or remained loyal to Paganism is a matter of debate among historians (see also Constantine's religious policy).[2] His formal conversion in 312 is almost universally acknowledged among historians,[1][3][full citation needed] despite that it was claimed he was baptized only on his deathbed by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia in 337;[4][5][6] the real reasons behind it remain unknown and are debated also.[2][3] According to Hans Pohlsander, Professor Emeritus of History at the University at Albany, SUNY, Constantine's conversion was just another instrument of realpolitik in his hands meant to serve his political interest in keeping the Empire united under his control:"

From: Constantine the Great and Christianity - Wikipedia

Yeah, I saw this last time you quoted it. What's your point?

It's like we're having completely different conversations. The point I'm making is that Constantine had his own theological camp, which was not Nicene Christianity, and since Nicene Christianity is the only kind that anyone in the modern day recognizes as Christianity (other positions being heretical, now as they were then), it is obvious that the Christian Church did not 'follow his word' or however you put it, if by that you mean that he exercised some kind of controlling interest in the Church's theological stance(s).

What you seem to be highlighting above is that according to one Prof. Pohlsander, who as far as I can tell is not anyone of note outside of being a source of your preferred opinion, Constantine used Christianity to advance his political goals. That's fine (I don't really care one way or another; history shows that's it was obviously a mixed bag, in terms of the effect on the Church), but that's different than the point I'm making.

Is that because you do not agree with what the Bible says?

Ha. No. I disagree with your understanding of the scriptures and your entire approach to handling them, and even the idea that you should handle them at all in the first place (the Bible is, quite frankly, not your book, since your religion is something other than Christianity). I very much agree with what the Bible says.

You put a lot of stock in a book written in 100 BC by an unknown author.

It's part of the canon in the Orthodox Church, so I don't treat it any differently than I would any of the books that were accepted by Protestants as well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Besides, if this is the road you want to go down, we can point out that you put a lot of stock in a series of books written in the 1820s and 1830s (the Mormon scriptures) which no one else takes even the least bit seriously (cf. the Maccabees being scripture in the Catholic and Orthodox churches -- i.e., for most of the world's Christians). What is that supposed to prove?

The author of 2 Maccabees has confessedly exercised much freedom. Not only was Jason's work abridged, but also added to, and probably altered according to Gilman, D. C.; Peck, H. T.; Colby, F. M., eds. (1905). "Jason of Cyrene" . New International Encyclopedia (1st ed.). New York: Dodd, Mead.

I don't care what some Protestant-authored/edited encyclopedia has to say about anything. None of the editors listed there have any effect on the Orthodox canon, which is what I follow, since I'm Orthodox and not whatever these people are. This means less than nothing to me.

Nor do our theological differences mean that you are right and I am wrong.

In the context of this portion of the reply, I didn't claim that they did. I'm only trying to make sense of what point you think you're making about the lack of capitalization in koine Greek. Once again, I don't see how it supports your point, since the lack of capitalization leaves it up to the translator what if any capitalization will be found in their translation, which is an inherently theological question (in English, anyway; Coptic originally didn't have a miniscule/majuscule distinction, and Arabic, Syriac, and several other languages used in eastern Christianity still don't).

He is the way · Dec 17, 2020

Daniel Marsh said:
scrolled thru to here, interesting discussion friends,
Daniel

PS have the virus for 12th time.

Wow, I hope the Vaccine will be soon coming to you. You must be worn out.

He is the way · Dec 17, 2020

dzheremi said:
Yeah, I saw this last time you quoted it. What's your point?

It's like we're having completely different conversations. The point I'm making is that Constantine had his own theological camp, which was not Nicene Christianity, and since Nicene Christianity is the only kind that anyone in the modern day recognizes as Christianity (other positions being heretical, now as they were then), it is obvious that the Christian Church did not 'follow his word' or however you put it, if by that you mean that he exercised some kind of controlling interest in the Church's theological stance(s).

What you seem to be highlighting above is that according to one Prof. Pohlsander, who as far as I can tell is not anyone of note outside of being a source of your preferred opinion, Constantine used Christianity to advance his political goals. That's fine (I don't really care one way or another; history shows that's it was obviously a mixed bag, in terms of the effect on the Church), but that's different than the point I'm making.

Well it is true that Constantine waited to the very last part of his life to be baptized becoming a Christian. He may not have agreed with Nicene Christianity (neither do I) Yet he is known as the first Christian emperor. And it was he who convened the council of Nicaea. Whether or not he agreed with their accomplishments he is still a esteemed as a saint in Eastern Christianity.

dzheremi said:
Ha. No. I disagree with your understanding of the scriptures and your entire approach to handling them, and even the idea that you should handle them at all in the first place (the Bible is, quite frankly, not your book, since your religion is something other than Christianity). I very much agree with what the Bible says.

We do believe the Bible to be the word of God. That being said everyone has their own interpretation of God's word.

dzheremi said:
It's part of the canon in the Orthodox Church, so I don't treat it any differently than I would any of the books that were accepted by Protestants as well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Besides, if this is the road you want to go down, we can point out that you put a lot of stock in a series of books written in the 1820s and 1830s (the Mormon scriptures) which no one else takes even the least bit seriously (cf. the Maccabees being scripture in the Catholic and Orthodox churches -- i.e., for most of the world's Christians). What is that supposed to prove?

I know that God isn't made out of nothing, therefore matter has always existed.

dzheremi said:
I don't care what some Protestant-authored/edited encyclopedia has to say about anything. None of the editors listed there have any effect on the Orthodox canon, which is what I follow, since I'm Orthodox and not whatever these people are. This means less than nothing to me.

Okay.

dzheremi · Dec 17, 2020

He is the way said:
Well it is true that Constantine waited to the very last part of his life to be baptized becoming a Christian. He may not have agreed with Nicene Christianity (neither do I) Yet he is known as the first Christian emperor. And it was he who convened the council of Nicaea. Whether or not he agreed with their accomplishments he is still a esteemed as a saint in Eastern Christianity.

Okay. I still don't understand what your point is in bringing him up, though, since the Church repudiated the Arians and Arianism.

I know that God isn't made out of nothing, therefore matter has always existed.

God isn't made, period. God has always existed.

It seems from your reply that you're making matter into God.

He is the way · Dec 18, 2020

dzheremi said:
Okay. I still don't understand what your point is in bringing him up, though, since the Church repudiated the Arians and Arianism.

Perhaps but it has NOT backed away from Constantine being a Christian.

God isn't made, period. God has always existed.

It seems from your reply that you're making matter into God.

God exists and He is indeed something, The scriptures states that we will see Him:

(New Testament | 1 John 3:1 - 3)

1 BEHOLD, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Do you believe that God is nothing? God has an image and a person:

(Old Testament | Genesis 1:27)

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

(New Testament | Hebrews 1:1 - 3)

1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

God formed the worlds:

(Old Testament | Psalms 90:2)

2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

It took God seven of His days to form the earth. I know that many people do not want me to post scriptures from the Bible. How else can I prove that I believe in the Bible?

dzheremi · Dec 18, 2020

He is the way said:
God exists and He is indeed something,

We're not talking about the existence of God (I'm going to assume that we both believe God exists). We're talking about creation. God is not created, so this is unrelated to our discussion.

Do you believe that God is nothing?

No. But again, that's not what we're talking about. Why are you attempting to change the topic?

God formed the worlds

God created the world. Our disagreement is not over this, but how He did it: the majority position in Christianity since a very early date has been creation ex nihilo (from nothing), precisely because of the impermissibility of having God be reliant on pre-existing matter in order to create things. That is against the witness of the scriptures wherein God says "let there be _____", and then it is.

I know that many people do not want me to post scriptures from the Bible. How else can I prove that I believe in the Bible?

By leaving Mormonism.

He is the way · Dec 18, 2020

dzheremi said:
We're not talking about the existence of God (I'm going to assume that we both believe God exists). We're talking about creation. God is not created, so this is unrelated to our discussion.

No. But again, that's not what we're talking about. Why are you attempting to change the topic?

God created the world. Our disagreement is not over this, but how He did it: the majority position in Christianity since a very early date has been creation ex nihilo (from nothing), precisely because of the impermissibility of having God be reliant on pre-existing matter in order to create things. That is against the witness of the scriptures wherein God says "let there be _____", and then it is.

By leaving Mormonism.

God has always existed therefore matter has always existed.

dzheremi · Dec 19, 2020

He is the way said:
God has always existed therefore matter has always existed.

Is matter your God? I don't understand why you'd say such a thing otherwise. In Christianity, we call the One Who is uncreated and preexistent God, and matter does not preexist with Him (or else we couldn't say as we do in the Creed that He is the creator of "all things, seen and unseen").

LDS Priesthoods Not Found In The Writings Of The Early Church Fathers

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

It's a new season...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Similar threads