LDS Against LDS claims about Christians & keeping the commandments: the example of Philoxenos of Mabbug

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
[Fair warning: In this thread I will be referring to an exclusively Oriental Orthodox saint, which is something I try not to do on this message board. I try to only argue from saints who are recognized in all major Christian confessions, so as to avoid arguments between Christians about particular figures or issues which obscure the actual topic. In this case I am breaking my own rule because I found the writings where I found them, they belong where they belong -- i.e., I can't make them be from some other writer -- and at any rate I don't see anything in the particular selections I have made that a Christian would argue over. If the words of this saint help you, then may God bless you in your understanding. If they do not, then I hope that some day they may, God-willing. May God bless us all in our own Christian lives.]

We often read here and elsewhere from Mormons about how non-LDS Christians don't "keep the commandments", or that the Great Apostasy happened because people became lax about keeping them, and so on, hence requiring Joseph Smith's religion to be established to restore what was lost when we Christians all suddenly or over time forgot what we were supposed to be doing. While I've never been able to nail any Mormon here down on when the Great Apostasy actually happened ("it was in full swing by 200 AD" is about the best I can recall ever hearing, regarding an actual date or range of dates), I'm going to assume for the sake of this thread that they would agree that the Great Apostasy was happening or had happened by the late fifth/early sixth century AD, because if it hadn't then the Christian groups existing by that time (the Chalcedonians, the non-Chalcedonians, and the Nestorians) could each plausibly claim to be the true existing Church, and since they're all still around, it would call into question why Mormonism even is a thing. And that can't be right, obviously.

With that in mind, I'd like to present to this board a figure that you all might not know: the Oriental Orthodox saint Mor* Philoxenos of Mabbug (440-523). In fact, I don't really know him exceptionally well myself, though he is one of the major saints of my own communion. I don't know him because he wrote in Syriac, and since he was an avowed non-Chalcedonian ('Oriental Orthodox' in modern terms; i.e., a member of the Syriac Orthodox Church), it is only fairly recently that his works have been available in English translation. His Discourses, primarily written about the monastic/ascetic life but applicable to everyone, were recently published by Cistercian Publications, who have made the introduction to that publication as well as the first Memre** from it available online as a sample of the larger book's content (and it's worked on me; I'm going to order it as soon as I can afford to).

From it, we see he is concerned with establishing and confirming the believer from the bottom up, so to speak, starting with the foundations of the Christian faith and building on them as I know we all often try to do in talking with Mormons. This is why the charge from Mormons that we do not "keep the commandments" (while LDS do, of course) seems to be something of a conversation-stopper, as that particular facet of the faith is seemingly so central to Mormons that our not having done so apparently invalidates anything we say, because they apparently do something we don't.

To that, I present some selections from the first Memre of Mor Philoxenos, which states as follows:

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ invited us through his living gospel to approach wisely the work of keeping his commandments and to establish in us the foundation of his discipline in an orderly fashion, so that the building of our ways of life may ascend straight up and true. Whoever does not know how to begin knowledgeably in the building of this tower that rises up to heaven is not able to finish and bring it to the perfection of wisdom. For knowledge and wisdom direct, order, and accomplish the beginning, completion, and nurturing of all these things. Whoever begins this way is called wise by our Savior’s word: “Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them is like the wise man who digs deeply and establishes his building upon a rock. The rain came down and the torrents came and the winds blew, and [though] they beat against that house it did not fall, for its foundations were established upon a rock. But whoever hears and does not do [these words] is like the foolish man who establishes his building upon the sand. Even if the elements beating against his building are weak, they will tear it down.”
You will note here that Philoxenos says in the beginning of the Christian life, our Lord Jesus Christ invites us to keep His commandments, so yes, this is basic to the Christian life. It would seem here that Mormons and Christians would then agree on this at least conceptually, if not in the details of what "keeping the commandments" means.

He further says on the state of the soul after death, concerning those who have died in a state of spiritual death:

For the soul dies from the recollection of God, and when it has died, all its faculties of discernment die with it, and thoughts on the reflection of heavenly things cease from it. While the soul lives according to its nature, it dies through its will. And while it is found in its form, it perishes in its free will. Then it is necessary for the disciple of God that the recollection of his teacher Jesus Christ become fixed in his soul, and he should meditate on him night and day.​

This would seem to contradict the Mormon idea of the spirits of those who died without knowing God being able to choose to follow Mormonism after death. Keep in mind that this is written in probably the late fifth century, some fourteen centuries before Joseph Smith was even born, let alone could claim to have 'restored' anything.

Philoxenos continues in his earlier building metaphor, as an allusion to the maturing faith of the believer:

Who else would begin building the tower about which our Savior spoke, except the disciple who begins on the road of the Gospel of Christ? Here is the beginning of this disciple’s own building: his promise and his covenant with God by which he promises to depart from the world and keep the commandments, and to begin to run and accomplish, while gathering and bringing from every place the precious stones of excellent rules for the building of this tower that ascends to heaven.​

Interesting phrasing from Philoxenos here: "his promise and his covenant with God by which he promises to depart from the world and keep the commandments". Do not Mormons consider themselves a 'covenant-keeping' people? It would appear that in the fifth century, deep within the 'Great Apotasy' (according to LDS doctrine), this was taught as something we Christians ought to be at our base/the very foundation of our faith. Strange. :eek::D

And concerning what is appropriate in the context of preparing for worship and service, Philoxenos writes (emphasis mine):

Because our nature is created, and even though we did not exist, we live according to the will of the Creator and are able to acquire newly the learning of virtues. Just as we have come into being from nonbeing, so also from being sinful we become righteous. But when a person has completely taken off the world, then he clothes himself perfectly in the way of Christ. Until he takes off the dirty outer coat and purifies himself through tears of repentance from the stains of evil things, he is not able to put on the purple garments of the knowledge of Christ. For a person who is defiled by thoughts or by deeds of iniquity ought to heal his [own] bruises first, and cleanse the blemishes of his soul and of his body, and then come to the banquet hall of the divine mysteries, while putting on the spiritual outer garments [required for] this feast.***
Here the concept of our being created from preexisting matter is clearly rejected. That concept, while present in certain fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr), is rejected by the Church since very early on as being inconsistent with both the scriptures and with correct Christian theology drawn from the Holy Bible and the teachings of the apostles passed down through the fathers. Here we should understand that the earliest Christian converts would have included some of gentile/pagan backgrounds (recall here the Council held in Jerusalem about receiving such people, as recorded in Acts), such as the aforementioned St. Justin, but as time went on this was not as often the case anymore. Mor Philoxenos was born of Christian parents, for instance, though the area in which he served (Mabbug in Syriac, corresponding to modern Manbij, Syria) still had a large pagan population into the early centuries of Christianity. (See for instance the second century Greek treatise On the Syrian Goddess.)

So a Christian bishop in a mixed Christian/Pagan environment would certainly recognize such an idea as a pagan concept, and reject it as the entire Church did (without respect to confession; the Chalcedonians and the Nestorians do not teach that we are made of preexisting matter either), as Philoxenos does here.

In his conclusion to the Memre, Philoxenos counsels:

Therefore, all these [illnesses] and those like them are healed and cured by that which is opposite [to it]. Whoever desires spiritual things needs to renounce physical things. For until one [kind of] desire dies in us, the other [desire] will not live in us. That is, until a physical desire dies, a spiritual desire will not live in our thoughts. The death of each one of them gives life to its companion. When the body is alive in us with all of its lusts, the soul dies with all of its desires. When the soul shares in the life in the spirit, and all its parts live with it—that is, its thoughts—then a person rises up from the dead and is alive in the new life of the new world. Until we take off the old [physical] person, we are not able to put on the new spiritual person. But, when we put him on by grace, we do not perceive him.​

With regard to the topic of "keeping the commandments", if they would obviously include such talk of physical restraint for the sake of spiritual health, can we say that Joseph Smith and others who had many, many wives as part of a 'revelation' given to JS followed such constancy as the above? Did they endeavor to kill the fleshly desires within themselves so as to desire the better spiritual life, and live their lives in the Spirit? If so, then why do we find such pleading letters as JS supposedly wrote to one of his polygamous (non-Emma) wives?


(Most relevant part begins at about 4:17, when he begins to read the letter that JS wrote)

Does this sound like a man who is not attached to the things of the world, who has fought or is fighting his passions? I would say no; it actually reads like it is written by a desperate and hormone-driven teenager trying to talk his girlfriend into coming over because his parents are out of town for the weekend. This is your prophet, by whom what was supposedly 'lost' was restored?

In conclusion, to both Mormons and non-Mormons, I have presented this to show in a few ways how the claims of Mormons that Christianity or Christians don't do XYZ are falsified by looking at the history of what is actually preserved of what Christians did and why. They (Mormons) say we don't keep the commandments, but we are taught here that keeping the commandments is part of making the first steps into the Christian life. Keeping covenants made is also important, again, according to this fifth/sixth century writer and bishop, writing well within the period of the 'Great Apostasy' when such teachings were supposedly not around to guide the people. And Mor Philoxenos cannot be made to be a 'Proto-Mormon' by all of these things, either, because I have also presented several passages within the same writing that flatly contradict Mormonism's central doctrines concerning the creation of mankind and the soul's ability to choose to follow the right path after death.

So it's almost as though the Great Apostasy did not happen, and several of the charges of the Mormons are easily refuted, but they make them anyway because they are completely ignorant of Christian history and choose to remain so that they can remain comfortable in their Mormon bubble where nothing that we present as being actually historical can pop it.

Yet I present these things so that those who have some sense of their own critical faculties separate from their allegiance to the LDS religion can think about them, and realize that if Christians are in fact instructed to keep the commandments, and are instructed to keep their covenants and all of this, then maybe, just maybe, the standard Mormon apologetics are faulty and they should at least familiarize themselves with some kind of outline of Christian history before claiming what they claim, without evidence. Because we, by contrast, have evidence of all of these things in sources like Philoxenos of Mabbug...and this is only one corner of the Christian world, and one particular confession, so if other Christians agree with it, as I suspect some will, then what? Where is the 'Great Apostasy' if we can look to the period well within it and find there straight teaching that shows that Mormonism was simply never needed to begin with?

May God guide us all to the truth and away from falsehood, not only in our religious journeys but also in evaluating the religions of others. If your religion can be defended of itself, it should not rely on inventing false histories and false events and thereby responding to them instead of true history and true events.

+++

Notes:

* Mor or Mar is the Syriac term of saints (for female saints, it is Mort or Mart, e.g., Mort Maryam for St. Mary, the Theotokos), which was borrowed into Arabic as Mar(i), e.g., Mari Mina (St. Menas), Mari Gerges (St. George), Mari Morqos (St. Mark), etc. The usage of this in the Coptic Orthodox Church, at least, is very inconsistent, i.e., it's clearly not only used for ethnically Syrian saints. St. Mark was a Hellenized Libyan Jew, not a Syrian.

** Memre is a Syriac term for homilies, specifically homilies written in verse format

*** At the source, we are told that this is an allusion to Matthew 22:12 and the wedding garment
 

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
To begin with -

It'd have done you well to break the post up into multiple smaller ones, as the current wall of text is so large you're going to lose a lot of people after only a few paragraphs.


That being said, it's not so much "they didn't keep the commandments" as it is "as those with the direct priesthood as established by Jesus were being killed before they could raise others up to the priesthood, the leadership became confused and the teachings became diluted, leading to a church organization that eventually lacked the full keys and nature of the priesthood and had human philosophies mixed in with the teachings of God."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: He is the way
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
To begin with -

It'd have done you well to break the post up into multiple smaller ones, as the current wall of text is so large you're going to lose a lot of people after only a few paragraphs.

Thank you for the advice, but I think it is fine as it is, as the formatting clearly breaks up the quoted material. If it is too much for you, you are free to read it in chunks or leave it be.

That being said, it's not so much "they didn't keep the commandments" as it is "as those with the direct priesthood as established by Jesus were being killed before they could raise others up to the priesthood

That is flatly incorrect, though. Every Orthodox and Catholic bishop can trace his ordination back to one of the apostles. All of the apostles established the Church in the places to which they traveled. There are entire lists kept at the major sees (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, etc. -- basically all of what would later be termed 'the Pentarchy') which show this, and they only diverge much later from each other, meaning that up until a point long after the 'Great Apostasy' is said to have begun (again, by you Mormons, since you're the only ones making the claim that this is a thing that actually happened to begin with), they would have all shared the same bishops, and those bishops were the sole descendants of the apostles.

the leadership became confused and the teachings became diluted, leading to a church organization that eventually lacked the full keys and nature of the priesthood and had human philosophies mixed in with the teachings of God."

Where is your evidence for this? I am presenting evidence from the actual preserved record of the Syriac Orthodox Church in the late fifth century Syriac-speaking world, on the edges of the Byzantine and Persian empire. Your evidence is from what, who, where, and when? Anyone can claim anything without evidence, and I don't accept things just because someone somewhere believes them. Show your evidence, please, in period-appropriate sources such as that of the OP.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Seems like it. And yet when it comes to their religion. their missionaries want people to read their book, and pray about it, and to be allowed to come back later and talk about it even more.

If Mormons put as much time into learning Christian history and what passed for any form of Christianity historically (i.e., the actually-attested-to stuff; not the "I found this secret record in the side of a hill" treasure hunting, poor man's Indiana Jones fantasy world of JS) as they do into their attempt to convert the rest of the world to Mormonism, their religion would fold immediately. I think they deliberately don't want to touch this stuff, then. Historical Christianity? No thank you. That's just apostasy. And as we can see here, even granting them that (how many times did I write that this Memre was written during the Great Apostasy, even though I don't believe that actually happened?) does nothing, because they just don't want to look at anything. You can lead a Mormon to water, but unless one of their elders is there to tell them it's okay and the spigot has "Copyright Intellectual Reserve" stamped on it...
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for the advice, but I think it is fine as it is, as the formatting clearly breaks up the quoted material. If it is too much for you, you are free to read it in chunks or leave it be.



That is flatly incorrect, though. Every Orthodox and Catholic bishop can trace his ordination back to one of the apostles. All of the apostles established the Church in the places to which they traveled. There are entire lists kept at the major sees (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, etc. -- basically all of what would later be termed 'the Pentarchy') which show this, and they only diverge much later from each other, meaning that up until a point long after the 'Great Apostasy' is said to have begun (again, by you Mormons, since you're the only ones making the claim that this is a thing that actually happened to begin with), they would have all shared the same bishops, and those bishops were the sole descendants of the apostles.



Where is your evidence for this?
I am presenting evidence from the actual preserved record of the Syriac Orthodox Church in the late fifth century Syriac-speaking world, on the edges of the Byzantine and Persian empire. Your evidence is from what, who, where, and when? Anyone can claim anything without evidence, and I don't accept things just because someone somewhere believes them. Show your evidence, please, in period-appropriate sources such as that of the OP.

That is flatly incorrect, though. Every Orthodox and Catholic bishop can trace his ordination back to one of the apostles. All of the apostles established the Church in the places to which they traveled. There are entire lists kept at the major sees (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, etc. -- basically all of what would later be termed 'the Pentarchy') which show this, and they only diverge much later from each other, meaning that up until a point long after the 'Great Apostasy' is said to have begun (again, by you Mormons, since you're the only ones making the claim that this is a thing that actually happened to begin with), they would have all shared the same bishops, and those bishops were the sole descendants of the apostles.

Can every Orthodox and Catholic bishop confirm that he was ordained a bishop by an apostle of the Lord?

That is how the church was organized and began to grow. The apostles went out and preached the gospel and as a congregation grew, they ordained elders and from the elders ordained bishops to administer the church in that local area.

Here is the problem. As per the bible, a bishop needed to be chosen and ordained by an apostle.

When the apostles were killed, what happened to this model? Here is what happened: the bishops banded together and chose a new bishop and then ordained them. Eventually, in many areas of the church, the people got power and chose their own bishops and then a bishop from another area ordained them. This is where the corruption began to take a toll on the church. The office of bishop was important and if a corrupt popular personality was chosen by a vote of the people to be bishop, he corrupted the entire local church.

Yes, they could trace their ordination back to an apostle, but that is not the same as having an apostle lay his hand on your head and ordain you to the office of bishop, as the bible dictates.

Where is your evidence for this?

The evidence I have is any comprehensive Christian history book.

An interesting book known as the 'didache', was a book that was written very late first century and it talks about baptism. It says that by even in the late first century, churches were baptising people by sprinkling their heads with water. Here was the excuse to change the ordinance: If you do not have enough water to baptize, then you can sprinkle. See how it goes.

The Didache also talked about fake apostles who were going around corrupting the churches. And reasons not to let those who said they were apostles stay in their communities.

Even during the time that Paul was alive and writing letters, he wrote to the Galations and this is what he said:
Galatians 1:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.

He says not to a totally new gospel, but there were those that were among them perverting the gospel.
Was the bishop among the perpetrators. Who knows, the bishop Diotrephes in 3 John did not let John the apostle in his area and kicked out of the church anyone that allowed John to come and stay with them. Does this not sound like a corrupt man corrupting his church?

The Corinthians church was in trouble, some following one person, and others following other people, and others following other people. A real mess.

Paul even says that "all Asia have turned from him" in 2 Timothy 1:5. And I guarantee if they have turned away from Paul, they have turned away from the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

The 7 churches of Revelations stopped existing not long after Jesus revealed to them their good deeds and their bad deeds. I guess even a revelation from Jesus did not help them overcome their bad deeds.

It is difficult to peg the date of the start of the apostasy because it started slowly, even as the apostles were still alive, but it started to grow more intense when they had passed away.
(See 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8). Think about who was taken out of the way, and then the Wicked was revealed, it was the apostles, and who took them out of the way? And why? So that by the end of the second century it was moving swiftly to the full, head on apostasy by the middle of the 3rd century, which led to the Nicean council, the first ecumenical council and the redefining of God himself was a crowing moment in Christian history. By the 4th ecumenical council in Chalcedon, major divisions were errupting in the church and it would not be long until the Eastern churches broke from the Western churches and the apostasy was pretty much complete. It did go downhill from there, until in the 16th century, Martin Luther called the Catholic church the devils playground, and the pope was not the Vicar of Christ, but was the vicar of satan.

Do you think Martin Luther and others recognized that an apostasy had taken place? I think so. Unfortunately they were not going to be the solution. It took until 1820 for the solution to come about when God and Jesus visited a boy by the name of JS, and the restitution of all things got under way.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Can every Orthodox and Catholic bishop confirm that he was ordained a bishop by an apostle of the Lord?

Yes. Again, there are complete lists at every major Patriarchate, and they do not diverge from each other until much later than the 'Great Apostasy' is supposed to have happened.

That is how the church was organized and began to grow. The apostles went out and preached the gospel and as a congregation grew, they ordained elders and from the elders ordained bishops to administer the church in that local area.

Here is the problem. As per the bible, a bishop needed to be chosen and ordained by an apostle.

If you describe in the first paragraph is as it is in the Bible (and I'm not going to argue this one; minor terminology quibbles aside, this is basically right, with bishops ordained over local regions, etc.), then how can it also be a problem 'as per the Bible'? That makes no sense. "The Bible says it was done this way. The problem with that is that the Bible says it was done this way." Uh...okay then. :scratch: I guess in Mormonism, the Bible is set up against itself when you need it to be to support your own doctrine, but in the history of Christianity, we never the invented 'problem' you mention, precisely because it was set up as you also mention, with bishops ordained by the apostles to carry on after their deaths -- HH St. Evodius (r. circa 53 - circa 69 AD) in Antioch by St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles; HH St. Inianos (r. 62-83 AD) by St. Mark the Evangelist and Apostle in Alexandria; HH Catholicos Zacharias (r. 68-72 AD) by St. Bartholomew the Apostle in Armenia, and so on.

The Apostles knew they were not going to live forever on this earth. All but St. John were martyred within a few decades of Christ. They confirmed the bishops and set them in place to carry the spread of the faith in every place they went. This is all very basic in the reading of any Christian history. Later divisions between Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant are precisely that: later, and hence don't touch this at all, and Joseph Smith and his religion is even later than that.

When the apostles were killed, what happened to this model?

Nothing. That's why, again, every Orthodox and Catholic bishop can trade his ordination to one of the apostles.

Here is what happened: the bishops banded together and chose a new bishop and then ordained them.

Okay. This is also what happened when they had to replace Judas (Acts 1:12-26), except they did that also by casting lots. What's your point?

Eventually, in many areas of the church, the people got power and chose their own bishops and then a bishop from another area ordained them.

I don't know what specific thing you have in mind when you write this, but the ordination of bishops within a diocese is still done locally.

For instance: 11/28/18 -- Axios! Two New Bishops Ordained in the Southern United States Diocese:

It is with great joy that we celebrate the ordination of Hegumen Father Bishoy Abba Moses as Bishop Basil, and Hegumen Father Maximos Abba Moses as Bishop Gregory, both auxiliary bishops in the Southern United States Diocese under the auspices of H.G. Bishop Youssef. We congratulate His Grace Bishop Youssef on this blessed ordination, and we pray for God’s continued grace in their service.​

(Emphasis mine; HG Bishop Youssef is the Bishop of the Southern United States Diocese of the Coptic Orthodox Church, and these brother bishops will be operating within this same diocese, so it is done by his hand, and under his auspices that the ordination is done, as is true of everything done in the diocese, as this is the command we see in operation as early as the epistles of our father HH St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a contemporary of the apostles.)

The only difference that you might see today is that whenever possible the ordinations will involve the Patriarch, as the Patriarch is the highest bishop in the Church (unless you are Catholic and hence believe that the Roman Papacy is its own office, distinct from and higher in rank than that of a bishop; Orthodox do not believe this, however):


HH Patriarch Irinej of the Serbian Orthodox Church consecrates the monk-priest Arsenije to the rank of bishop, Belgrade

If this is somehow 'corruption', I'd like to hear how.

This is where the corruption began to take a toll on the church. The office of bishop was important and if a corrupt popular personality was chosen by a vote of the people to be bishop, he corrupted the entire local church.

No. That's not what happened. See, for instance: Nestorius of Constantinople, Honorius of Rome...actually a bunch of Roman Popes around the tenth century like Gregory VI, Benedict VI, Benedict IX, etc. Many a Christian bishop had to rightly fear being deposed (and sometimes murdered...yikes...) for a variety of reasons. If charisma and popular appeal had anything to do with anything, then we'd presumably all be Arian right now. You don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, they could trace their ordination back to an apostle, but that is not the same as having an apostle lay his hand on your head and ordain you to the office of bishop, as the bible dictates.

That is so utterly stupid. I cannot believe that you would make such an argument. By claiming that this is how things were meant to work, you're in effect saying that Jesus Christ our God did not intend for his Church to last beyond c. 106 AD, when St. John died peacefully.

I'm sorry, but why the heck does your religion exist, in that case? What on earth is it 'restoring', if the Church was not to outlast the original apostles? Did Joseph Smith's magic spectacles and hat bring St. John and the others back from the dead? For Pete's sake...what foolishness!

The evidence I have is any comprehensive Christian history book.

Maybe you should read one then (one not published by Desert Books or whatever), because I cannot believe that any history book published by a reputable publishing house would contain such idiocy!

An interesting book known as the 'didache', was a book that was written very late first century and it talks about baptism. It says that by even in the late first century, churches were baptising people by sprinkling their heads with water. Here was the excuse to change the ordinance: If you do not have enough water to baptize, then you can sprinkle. See how it goes.

I'm sorry, but I've read the Didache several times in my life, and I don't remember them saying that this is an 'excuse', let alone "see how it goes". You're being mighty flippant towards the early Church you're supposedly the restoration of! And there is absolutely no problem with making provisions for a situation where there might not be water, because gee, Peter, did you ever think there might not always be very much water available in the deserts of the Middle East and North Africa, where Christianity started?! :doh:If God can raise up children of Abraham from stones if it is so necessary, then I think He can deal with the fact that water was sprinkled when need be. Our God fulfilled such mindless, spiritless legalism to the letter, so that no one may complain, and yet here you are anyway, claiming to know better than the Church that He established and purchased by His own holy blood. Lord have mercy.

And if we're going to talk about "changing ordinances", then why in the name of everything supposedly holy were there changes made to the ordinances of the Mormon temple ceremony, which was itself, according to your religion and its 'restorer', the restoration of the ancient temple practices supposedly lost in the early Church? I know you know what I'm talking about, but here's a refresher in case you need it:


Why the change in 1990? Did they somehow run of out symbolic blood, knives, and throats to slit in a way similar to how a given place may actually lack enough water to perform baptism by full immersion? (Which is still the norm in Orthodoxy, by the way; I was received by triple immersion only 7 years ago.)

It is really hypocritical that you should argue in this way.

The Didache also talked about fake apostles who were going around corrupting the churches. And reasons not to let those who said they were apostles stay in their communities.

Yeah. Because there's always been someone who wants to piggy-back on the actual religion to sell their false religion: Marcion, Bardaisan, Mani, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Warren Jeffs, David Koresh, etc.

Even during the time that Paul was alive and writing letters, he wrote to the Galations and this is what he said:
Galatians 1:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.

I think the same thing whenever I hear about purposely misguided and deceived Christians joining Mormonism or any other pseudo-Christian cult. It is a real tragedy. What's your point?

He says not to a totally new gospel, but there were those that were among them perverting the gospel. Was the bishop among the perpetrators. Who knows

The Church knows, because again, they've kept the records that are uncontroversially accepted by all Christians up until a point that is well within the period of the so-called 'Great Apostasy'. So you are still not answering the OP.

the bishop Diotrephes in 3 John did not let John the apostle in his area and kicked out of the church anyone that allowed John to come and stay with them. Does this not sound like a corrupt man corrupting his church?

Yes it does, that's why Demetrius was pointed to instead in the same passage as one who has a good testimony of them (those who were opposed by Diotrephes), and the audience is encouraged not to imitate evil, for he who does evil (presumably Diotrephes, given the immediate context) has not seen God.

This doesn't prove "corruption of the Church" (because it's not his Church to begin with; it's God's, like all churches are)...this proves that this one guy was an egotistical horse's behind who cared more about being 'first among them' in the Church at that location than about the truth and knowing it and following it.

The Corinthians church was in trouble, some following one person, and others following other people, and others following other people. A real mess.

Mhm. True enough. Again, what's your point? It doesn't matter how many examples like this you can bring, because the point of the Bible in general or those passages in particular is not "There are never any problems in the Church, and never have been, and never will be." Why do you think we maintain synodal, conciliar structures of government in the Orthodox Church? Because we have to use them, just as the apostles did when gathering to pray over Matthias all those centuries ago, and while declaring people like Diotrephes and Judas and others like them not to be followed.

And I for one see nothing to apologize for in functioning just as the early Church did, centering around bishops and the gathering of them just as the apostles gathered in first century Jerusalem to decide the major doctrinal issue of the day (in Acts; the reception of Gentile converts into the Church).

Paul even says that "all Asia have turned from him" in 2 Timothy 1:5. And I guarantee if they have turned away from Paul, they have turned away from the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

From these kinds of pseudo-objections, I don't know that you really even understand what a church is. Yes, all of Asia turned away from Paul at a certain point, just as the entire world (not just Asia) would turn away from his spiritual son HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic some centuries later. The faith is not a popularity contest, and not even the apostles were ever promised that everyone would find their message acceptable. Heck, we have no better example of that than when many of Jesus' own disciples left Him after He declared that unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. (John 6:53-60) What do we make of that, then? I guess the Church magically vanished at that time, too. Oops! There goes the thing you say you're restoring! WHILE CHRIST WAS STILL AMONG THEM. :doh:(So, even before 106 AD or whenever you want to say the 'Great Apostasy' started...it's becoming increasingly difficult to grant you the conceptual space needed to not simply declare Christ an incompetent Messiah, while maintaining the belief in this very early 'Great Apostasy'.)

The 7 churches of Revelations stopped existing not long after Jesus revealed to them their good deeds and their bad deeds. I guess even a revelation from Jesus did not help them overcome their bad deeds.

Alright. You've officially gone off your rocker here, Peter. Supposing that revelation from God didn't help anyone...well certainly not if they read it as you do, but thanks be to God your reading is entirely antithetical to anything resembling Christianity of any form, time, or place!

You know that Ephesus was not abandoned until the 15th century AD, right? And before then there had been a steady Christian presence for centuries. As a testament to that, the (Greek Orthodox) Metropolis of Ephesus was active until 1923, being abandoned only with the population exchange that occurred as a result of the Greco-Turkish war (1919-1922). Is that really so soon after St. John's revelation?

What utter lunacy. Tell me again what history book you're supposedly reading to gather that anything you've written here has any basis in reality whatsoever. I'd like to write the publisher and have the editor publicly flogged before me for so horribly misleading people like you. It's criminally negligent.

It is difficult to peg the date of the start of the apostasy because it started slowly, even as the apostles were still alive, but it started to grow more intense when they had passed away.

No, it's difficult to peg the date because it is completely made up and nothing that you have shown so far or can show will ever substantiate it, because there's no record of such a thing in actual history.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
(See 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8)

That's not about the Church at all, but about the political leadership of the day and how they figure as types of anti-Christs, preparing the way for the coming of the anti-Christ who is received in place of Christ by disbelievers, as our father St. John Chrysostom explains in his fourth homily on 2 Corinthians:

One may naturally enquire, what is that which withholds, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholds, that is, hinders him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him. And otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end. And he did not say that it will be quickly, although he is always saying it — but what? "that he may be revealed in his own season," he says,

For the mystery of lawlessness does already work. He speaks here of Nero, as if he were the type of Antichrist. For he too wished to be thought a god. And he has well said, the mystery; that is, it works not openly, as the other, nor without shame. For if there was found a man before that time, he means, who was not much behind Antichrist in wickedness, what wonder, if there shall now be one? But he did not also wish to point him out plainly: and this not from cowardice, but instructing us not to bring upon ourselves unnecessary enmities, when there is nothing to call for it. So indeed he also says here. Only there is one that restrains now, until he be taken out of the way, that is, when the Roman empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God. For as the kingdoms before this were destroyed, for example, that of the Medes by the Babylonians, that of the Babylonians by the Persians, that of the Persians by the Macedonians, that of the Macedonians by the Romans: so will this also be by the Antichrist, and he by Christ, and it will no longer withhold. And these things Daniel delivered to us with great clearness.​

Think about who was taken out of the way, and then the Wicked was revealed, it was the apostles

Prove it using period sources, not Mormon belief in place of them. Otherwise, this is nothing more than your own preexisting belief, with nothing behind it but that you would really like it to be so in order that your religion has some reason to exist.

and who took them out of the way? And why? So that by the end of the second century it was moving swiftly to the full, head on apostasy by the middle of the 3rd century, which led to the Nicean council, the first ecumenical council and the redefining of God himself was a crowing moment in Christian history.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read here. Ever. Are you getting your ideas of Christian history from millennial atheist YouTubers or something? Because this is certainly not related to anything in Church history.


By the 4th ecumenical council in Chalcedon, major divisions were errupting in the church and it would not be long until the Eastern churches broke from the Western churches and the apostasy was pretty much complete.

The saint quoted in the OP was from the late fifth/early sixth century, and had nothing to do with Chalcedon (he was only 11 years old when it happened), other than belonging to the Church that disagreed with it. And you still haven't answered anything from the OP, so I don't know why you're bringing up irrelevant nonsense from centuries later, as though that answers anything.

It did go downhill from there, until in the 16th century, Martin Luther called the Catholic church the devils playground, and the pope was not the Vicar of Christ, but was the vicar of satan.

Oh no! That totally has something to do with...something in this thread...somewhere...somehow...

Oh...wait...no it doesn't. :sleep:

Do you think Martin Luther and others recognized that an apostasy had taken place? I think so.

I don't care. Martin Luther has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Stay on topic or get out of my thread.

Unfortunately they were not going to be the solution. It took until 1820 for the solution to come about when God and Jesus visited a boy by the name of JS, and the restitution of all things got under way.

Wow, Peter. That sure was a wild ride through Mr. Smith's Magic House of No Historical Evidence Whatsoever.

Would you care to actually address the OP now? You have yet to do so.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,029
3,750
✟287,917.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
If we assume Mormons are right on this, that there needed to be Apostles appointed in order to preserve the Church, I have to wonder what the Church itself could have done in order to avoid disaster. It was up to the Apostles to appoint more Apostles. Mormons eleven were killed before they could appoint successors and John simply never did despite never dying and wondering the Earth accomplishing nothing for 2000 years.

Nobody knew of these rules, nobody knew that there needed to be Apostles since they never mention of bemoan the lack of such men in the Church during the second century. What could they have done in the absence of God appointing an Apostle? I would argue that Mormons have no right to criticize the early Church but must question their God and what he wanted to accomplish.

They must also question themselves that if God allowed men to let the same Church 2000 years ago fail, he could also allow the modern LDS Church to fail as well. Mormons after all claim that they are the exact same Church that Jesus established, not a new one, not an improved one with better promises, but the very same. The God of Mormonism is content to allow his followers to inevitably fail and give them nothing, this despite Christ's promises that the Gates of hell should not overcome the Church.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
That's not about the Church at all, but about the political leadership of the day and how they figure as types of anti-Christs, preparing the way for the coming of the anti-Christ who is received in place of Christ by disbelievers, as our father St. John Chrysostom explains in his fourth homily on 2 Corinthians:

One may naturally enquire, what is that which withholds, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholds, that is, hinders him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him. And otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end. And he did not say that it will be quickly, although he is always saying it — but what? "that he may be revealed in his own season," he says,

For the mystery of lawlessness does already work. He speaks here of Nero, as if he were the type of Antichrist. For he too wished to be thought a god. And he has well said, the mystery; that is, it works not openly, as the other, nor without shame. For if there was found a man before that time, he means, who was not much behind Antichrist in wickedness, what wonder, if there shall now be one? But he did not also wish to point him out plainly: and this not from cowardice, but instructing us not to bring upon ourselves unnecessary enmities, when there is nothing to call for it. So indeed he also says here. Only there is one that restrains now, until he be taken out of the way, that is, when the Roman empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God. For as the kingdoms before this were destroyed, for example, that of the Medes by the Babylonians, that of the Babylonians by the Persians, that of the Persians by the Macedonians, that of the Macedonians by the Romans: so will this also be by the Antichrist, and he by Christ, and it will no longer withhold. And these things Daniel delivered to us with great clearness.​



Prove it using period sources, not Mormon belief in place of them. Otherwise, this is nothing more than your own preexisting belief, with nothing behind it but that you would really like it to be so in order that your religion has some reason to exist.



This is the dumbest thing I've ever read here. Ever. Are you getting your ideas of Christian history from millennial atheist YouTubers or something? Because this is certainly not related to anything in Church history.




The saint quoted in the OP was from the late fifth/early sixth century, and had nothing to do with Chalcedon (he was only 11 years old when it happened), other than belonging to the Church that disagreed with it. And you still haven't answered anything from the OP, so I don't know why you're bringing up irrelevant nonsense from centuries later, as though that answers anything.



Oh no! That totally has something to do with...something in this thread...somewhere...somehow...

Oh...wait...no it doesn't. :sleep:



I don't care. Martin Luther has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Stay on topic or get out of my thread.



Wow, Peter. That sure was a wild ride through Mr. Smith's Magic House of No Historical Evidence Whatsoever.

Would you care to actually address the OP now? You have yet to do so.
Yes. Again, there are complete lists at every major Patriarchate, and they do not diverge from each other until much later than the 'Great Apostasy' is supposed to have happened.



If you describe in the first paragraph is as it is in the Bible (and I'm not going to argue this one; minor terminology quibbles aside, this is basically right, with bishops ordained over local regions, etc.), then how can it also be a problem 'as per the Bible'? That makes no sense. "The Bible says it was done this way. The problem with that is that the Bible says it was done this way." Uh...okay then. :scratch: I guess in Mormonism, the Bible is set up against itself when you need it to be to support your own doctrine, but in the history of Christianity, we never the invented 'problem' you mention, precisely because it was set up as you also mention, with bishops ordained by the apostles to carry on after their deaths -- HH St. Evodius (r. circa 53 - circa 69 AD) in Antioch by St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles; HH St. Inianos (r. 62-83 AD) by St. Mark the Evangelist and Apostle in Alexandria; HH Catholicos Zacharias (r. 68-72 AD) by St. Bartholomew the Apostle in Armenia, and so on.

The Apostles knew they were not going to live forever on this earth. All but St. John were martyred within a few decades of Christ. They confirmed the bishops and set them in place to carry the spread of the faith in every place they went. This is all very basic in the reading of any Christian history. Later divisions between Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant are precisely that: later, and hence don't touch this at all, and Joseph Smith and his religion is even later than that.



Nothing. That's why, again, every Orthodox and Catholic bishop can trade his ordination to one of the apostles.



Okay. This is also what happened when they had to replace Judas (Acts 1:12-26), except they did that also by casting lots. What's your point?



I don't know what specific thing you have in mind when you write this, but the ordination of bishops within a diocese is still done locally.

For instance: 11/28/18 -- Axios! Two New Bishops Ordained in the Southern United States Diocese:

It is with great joy that we celebrate the ordination of Hegumen Father Bishoy Abba Moses as Bishop Basil, and Hegumen Father Maximos Abba Moses as Bishop Gregory, both auxiliary bishops in the Southern United States Diocese under the auspices of H.G. Bishop Youssef. We congratulate His Grace Bishop Youssef on this blessed ordination, and we pray for God’s continued grace in their service.​

(Emphasis mine; HG Bishop Youssef is the Bishop of the Southern United States Diocese of the Coptic Orthodox Church, and these brother bishops will be operating within this same diocese, so it is done by his hand, and under his auspices that the ordination is done, as is true of everything done in the diocese, as this is the command we see in operation as early as the epistles of our father HH St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a contemporary of the apostles.)

The only difference that you might see today is that whenever possible the ordinations will involve the Patriarch, as the Patriarch is the highest bishop in the Church (unless you are Catholic and hence believe that the Roman Papacy is its own office, distinct from and higher in rank than that of a bishop; Orthodox do not believe this, however):


HH Patriarch Irinej of the Serbian Orthodox Church consecrates the monk-priest Arsenije to the rank of bishop, Belgrade

If this is somehow 'corruption', I'd like to hear how.



No. That's not what happened. See, for instance: Nestorius of Constantinople, Honorius of Rome...actually a bunch of Roman Popes around the tenth century like Gregory VI, Benedict VI, Benedict IX, etc. Many a Christian bishop had to rightly fear being deposed (and sometimes murdered...yikes...) for a variety of reasons. If charisma and popular appeal had anything to do with anything, then we'd presumably all be Arian right now. You don't know what you're talking about.



That is so utterly stupid. I cannot believe that you would make such an argument. By claiming that this is how things were meant to work, you're in effect saying that Jesus Christ our God did not intend for his Church to last beyond c. 106 AD, when St. John died peacefully.

I'm sorry, but why the heck does your religion exist, in that case? What on earth is it 'restoring', if the Church was not to outlast the original apostles? Did Joseph Smith's magic spectacles and hat bring St. John and the others back from the dead? For Pete's sake...what foolishness!



Maybe you should read one then (one not published by Desert Books or whatever), because I cannot believe that any history book published by a reputable publishing house would contain such idiocy!



I'm sorry, but I've read the Didache several times in my life, and I don't remember them saying that this is an 'excuse', let alone "see how it goes". You're being mighty flippant towards the early Church you're supposedly the restoration of! And there is absolutely no problem with making provisions for a situation where there might not be water, because gee, Peter, did you ever think there might not always be very much water available in the deserts of the Middle East and North Africa, where Christianity started?! :doh:If God can raise up children of Abraham from stones if it is so necessary, then I think He can deal with the fact that water was sprinkled when need be. Our God fulfilled such mindless, spiritless legalism to the letter, so that no one may complain, and yet here you are anyway, claiming to know better than the Church that He established and purchased by His own holy blood. Lord have mercy.

And if we're going to talk about "changing ordinances", then why in the name of everything supposedly holy were there changes made to the ordinances of the Mormon temple ceremony, which was itself, according to your religion and its 'restorer', the restoration of the ancient temple practices supposedly lost in the early Church? I know you know what I'm talking about, but here's a refresher in case you need it:


Why the change in 1990? Did they somehow run of out symbolic blood, knives, and throats to slit in a way similar to how a given place may actually lack enough water to perform baptism by full immersion? (Which is still the norm in Orthodoxy, by the way; I was received by triple immersion only 7 years ago.)

It is really hypocritical that you should argue in this way.



Yeah. Because there's always been someone who wants to piggy-back on the actual religion to sell their false religion: Marcion, Bardaisan, Mani, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Warren Jeffs, David Koresh, etc.



I think the same thing whenever I hear about purposely misguided and deceived Christians joining Mormonism or any other pseudo-Christian cult. It is a real tragedy. What's your point?



The Church knows, because again, they've kept the records that are uncontroversially accepted by all Christians up until a point that is well within the period of the so-called 'Great Apostasy'. So you are still not answering the OP.



Yes it does, that's why Demetrius was pointed to instead in the same passage as one who has a good testimony of them (those who were opposed by Diotrephes), and the audience is encouraged not to imitate evil, for he who does evil (presumably Diotrephes, given the immediate context) has not seen God.

This doesn't prove "corruption of the Church" (because it's not his Church to begin with; it's God's, like all churches are)...this proves that this one guy was an egotistical horse's behind who cared more about being 'first among them' in the Church at that location than about the truth and knowing it and following it.



Mhm. True enough. Again, what's your point? It doesn't matter how many examples like this you can bring, because the point of the Bible in general or those passages in particular is not "There are never any problems in the Church, and never have been, and never will be." Why do you think we maintain synodal, conciliar structures of government in the Orthodox Church? Because we have to use them, just as the apostles did when gathering to pray over Matthias all those centuries ago, and while declaring people like Diotrephes and Judas and others like them not to be followed.

And I for one see nothing to apologize for in functioning just as the early Church did, centering around bishops and the gathering of them just as the apostles gathered in first century Jerusalem to decide the major doctrinal issue of the day (in Acts; the reception of Gentile converts into the Church).



From these kinds of pseudo-objections, I don't know that you really even understand what a church is. Yes, all of Asia turned away from Paul at a certain point, just as the entire world (not just Asia) would turn away from his spiritual son HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic some centuries later. The faith is not a popularity contest, and not even the apostles were ever promised that everyone would find their message acceptable. Heck, we have no better example of that than when many of Jesus' own disciples left Him after He declared that unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. (John 6:53-60) What do we make of that, then? I guess the Church magically vanished at that time, too. Oops! There goes the thing you say you're restoring! WHILE CHRIST WAS STILL AMONG THEM. :doh:(So, even before 106 AD or whenever you want to say the 'Great Apostasy' started...it's becoming increasingly difficult to grant you the conceptual space needed to not simply declare Christ an incompetent Messiah, while maintaining the belief in this very early 'Great Apostasy'.)



Alright. You've officially gone off your rocker here, Peter. Supposing that revelation from God didn't help anyone...well certainly not if they read it as you do, but thanks be to God your reading is entirely antithetical to anything resembling Christianity of any form, time, or place!

You know that Ephesus was not abandoned until the 15th century AD, right? And before then there had been a steady Christian presence for centuries. As a testament to that, the (Greek Orthodox) Metropolis of Ephesus was active until 1923, being abandoned only with the population exchange that occurred as a result of the Greco-Turkish war (1919-1922). Is that really so soon after St. John's revelation?

What utter lunacy. Tell me again what history book you're supposedly reading to gather that anything you've written here has any basis in reality whatsoever. I'd like to write the publisher and have the editor publicly flogged before me for so horribly misleading people like you. It's criminally negligent.



No, it's difficult to peg the date because it is completely made up and nothing that you have shown so far or can show will ever substantiate it, because there's no record of such a thing in actual history.
Not one of your bishops have ever been ordained by a living apostle. The best scenerio is that they were ordained by a another bishop. You just do not understand how the keys work. The apostles only hold the keys and must lay their hands on the head of a new bishop and pass their keys onto him in a formal setting. When that bishop dies his keys die with him, and another bishop is chosen by an apostle and the apostle passes his keys to the new bishop.

This formal process is necessary to keep order in the church. You see what happens if this process is not followed, and bishops end up ordaining other bishops. I can give you example after example of the corruption that is conjured up when bishops choose and ordain other bishops.
For instance, the bishop of Constantinople decides to ordain a bishop in Nicea. So he gets busy and chooses a close friend of his (maybe his deacon - whether he is worthy or not) so he can maintain power around his city. If he can do that successfully in the cities around him, then he can elevate himself to Metropolitan or Archbishop and power continues to increase. This is not a pie in the sky story. The history of the church is full of stories of greedy bishops, who work hand in hand with cruel and brutal kings.

In keeping with the OP, it is one reason that the gospel changed from "if you love me keep my commandments" as Jesus taught to "if you believe you will have eternal life" which side-steps the thorny issue of having to keep the commandments and sets you free to do whatever you wish. Now the bishop can behave like they behaved and still preach their new gospel. And anyone resist or makes waves, the king gets involved. Is this the Church of Jesus Christ? I don't think so.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
If we assume Mormons are right on this, that there needed to be Apostles appointed in order to preserve the Church, I have to wonder what the Church itself could have done in order to avoid disaster. It was up to the Apostles to appoint more Apostles. Mormons eleven were killed before they could appoint successors and John simply never did despite never dying and wondering the Earth accomplishing nothing for 2000 years.

Nobody knew of these rules, nobody knew that there needed to be Apostles since they never mention of bemoan the lack of such men in the Church during the second century. What could they have done in the absence of God appointing an Apostle? I would argue that Mormons have no right to criticize the early Church but must question their God and what he wanted to accomplish.

They must also question themselves that if God allowed men to let the same Church 2000 years ago fail, he could also allow the modern LDS Church to fail as well. Mormons after all claim that they are the exact same Church that Jesus established, not a new one, not an improved one with better promises, but the very same. The God of Mormonism is content to allow his followers to inevitably fail and give them nothing, this despite Christ's promises that the Gates of hell should not overcome the Church.
It was not up to the apostles to appoint other apostles, it was up to Jesus. Why did Jesus not have the apostles keep replacing fallen apostles? Because of the wickedness of the world and even within the church.

The second century bishops knew the rules, but they decided to take the reigns of power and once that took place and they got comfortable on their thrones, they certainly did not bemoan the lack of pesky apostles snooping around and letting them know that they were not leading the church the way Jesus would have it.

JS was told that this is the dispensation of the fullness of times, and that Jesus would not suffer that his church would suffer full apostasy again. Men would fail and split off of the church and cause rifts, but none of these offshoots would amount to anything that would threaten or rival the true church.

We know that this is the case, because there are many offshoots from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but none have amounted to anything that comes close to the original church. The original church just keeps expanding and grows more dynamic every year until it will go forth and fill the earth with the knowledge of Christ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,029
3,750
✟287,917.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
It was not up to the apostles to appoint other apostles, it was up to Jesus. Why did Jesus not have the apostles keep replacing fallen apostles? Because of the wickedness of the world and even within the church.

The second century bishops new the rules, but they decided to take the reigns of power and once that took place and they got comfortable on their thrones, they certainly did not bemoan the lack of pesky apostles snooping around and letting them know that they were not leading the church the way Jesus would have it.

JS was told that this is the dispensation of the fullness of times, and that Jesus would not suffer that his church would suffer full apostasy again. Men would fail and split off of the church and cause rifts, but none of these offshoots would amount to anything that would threaten or rival the true church.

We know that this is the case, because there are many offshoots from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but none have amounted to anything that comes close to the original church. The original church just keeps expanding and grows more dynamic every year until it will go forth and fill the earth with the knowledge of Christ.

How does the wickedness of the world or people prevent someone from being appointed an Apostle? Peter, by his own words, was a sinful man and he told Jesus to depart from him. Christ chose him anyway. Paul was called to the ministry despite his persecution of Christians. Jesus chose him anyway, that he might suffer in his name. The power of sin then, does not seem to overcome the seed of faith in a man that God brings out and makes them worthy of being an Apostle. Such faith has always been part of the Church. It's hard to see yourself being like Ignatius of Antioch, a man who implored the Roman Church to not save him, lest he be kept from his Lord through death.

You would then have to suggest that the second century Christians, all of them, no exceptions, were wicked to the core, far worse than Peter, far worse than Paul and this is simply not an accusation you can sustain. It seems especially unsustainable given how Christianity impacted the lives of millions and caused them to turn from sin and live upright lives, as much as any human is capable. Augustine left his Manichean life of debauchery. Men and women turned from paganism to proclaim Christ and if necessary deny worldly authorities which demanded complicity in pagan sacrifice.

Do you really believe that everyone, in between the 1st century and until Joseph Smith, was unworthy of being an Apostle? Who is worthy then? Sin is no objection, since Christ made sinners and simple men Apostles. Faith, then is all that is necessary. Was there no faith in Christ until Joseph Smith?

Also, i would think the supposed words of Jesus to Joseph Smith mean little. Your Church fell immediately, everyone was sinful and God did nothing to prevent it despite the presence of faith. The LDS Church has changed on fundamental levels since the time of Joseph Smith, wherein you could argue that it has already apostatized. The promise of Jesus that his Church should not fall to the gates of Hades, means little when it was broken immediately after his appearance. You cannot trust Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Not one of your bishops have ever been ordained by a living apostle. The best scenerio is that they were ordained by a another bishop.

Who is -- if you've been following the thread -- a successor to at least one of the apostles. ("At least" because some sees were evangelized by pairs, e.g., Peter and Paul, Bartholomew and Thaddeus, Mari and Addai, etc.)

You just do not understand how the keys work.

You are right; I don't have the Mormon understanding of this concept. I am a Christian, not a Mormon.

The apostles only hold the keys and must lay their hands on the head of a new bishop and pass their keys onto him in a formal setting. When that bishop dies his keys die with him

How do keys 'die'?

and another bishop is chosen by an apostle and the apostle passes his keys to the new bishop.

Wait...the living bishop passes on his own keys to the new bishop, or the dead apostles' keys -- the keys that 'died' with the apostle?


This formal process is necessary to keep order in the church. You see what happens if this process is not followed, and bishops end up ordaining other bishops.

Yeah -- the historic Christian Church happens, and Mormonism has no reason to exist.

I can give you example after example of the corruption that is conjured up when bishops choose and ordain other bishops.

And none of them will mean anything, because you don't know what you're talking about.

For instance, the bishop of Constantinople decides to ordain a bishop in Nicea.

For instance, Constantinople wasn't founded until 330 AD, whereas the city that would be known as Nicaea was renamed that in 301 BC, and obviously had a preexisting Christian hierarchy in the area from a pre-conciliar date, seeing as how it was chosen to be the site of the first Ecumenical Council in 325 AD -- five years before the founding of Constantinople.

Tell me how the bishop of a city that doesn't exist yet would go about ordaining a bishop anywhere, let alone in Nicaea? Going by actual Christian history (which I already know you aren't, but let's pretend for the sake of this paragraph), you must be talking about some period after Constantinople's elevation in 381 at the first Council of Constantinople in that year, as before that it had been under the purview of Nicomedia until it was raised to the level of its own separate metropolis in the time of Emperor Valens (r. 364-78). The problem in doing that, of course, is that to suggest that Constantinople would be ordaining a bishop for Nicaea, you must recognize that Christian history actually happened as recorded by the Church itself. That's the whole point of the OP (even though I clearly wasn't talking about ecclesiology in it, but about what is preserved in theology and praxis well into the period of the 'Great Apostasy') that you seem to be dodging in favor of focusing on individual personalities to prove...something...even though that doesn't prove anything. The OP says that Christian history happened as recorded, as well, and you are tacitly agreeing with it without realizing you're doing that, because you don't know enough about Christian history to be able to tell that's what you're doing. You're doing so by accident by suggesting this particular scenario.

So he gets busy and chooses a close friend of his (maybe his deacon - whether he is worthy or not) so he can maintain power around his city.

Yeah, no. Did Nestorius' friendships help him? No. And he was Patriarch of Constantinople!

If he can do that successfully in the cities around him, then he can elevate himself to Metropolitan or Archbishop and power continues to increase. This is not a pie in the sky story. The history of the church is full of stories of greedy bishops, who work hand in hand with cruel and brutal kings.

You're not saying anything that St. John Chrysostom didn't already say much earlier and much better, but St. John never therefore argued as you do that this represents a 'Great Apostasy' wherein the Church itself is taken away from the earth to be restored later by some guy. Because St. John the Golden-Mouthed was himself a Christian bishop, and Christians don't believe in restorationist codswallop.

In keeping with the OP, it is one reason that the gospel changed from "if you love me keep my commandments" as Jesus taught to "if you believe you will have eternal life"

That's not in keeping with the OP -- I wrote the OP, and I specifically highlighted the fact that in Mor Philoxenos we have a bishop and ascetic who made a point of laying down keeping the commandments as fundamental to the Christian life. And even though I chose to make an example of Mor Philoxenos specifically due to his late date and his lack of acceptance among the larger share of world Christianity, the point was once again that these things are so basic that they are still found among all Christians even at such a comparatively late date, and among otherwise controversial figures precisely because they are that basic to the Christian faith. They are not destroyed or obscured by Chalcedon or this bad bishop or that one. And so the 'Great Apostasy', if it involved people downgrading or downright removing "keeping the commandments", must've not been in effect in Mor Philoxenos' time, if you read his writings as presented, since it's all in there. Yet Mormons would have us believe otherwise. That's why the title of the thread is "Against Mormon claims about Christians and keeping the commandments". I knew in advance that you Mormons don't know about Mor Philoxenos, and your replies are showing me that you have absolutely no reply to his example, which by its mere existence (since his words are a settled part of the historical record, as far as concerns the teaching of the Syriac Orthodox in the late fifth/early sixth century) completely explodes your 'Great Apostasy' theory, unless you are willing to push it back until sometime after the early sixth century, which is far too late to support Mormonism's alternate history of the Christian Church. (And that can simply be answered by quoting another, even later writer, as we've never discarded the basic necessity to keep the commandments of God; I would say no Christian community has, as that is a requirement in Christianity period, even if we don't all agree with one another on what exactly that entails -- e.g., if it means "being in union with Rome" as the Catholics would say, or if it means rejecting particular traditions as some of the Protestant Reformers would say, etc.)

which side-steps the thorny issue of having to keep the commandments and sets you free to do whatever you wish.

Frankly, if you read any of the Fathers (Chalcedonian, Non-Chalcedonian, whatever) and come away with the idea that they teach that you are "free to do whatever you wish", all that shows us is that you are functionally illiterate.

Now the bishop can behave like they behaved and still preach their new gospel. And anyone resist or makes waves, the king gets involved. Is this the Church of Jesus Christ? I don't think so.

You're right: It isn't the Church of Christ Jesus, Peter -- because it isn't an accurate portrayal of the historical Christian Church. At all. It's Mormon pseudo-history given to us by someone who is himself sidestepping the issue that the OP is actually about in favor of preaching Mormonism to people who frankly know much better than you do the actual history of Christianity that you are trying to replace with said Mormon pseudo-history. You are in over your head here, my friend. Time to go back to those basic Christian history books you claim to have read. Maybe get some new ones, if what you're posting here is a reflection of the quality of the ones you've already consulted.

Are you ever going to actually address the content and argument of the OP? I've even re-summarized it for you in this reply. If you aren't going to address it, just say so that I can know to ignore any future replies you write in this thread. (I don't want to get in the way of your conversation with Ignatius the Kiwi, which is more about your subsequent posts than the OP.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Who is -- if you've been following the thread -- a successor to at least one of the apostles. ("At least" because some sees were evangelized by pairs, e.g., Peter and Paul, Bartholomew and Thaddeus, Mari and Addai, etc.)

That is the 64,000,000 dollar question. And if you are saying "who is", then you know that none of your bishops were ever ordained by a living apostle. Was Mark an apostle?

You are right; I don't have the Mormon understanding of this concept. I am a Christian, not a Mormon.

Just read your bible in respects to the words 'keys to the kingdom of heaven', 'priesthood',
'bind and loose', 'ordained', 'apostles', 'prophets''bishops', 'elders', 'priests', 'teachers', 'seventy', 'deacons', 'foundation of the church', 'Jesus chief cornerstone'.

All of these words have to do with the power and authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints. This is the true Christian way.

The Christian way today is this: A man thinks he has a calling from God to grow a congregation and build up a church, so he goes to an organization that can give him a certificate of eduction and make him a pastor, then educate him on how to fund-raise and advertise, and get legal corporate documents, and how to organize his church, then he goes to work.

This is not the early Christian way.

How do keys 'die'?

They really do not die, but are inoperative for that area where a bishop/keyholder has died. An authority from the church that holds the keys must return to choose another bishop and ordain him and give him his keys of authority. Then he can go to work.

Wait...the living bishop passes on his own keys to the new bishop, or the dead apostles' keys -- the keys that 'died' with the apostle?

Hold on, don't get yourself all confused. A living bishop cannot pass his keys on to another living bishop. That is the duty of an apostle. A living apostle can only pass keys to a bishop.

Living apostles can, as you read in the bible, meet and choose another apostle by revelation from Jesus Christ, and ordain him with the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And for a time in the first century church that is what happened to keep alive the quorum of 12 apostles.

Living bishops cannot pass their keys on to another bishop nor can they pass dead apostles keys on to another bishop.

Yeah -- the historic Christian Church happens, and Mormonism has no reason to exist.

Yeah that is what happened, the apostles were murdered and eventually were not replaced by the Lord. This happened for reasons within and outside the churches. So the existing bishops started to choose and ordain other bishops. Not very long after this, they lost the entire knowledge of the keys and did not have the power to bind and loose. They had the appearance of truth, but did not have the authority of the apostles.

As you said "who is" or ordained by a living apostle.

And none of them will mean anything, because you don't know what you're talking about.

All the examples I can give from the Comprehensive Church History you know are right on target. As soon as the apostles were murdered and out of the way, all hell broke loose in the churches, both from within and without.

For instance, Constantinople wasn't founded until 330 AD, whereas the city that would be known as Nicaea was renamed that in 301 BC, and obviously had a preexisting Christian hierarchy in the area from a pre-conciliar date, seeing as how it was chosen to be the site of the first Ecumenical Council in 325 AD -- five years before the founding of Constantinople.

Tell me how the bishop of a city that doesn't exist yet would go about ordaining a bishop anywhere, let alone in Nicaea? Going by actual Christian history (which I already know you aren't, but let's pretend for the sake of this paragraph), you must be talking about some period after Constantinople's elevation in 381 at the first Council of Constantinople in that year, as before that it had been under the purview of Nicomedia until it was raised to the level of its own separate metropolis in the time of Emperor Valens (r. 364-78). The problem in doing that, of course, is that to suggest that Constantinople would be ordaining a bishop for Nicaea, you must recognize that Christian history actually happened as recorded by the Church itself. That's the whole point of the OP (even though I clearly wasn't talking about ecclesiology in it, but about what is preserved in theology and praxis well into the period of the 'Great Apostasy') that you seem to be dodging in favor of focusing on individual personalities to prove...something...even though that doesn't prove anything. The OP says that Christian history happened as recorded, as well, and you are tacitly agreeing with it without realizing you're doing that, because you don't know enough about Christian history to be able to tell that's what you're doing. You're doing so by accident by suggesting this particular scenario.

That was only an example of what could happen, I don't need all the actual facts. You know exactly what I mean about the intrigue of the church in the time of Constantine. In fact Constantine became the defacto president of the church because everyone looked to him for their power and authority to function in their areas. He put more bishops on thrones than any leader in the church since Peter.

Did he have the 'keys to the kingdom of heaven'? You would think so, the way he bound bishops to their thrones and excommunicated or exiled bishops from their thrones. And guess what, the other bishops just let him do this, why, because of his 'keys', no, it was because of his army. Pretty simple. I guarantee you that heaven did not recognize one iota of what Constantine did, or the bishops put in place by this tyrant. Do you think otherwise?

Yeah, no. Did Nestorius' friendships help him? No. And he was Patriarch of Constantinople!

Heavens no, that is because there were factions that wanted him dead, so they could take his place as bishop of the emperor. It was a nasty, nasty time in Christendom.

You're not saying anything that St. John Chrysostom didn't already say much earlier and much better, but St. John never therefore argued as you do that this represents a 'Great Apostasy' wherein the Church itself is taken away from the earth to be restored later by some guy. Because St. John the Golden-Mouthed was himself a Christian bishop, and Christians don't believe in restorationist codswallop.

You quote one of the good guys in Christian history, and he did his best to stop the corruption of the church, which he recongized clearly. But what happened to John? He was exiled and put out to pasture because of the factions inside Constantinople that did not want the reforms that John was pushing for. Interesting when he was under siege he wrote a letter to Rome for help, and I thought it was good to see how they thought of each other at that time:

Faced with exile, John Chrysostom wrote an appeal for help to three churchmen: Pope Innocent I, Venerius the Bishop of Milan, and the third to Chromatius, the Bishop of Aquileia.[30][31][32] In 1872, church historian William Stephens wrote:
The Patriarch of the Eastern Rome appeals to the great bishops of the West, as the champions of an ecclesiastical discipline which he confesses himself unable to enforce, or to see any prospect of establishing. No jealousy is entertained of the Patriarch of the Old Rome by the Patriarch of the New Rome. The interference of Innocent is courted, a certain primacy is accorded him, but at the same time he is not addressed as a supreme arbitrator; assistance and sympathy are solicited from him as from an elder brother, and two other prelates of Italy are joint recipients with him of the appeal.[33]

Bolded means flat out apostasy, as stated by John Chrysostom himself. I really do like John.

You're right: It isn't the Church of Christ Jesus, Peter -- because it isn't an accurate portrayal of the historical Christian Church. At all. It's Mormon pseudo-history given to us by someone who is himself sidestepping the issue that the OP is actually about in favor of preaching Mormonism to people who frankly know much better than you do the actual history of Christianity that you are trying to replace with said Mormon pseudo-history. You are in over your head here, my friend. Time to go back to those basic Christian history books you claim to have read. Maybe get some new ones, if what you're posting here is a reflection of the quality of the ones you've already consulted.

I have read one Moroman book on the apostasy, but I have read many Comprehensive books of Christian history and I have read many of the apostolic fathers and church fathers. It is undeniable to me that the apostasy took place. I was looking for it in the pages, I must confess, so it was much easier for me to find it than for you, but it seemed like on every page there was a knew theory about a doctrine that challenged the existing doctrine and a knew group showed up and made its pitch to the others that they were the true church, and the ruthless ways that the leaders of the church put down these interruptions was enough to prove to me that the Holy Spirit was not in them, as they sat in council to try to come to a solution. From about 150 to 500 it went from bad to worse, from worse to better, then back to worse, depending on who the bishop was or the kin..g was. So that's just me, but I believe the apostasy took place.

Ok, OK here is my response to the OP.
Around 400 a man by the name of Pelagius (I'm sure you know him) was going around the churches teaching that we had to get back to the ideals of the first century church. That was to keep the commandments as Jesus had taught them. We must be engaged in good works.
Augustine, resisted this notion and taught that divine aid through grace was one saved, not of works lest we boast.
So the debate was rampant then in 400 and it is still rampant today, although because Augustine won the debate with Pelagius, the church turned sharply away from good works, and towards grace.

I have not read the works of Mor Philoxenos, but if he is telling us that we must do more in keeping the commandments as Jesus taught us to, then good on him and good on the Christian churches if they will hear him. But as you say the larger share of Christendom does not hear him. Too bad.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,786
Pacific Northwest
✟728,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Word of advice to the Mormons posting here: Arguing Mormon apologetics here isn't going to work with any of us because we simply do not accept the foundational premises with which you operate.

Don't talk about "priesthood authority" until you can actually demonstrate that "priesthood authority" is a concept that exists independently of uniquely Mormon writings and teachings.

If you argue that the bishops of the historic Churches aren't valid because bishops need to be ordained by a "living apostle", then demonstrate that this is supposed to be the case--using clear, unambiguous statements from the Bible and any historical works you are able to use.

Because you need to get to the foundations here.

Why, if living apostles are necessary, did none of the apostles say so? Why did nobody prior to Joseph Smith say so?

Because If I were to tell you that the "true church" needs to have a guy named Steve in every congregation, you might want to know why I think that. And if I say, "Well, there was always supposed to be a Steve in every congregation" You might rightly ask me why I can say that. And if I say, "Oh, I found something in my backyard and God totally spoke to me and said so. Also, my best friends will totally vouch for me that this happened." You might, I don't know, find that a little suspicious? You might want that I still actually provide something like a good argument for why there needs to be a Steve.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Note to Peter1000: I am engaging you here only because it is my own thread, so I started the conversation, and there are obviously some things that need to be corrected in your reply, lest you get a wrong idea about what you have read here. You are still blocked generally from my view, due to your persistent malformed desire to make everything we discuss be about my Church and Chalcedon. That's not any more relevant here than it would be anywhere else, except for the fact that we are dealing with a distinctly Non-Chalcedonian saint here...hence the interaction in this case, rather than keeping you blocked, for the defense of the faith that you have clearly misunderstood.

With all of that out of the way, concerning your reply...

That is the 64,000,000 dollar question. And if you are saying "who is", then you know that none of your bishops were ever ordained by a living apostle. Was Mark an apostle?

Absolutely, he is. We call him in Coptic Markos pi-Apostolos, "Mark the Apostle", or more fully, pi-Theorimos en-Evangelistis Markos pi-Apostolos "The beholder of God and Evangelist St. Mark the Apostle". He evangelized the Egyptians starting in the first century, establishing our Church in that land and elsewhere (he was from Libya, so it is sometimes said that he first went to Libya before going to Alexandria; it is possible, I suppose), and it is entirely acceptable within traditional Christianity to consider the first person/people to go to a people with the gospel message "the apostle" to that people. By what right was St. Paul an apostle, as he calls himself in the Bible in his epistles, other than being "the apostle to the Gentiles"? He was not of the 12 commissioned during the life of Christ, after all.

So this is standard stuff. Furthermore, St. Mark was one of the 70 (or 72, if you read the Vulgate).

Just read your bible in respects to the words 'keys to the kingdom of heaven', 'priesthood',
'bind and loose', 'ordained', 'apostles', 'prophets''bishops', 'elders', 'priests', 'teachers', 'seventy', 'deacons', 'foundation of the church', 'Jesus chief cornerstone'.

All of these words have to do with the power and authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints. This is the true Christian way.

I do "just read my Bible", Peter. I wasn't born yesterday; I know these things that are you talking about happen to be points of difference between the various Christian communions, most easily summarized as "the ecclesiology of Rome vs. everybody else" (for different reasons, depending on who you are talking to and what their background is). And you are essentially doing what Rome is accused of doing regularly: reading back your own ecclesiology into the text, and into the history, in places and times where it definitely wasn't.

So saying "Just read your Bible" is a meaningless statement. I have read it, and do read it, and see nothing of the Mormon claims in it. What now? Your claims are baseless, historically and logically.

The Christian way today is this: A man thinks he has a calling from God to grow a congregation and build up a church, so he goes to an organization that can give him a certificate of eduction and make him a pastor, then educate him on how to fund-raise and advertise, and get legal corporate documents, and how to organize his church, then he goes to work.

This is absolutely false with regard to my Church, and even if it were more generally "the Christian way" (which I don't know that is, but I don't know every single type of church that is out there), what would it have to with the writings of a 5th-6th century Syriac Orthodox bishop and ascetic? That's not "today". That's the point of the thread -- all the way back then, it was still the case that XYZ (things that Mormons claim were 'taken from the earth', or lost in the Great Apostasy of early Christianity) were in fact still present, while Mormon-specific beliefs were condemned.

They really do not die, but are inoperative for that area where a bishop/keyholder has died. An authority from the church that holds the keys must return to choose another bishop and ordain him and give him his keys of authority. Then he can go to work.

Again, so 'the keys' of your ecclesiological conception of the Church are essentially alive? They are 'living' when the bishop holding them is alive, but then go 'inoperative' when he has passed on, then 'come back to life' when another bishop is chosen? This is totally bizarre. Sounds like a parody of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, but I don't think they are that extreme. Same with the next section in your reply about an apostle passing on keys to a bishop. Where is that in the early Church? Nowhere. Nowhere at all. 'Apostle' is not, nor has it ever been, a rank or office to be held within the Church hierarchy.

Yeah that is what happened, the apostles were murdered and eventually were not replaced by the Lord.

Where is your proof of this accusation, particularly in light of what the historical record shows actually happened? Anyone can claim that "the Lord" did or didn't do this or that, but clearly only one thing actually happened. So where is your evidence that no more bishops were "ordained by the Lord"? Again, if you take this as literally as you seem to, then it must've been the Lord's plan to have the Church die and completely go away c. 106 AD with the death of St. John (who incidentally was not murdered).

Is this your belief about God and His plan, or not? If it is, then at least you are consistent, even though it is insane and contradicted by all available evidence (there absolutely no actual evidence to the contrary).

If it isn't (if God did not intend for the Church to completely vanish and go away with the death of the last apostle), then how do you sustain your very unique ecclesiology and belief in the 'Great Apostasy'?

Again, we're talking about God here -- what He either did or did not do. So there is no wiggle room. You either believe this about God or you don't. Please answer accordingly.

Not very long after this, they lost the entire knowledge of the keys and did not have the power to bind and loose. They had the appearance of truth, but did not have the authority of the apostles.

So now because they supposedly lost the knowledge of the keys, they then no longer had the authority? I'm sorry, this is very confusing. Earlier you treated the keys as though they were somehow living objects that can be passed from one man to another, and now you're talking about the knowledge of the keys being indicative of having or not having authority. Which is it -- the 'physical' or quasi-physical passing of the keys (living objects), or the passing on of the knowledge of them? If it's about knowledge, does the fact that you've told me all about them mean that I now have the authority to bind and lose? After all, now I have knowledge of them, and from a Mormon to boot. I don't understand how this is supposed to work.

All the examples I can give from the Comprehensive Church History you know are right on target.

No, I don't know that. I expect to be an adult and defend what you're claiming with period sources, not just claim "You know I'm right". In actuality, I think this is some of the most warped reading of Christian history I have ever seen in my entire life. But if it's something you can defend, that shouldn't matter, right? So get to it!

That was only an example of what could happen, I don't need all the actual facts.

Clearly. :rolleyes: Or rather, you do need them but do not care whether or not what you write lines up with them, and so your argument suffers accordingly because it can be shown that you don't even know the basics of what you're talking about. You're completely out of your element, and it could not be more obvious. This is fixable, if you'd actually care to fix it by learning things, instead of simply declaring yourself right, apropos of nothing.

You know exactly what I mean about the intrigue of the church in the time of Constantine.

Peter, why do you keep responding as though we are on the same page about things when you are peddling Da Vinci Code-level conspiracy nonsense in response to a request for actual period sources akin to that of the OP? It's not that I don't know what you think happened, but rather that what you think happened is apparently influenced by modern fantasy writings rather than history as recorded at the time. 'Intrigue' is irrelevant. Only what is actually recorded matters, because anyone can claim anything if no actual evidence is required. As you can hopefully tell by now, that's now how I work. "You know exactly what I mean" -- No. Stop it. This is not a Mormon meetinghouse. You're not among the default like-minded. Prove what you claim.

Heavens no, that is because there were factions that wanted him dead, so they could take his place as bishop of the emperor. It was a nasty, nasty time in Christendom.

Case in point, where do you get this fantasy from? Nestorius was exiled first (at his request) to a monastery in or near Antioch, and from there exiled to Egypt, where he lived until at least 451, dying shortly after the Council of Chalcedon (this is according to pro-Nestorian sources like the absurd "Lynching of Nestorius" that you can find quoted on Wikipedia and other places, written by one Stephen M. Ulrich of "The Institute of Holy Land Studies", which never goes so far as to suggest an actual lynching). This is far from the paranoid fantasy where everyone wanted him dead so they could take his place. I don't know where that's coming from. They wouldn't have had to kill him to do that, since he was already exiled.

You quote one of the good guys in Christian history, and he did his best to stop the corruption of the church, which he recongized clearly. But what happened to John? He was exiled and put out to pasture because of the factions inside Constantinople that did not want the reforms that John was pushing for.

Evidence for the bolded part, please!

Faced with exile, John Chrysostom wrote an appeal for help to three churchmen: Pope Innocent I, Venerius the Bishop of Milan, and the third to Chromatius, the Bishop of Aquileia.[30][31][32] In 1872, church historian William Stephens wrote:
The Patriarch of the Eastern Rome appeals to the great bishops of the West, as the champions of an ecclesiastical discipline which he confesses himself unable to enforce, or to see any prospect of establishing. No jealousy is entertained of the Patriarch of the Old Rome by the Patriarch of the New Rome. The interference of Innocent is courted, a certain primacy is accorded him, but at the same time he is not addressed as a supreme arbitrator; assistance and sympathy are solicited from him as from an elder brother, and two other prelates of Italy are joint recipients with him of the appeal.

How on earth is this evidence of anything at all? HH St. John Chrysostom being unable to enforce ecclesiastical discipline on dissenting parties in his region is corruption? That's a rather strange definition of corruption, as the same was true of bishops of Rome at an even earlier date, to whom HH Pope Dionysius of Alexandria similarly wrote letters in guidance, to remind them of the appropriate way to deal with the conflicts they were having with the other churches over the issue of baptisms done by heretical bodies. They couldn't just force the African and Asian churches to accept their own view, either. Is that "corruption", too?

And if so, then is it not also corruption that the LDS could not to this day stop all who claim the Mormon religion from being in polygamous marriages (as the fundamentalist sects of your religion still practice), and even more obviously corruption that it took the LDS themselves until 1910 to formally ban the practice, despite earlier sections of the Doctrine and Covenants dating from 1835 which stated that monogamy is the law of the Latter Day Saint religion -- issued even while Joseph Smith himself was actually living and practicing polygamy? (He married Emma Hale in 1827 and Fanny Alger in 1833.) That's somehow not corruption but "St. John couldn't get what he wanted" is?

Around 400 a man by the name of Pelagius (I'm sure you know him) was going around the churches teaching that we had to get back to the ideals of the first century church. That was to keep the commandments as Jesus had taught them. We must be engaged in good works.
Augustine, resisted this notion and taught that divine aid through grace was one saved, not of works lest we boast.
So the debate was rampant then in 400 and it is still rampant today, although because Augustine won the debate with Pelagius, the church turned sharply away from good works, and towards grace.

How is this in any way, shape, or form a response to the OP? That conflict occurred well before the time of Mor Philoxenos, and is unrelated to the evidence given in his writings that the very things that Mormons claim were taken from the Church at an early date did in fact remain (as they do to this day) well into the period when the 'Great Apostasy' is claimed to have happened/been happening, as well as incidental but very telling refutations of what JS and Co. would later claim were 'restored' from the early Church.

And also, even if it were relevant (which it isn't, at all), Pelagius was allowed after his condemnation (Synod of Carthage, 418) to settle in Alexandria by none other than HH St. Cyril, despite the condemnation of Pelagius as a heretic at the Council of Ephesus in 431, after Pelagius' death. A council which HH St. Cyril presided over.

Kinda makes you think that your depictions of Church history are decidedly more shallow than what actually happened, doesn't it? Or at least I believe it really should.

I cannot imagine going through life claiming to be Christian while knowing essentially nothing of the history of the religion which I have attached myself to, and instead assuming that there is a big conspiracy behind everything and corruption in every place where leaders might have disagreements or fail to be able to meet their goals for this or that reason. Surely Joseph Smith was not granted absolutely everything, right? He never made good on what was first presented as a 'revelation' concerning the selling of the copyright to the BOM in Canada, for instance. Ah! Apostasy! :p

Sorry...I still can't get over what a ridiculous idea you seem to have in your head as evidence of corruption or apostasy. If that's how things work, then your religion is in apostasy, as well. But of course something tells me that you won't measure it in the same way.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Word of advice to the Mormons posting here: Arguing Mormon apologetics here isn't going to work with any of us because we simply do not accept the foundational premises with which you operate.

Don't talk about "priesthood authority" until you can actually demonstrate that "priesthood authority" is a concept that exists independently of uniquely Mormon writings and teachings.

If you argue that the bishops of the historic Churches aren't valid because bishops need to be ordained by a "living apostle", then demonstrate that this is supposed to be the case--using clear, unambiguous statements from the Bible and any historical works you are able to use.

Because you need to get to the foundations here.

Why, if living apostles are necessary, did none of the apostles say so? Why did nobody prior to Joseph Smith say so?

Because If I were to tell you that the "true church" needs to have a guy named Steve in every congregation, you might want to know why I think that. And if I say, "Well, there was always supposed to be a Steve in every congregation" You might rightly ask me why I can say that. And if I say, "Oh, I found something in my backyard and God totally spoke to me and said so. Also, my best friends will totally vouch for me that this happened." You might, I don't know, find that a little suspicious? You might want that I still actually provide something like a good argument for why there needs to be a Steve.

-CryptoLutheran

These offices and concepts are the legalese of the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints, as contained in your Bible. They present a model of how the first century church grew and how it was administered, and who administered it.

What you have to remember is that the 'foundation' of the first century church was:
Ephesians 2:19-22 King James Version (KJV)
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

IOW, this is the foundation that Jesus set up to administer his church. It is this foundation that assures that the buidling is fitly framed together and groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. It is this foundation that builds together an habitation of God through the Spirit.

To further emphasize the reason for the apostles and prophets, we read why Jesus gave them:
Ephesians 4:11-14 King James Version (KJV)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.
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.
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.


So can the saints be perfected without apostles and prophets and other? NO, according to Jesus.
So can the work of the ministry be done properly without apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul. Bishops cannot be ordained without the apostles, that is part of their ministry.
So can the body of Christ be edified without apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul.
So can we come in the unity of the faith without apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul.
So can we come to a knowledge of the Son of God without apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul.
So can we be a perfect man, that measures up to the stature of the fullness of Christ, without apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul.
So can we be no more children without the apostles and prophets and others? NO, according to Paul.
So can we be tossed to and fro without apostles and prophets and others? YES, according to Paul.
So can we be carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive? YES, according to Paul.

Now after Jesus set the legal foundation, he set up the legal administration of the church and this is how he did it:
John 15:16 & 27 King James Version (KJV)
16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

Jesus first chose 12 apostles and ordained them, and legally set up the foundation of the church Jesus gives them further power to administer his church. See next scripures:

Matthew 16:18-19 King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This legal scripture is packed. Jesus give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and then tells him what power and authority he has when he holds them. This brings us to the binding and loosing power.

Whoever holds these keys, Jesus says that whatever they do on earth will be recognized in heaven. So if Peter baptizes and person into the church, (binds that person to the church) heaven recognizes that baptism and records the name of that person in the book of life. If for some reason that person has to be excommunicated and Peter excommunicates that person, (looses this persons membership in the church), heaven recognizes this excommunication and takes that person name out of the book of life).

You cannot administer this church without the 'keys to the kingdom of God".

What Jesus did next was give this same power of binding and loosing to the other apostles, however he did not give them the keys, like he gave Peter. There is only 1 man on the earth that has all the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven' in his control at one time.

Matthew 18:18 King James Version (KJV)
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Now the apostles were endowed with power to administer the church, he gave all worthy men in the church the power to work in the name of the Lord as they were needed and called by the apostles to administer churches in their local areas. The first thing Jesus did was give the overall power to men called the holy priesthood:
1 Peter 2:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

AND

1 Peter 2:9 King James Version (KJV)

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

Now that Jesus has set up the foundation of the church and given the apostles the keys to administer the church, and has given all men the priesthood to act in the name of the Lord and do his will, the apostles had what they needed to go out and build up the church all over the world. That is what they did, and the following offices of the priesthood were set up to administer the church in local areas:
1) bishops (Titus 1:6-8)
2) elders (Acts 14:22-24)
3) priests (1 Peter 2:9 NIRV)
4) teachers (Ephesians 4:11)
5) seventy (Luke 10:1)
6) deacons (1 Timothy 3:7-9)
7) evangelists (Ephesians 4:11)
8) pastors (Ephesians 4:11)

With these administrators in place the apostles could continue to go around the Roman world and a little beyond at that time and set up many churches with functioning administrators. And the church grew daily as the Lord added to it.

So keep the following list of Biblical concepts and offices to know that the priesthood and it offices were present and working in the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints.
1) keys of the kingdom of heaven
2) priesthood
3) bind and loose
4) ordained
5) apostles
6) prophets
7) bishops
8) elders
9) priests
10) teachers
11) seventy
12) deacons
13) evangelists
14) pastors
15) foundation of the church
16) Jesus chief cornerstone

So the Biblical foundation of the church is set and sure. And the other offices of the building are tightly fit together.
You have to ask yourself, what is the foundation of your church? Do you have apostles and prophets and evangelists and pastors and teachers and deacon and elders and bishops and priests and is every worthy man ordained to the royal priesthood. Do you have the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Christian churches will have to say Jesus Christ and the Bible is our foundation. Is that what the first century church had, NO, according to Paul. So I hope I answered these questions:

1) Don't talk about "priesthood authority" until you can actually demonstrate that "priesthood authority" is a concept that exists independently of uniquely Mormon writings and teachings.

2) you argue that the bishops of the historic Churches aren't valid because bishops need to be ordained by a "living apostle", then demonstrate that this is supposed to be the case--using clear, unambiguous statements from the Bible and any historical works you are able to use.

3) Because you need to get to the foundations here.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,508
6,395
Midwest
✟78,539.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed

WOW! Well done!


In conclusion, to both Mormons and non-Mormons, I have presented this to show in a few ways how the claims of Mormons that Christianity or Christians don't do XYZ are falsified by looking at the history of what is actually preserved of what Christians did and why. They (Mormons) say we don't keep the commandments, but we are taught here that keeping the commandments is part of making the first steps into the Christian life...

Christians do things a lot of times "not before men."

Matthew 6
1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.


So it's almost as though the Great Apostasy did not happen, and several of the charges of the Mormons are easily refuted, but they make them anyway because they are completely ignorant of Christian history and choose to remain so that they can remain comfortable in their Mormon bubble where nothing that we present as being actually historical can pop it.


If your religion can be defended of itself, it should not rely on inventing false histories and false events and thereby responding to them instead of true history and true events.

I agree.
 
Upvote 0