No, but there is a record that at least these 7 churches were challenged in their day. Jesus even warned them of their good points and bad. But he said if they did not repent they would be excluded from the 7 candlesticks. 6 of 7 no longer exist so they are excluded, and the 7th is about 500 people scattered among 12 small churches among 4,000,000 muslims.Christians make up the churches, not the buildings. Christians were either killed by Muslims or Moved to another place. There is no record that any of them became Muslims that I know of.
So after reading your post #17 & 18, wouldn't you think that the Christian church that you belong to would have these biblical offices, (ie. apostles, bishops, elders, priests, deacons, teachers, pastors?Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).
Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).
Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).
What the Early Church Believed: Bishop, Priest, and Deacon
By reading the Biblical texts one can see that the above is correct.
I addressed this already but I don't mind answering it again. Given the tumultuous nature of that region in general and especially the Islamic dominance of Asia Minor in latter centuries, why would you expect those specific communities to be around, intact and preserved when the people most probably did move to Greece or some other part of Europe or were probably just outright killed? Had the Roman Empire managed to survive and hold on to them to this day there would still be Orthodox Christian communities there.No, but there is a record that at least these 7 churches were challenged in their day. Jesus even warned them of their good points and bad. But he said if they did not repent they would be excluded from the 7 candlesticks. 6 of 7 no longer exist so they are excluded, and the 7th is about 500 people scattered among 12 small churches among 4,000,000 muslims.
Is the disapperance of the 7 churches of Asia symptamatic of an apostacy?
Do you think I would say yes, murder is like apostasy. Be serious.I can think of nothing that is more of a waste of time than asking Mormons, whose entire religion is based on a complete replacement of actual Christian history with fantastic nonsense, to engage in something that requires them to handle historical evidence responsibly.
It's a good challenge, but absolutely the wrong people to put it to.
That said, a lot has been said by our friend Peter1000 regarding the 'churches of Asia' in St. Paul's time in comparison to today, when there are so few Christians in the corresponding territories of Asia Minor. I'm not entirely sure that this is such a bad comparison, in that in St. Paul's time we certainly couldn't have expected more than a few thousand (remember, this is the first century), and today we don't see all that much more than that, if we look at any one particular community (as the churches mentioned were particular communities). There are perhaps 80,000 Oriental Orthodox (represented by the Armenians and the Syriacs, both of whom are among the native people of the land), some 20,000 Antiochian Greeks (EO), 5,000 Greek Orthodox (EO), 35,000 Catholics of all kinds, and maybe 8,000 Protestants. At max that's under 500,000 people if taken all together, in a population of about 83 million, which is less than half of one percent. And so of course the number of churches is similarly limited. Again, this is more like the original church than Peter apparently realizes.
And of course, for Christians -- for whom the matter of numbers doesn't really concern us as much as it apparently does the Mormons (nevermind that they are a tiny, insignificant group in comparison to Christianity) -- it is a testament to our historical presence in the region that the communities that do remain there are mostly quite old. The monastery of Mor Gabriel in Tur 'Abdin ("The Mountain of the Servants" of God, in Syriac), in the south of the country, is for instance one of the oldest still-functioning monasteries in the entire world, being founded in 397 AD by two Syriac ascetics, Mor Samuel and his disciple Mor Simon. Here it is today, still being a place of worship for the local Syriac Orthodox community and a place of pilgrimage for Syriac people from abroad:
I guess my question to Mormons would be if the diminution of Christians in Turkey represents some kind of 'great apostasy' (even though before the genocides in the early 20th century, there were several million Christians in Turkey), then what are they to say when they themselves get kicked out of Ghana, as a different Mormon poster once pointed out to me happened in the late 1980s, or when today they face problems operating as openly as they'd like to in Russia? Why do they whine and complain about these things as 'persecution' and use them as proof that they are faithful while the rest of the world is in apostasy, but then when it comes to the near-complete transformation of Turkey into a Muslim state by even more violent means (I don't think Russia has murdered 2 million Mormons like Turkey did to its Christians of various confessions in 1914-1918), that's 'apostasy' of the Christian Church(es)?
What massive, blatant hypocrisy on the part of these people, and their prophets and religion.
Well, the Mormon theology that Jesus is the Son of God and was sent by him to the earth to save mankind from their sins, through the atonement on the cross, should have been taught, right? That is just 1 Mormon theology, I could mention many others.I addressed this already but I don't mind answering it again. Given the tumultuous nature of that region in general and especially the Islamic dominance of Asia Minor in latter centuries, why would you expect those specific communities to be around, intact and preserved when the people most probably did move to Greece or some other part of Europe or were probably just outright killed? Had the Roman Empire managed to survive and hold on to them to this day there would still be Orthodox Christian communities there.
Also, look into the second century evidence of these Churches via Polycarp and Ignatius and ask what evidence is there for apostasy, even before the Islamic invasions. They didn't become Gnostics and they didn't become any other form heretic. You might say they were not Mormon but there was no Mormon theology for them to believe in back then anyway. They obviously held Paul in high regard, thus these Churches did not abandon Pauline theology.
Do you think I would say yes, murder is like apostasy. Be serious.
Paul says very blatantly to Timothy:
2 Timothy 1:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
This statement and many others from Paul give us a sense that the situation in Asia was tenuous at best.
If Asia turn away from Paul, who did they turn to? What modifications was introduced into the teachings of Paul?
Were the churches of Asia turning into the church that Diotrephes was preeminent in (probably the bishop)
3 John 9-10 King James Version (KJV)
9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
How many churches eventually did not let John or Paul come and visit?
Could it be more than you think?
Could it be the reason that God stopped ordaining apostles for the church, because the church was slowly rejecting them?
Were bishops growing more powerful and more territorial and minding the secular power more than the spiritual power?
Well, the Mormon theology that Jesus is the Son of God and was sent by him to the earth to save mankind from their sins, through the atonement on the cross, should have been taught, right? That is just 1 Mormon theology, I could mention many others.
No, but there is a record that at least these 7 churches were challenged in their day. Jesus even warned them of their good points and bad. But he said if they did not repent they would be excluded from the 7 candlesticks.
6 of 7 no longer exist so they are excluded, and the 7th is about 500 people scattered among 12 small churches among 4,000,000 muslims.
Is the disappearance of the 7 churches of Asia symptomatic of an apostasy?
So after reading your post #17 & 18, wouldn't you think that the Christian church that you belong to would have these biblical offices, (ie. apostles, bishops, elders, priests, deacons, teachers, pastors?
Who are the leaders of your church. Most evangelical churches today have 1 or more pastors. Yes pastor is mentioned in the bible but only once and did not seem to be the more important of the offices, such as bishop or elder or priest or deacon.
So again, who are the leaders of your church and are you comfortable that your leadership follows what the bible declares as the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints?
I am being serious. I'm not saying that you personally would say that, I'm saying that you are arguing as though it is the case, because that is the historical fact of how the Christian population of Asia Minor ended up as it is today.
Did most people abandon Christ for the religion of Muhammad? Yes. Constantinople was a city of hundreds of churches, and today Istanbul is very much not so. But how it got to be that way is not something you can rework into an apologetic for Mormonism, unless you absolutely don't care about what really happened -- and as usual, we see that Mormons such as yourself and others absolutely do not care about what really happened.
Why are you assuming any such 'modifications' based on such a motivated reading of the passage? That is nowhere even hinted at.
So he's talking about one guy who was puffed up and thought he knew better than the Church, and conducted himself accordingly. Why does such a characterization apply to the Christian Church and not to Mormonism, exactly? Mormonism was founded by one such man, after all (Joseph Smith), and continued by others who were similarly convinced that they and they alone knew better than the Church.
Does it really matter when we have the epistles written to places where they were not at that time currently visiting? Do they have to physically be everywhere to be received, or do we still read the Pauline Epistles to this day, in America as well as Rome or Thessaloniki?
Again, does it matter? You are arguing as though through the absence of churches in a particular geographical location where they used to be, the Mormon 'great apostasy' is confirmed. Well in that case, I've already presented written and video evidence (the video from the monastery of Mor Gabriel was from 2018, and it has yet to be taken over since, despite the evil Turkish government's legal assault on it) that the churches and the Christians remain, no matter their number. Again, the monastery of Mor Gabriel was founded in 397 and has been continuously inhabited by Syriac Orthodox worshipers since then. That's 1,408 years before Joseph Smith was even born, so who the hell are you or any Mormon to make any claim on the churches of Asia or what they represent? Seriously, get out of here with that nonsense. If you can't accept history -- and your religion's insane alternate history narrative mandates that you do not -- then there's no point in arguing historically with you. You don't care to know the true history of anything.
This assumes that the Mormon delusion of 'apostle' as some kind of church office separate from that of bishop ever actually existed, and there is no evidence to support that claim.
I can't speak for every bishop ever, but I'm sure that those who were deposed and/or exiled over the centuries, either synodically (e.g., St. John Chrysostom, at the repudiated Synod of the Oak) or by government decree (e.g., HH Pope Shenouda III from 1981 to 1985, or HH Abune Antonios of Eritrea, from 2007 to present) have plenty to say about this idea that they are somehow after secular power.
Frankly, Peter, your insinuations almost fail at being insulting because they're so disconnected from reality. You have in your mind some image of a 'game of thrones', as you like to put it, but this is not medieval European Christianity we're talking about, so it really doesn't fit anything that has gone on in the real world. In the real world, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch HH Gregory V was executed by the Turks in 1821 as surely as HH Abune Theophilos of Ethiopia was strangled to death by the Derg government in that in 1979. There's your "minding secular power", you disingenuous prattler.
I am not playing games. You said: You might say they were not Mormon but there was no Mormon theology for them to believe in back then anyway.Let's not play games. You know what I mean by Mormon theology, those specific elements of beliefs not found in traditional Christian theology. Still, you're not addressing my main point. I see no evidence of a grand apostasy especially of asia minor.
I am not playing games. You said: You might say they were not Mormon but there was no Mormon theology for them to believe in back then anyway.
This is a blatantly false statement and I could not let you get away with it.
I will give you a list of 7 doctrines that our church believes in that the first century church people believed in too.
1) Jesus is the son of God.
2) Jesus is the creater of all things.
3) Jesus was made flesh and dwelt among men.
4) Jesus was crucified on a cross to atone for the sins of all men that believe in him.
5) Jesus was resurrected and sits on the side of his Father, God the Father in heaven now.
6) Jesus chose 12 apostles to be the foundation of a new church with him as the chief cornerstone.
7) In order to be a member of this church, one must:
Believe in Jesus Christ.
Repent and get themselves ready for baptism.
Be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, for the remisson of sins.
Recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost
(see Acts 2:37-38. men asked Peter, "what shall we do" on the day of Pentacost when they believed in Jesus, these are Peters instructions.)
This theology is straight out of the bible and we believe it, and would be very comfortable if we were transfered suddenly to the first century. And a first century person transferred suddently to our time would be comfortable with our church.
It is the apostles that chose and ordained elders in each church. From the elders the apostles chose and ordained bishops.The Apostles appointed Elders to rule local churches.
Was this just one church or was this one of many churches that were starting to be critical of the apostels.
That is why I wrote we would be comfortable in the first (and I will add, part of the second century) church, and they would be comfortable in our church today. But after Ignatius and Polycarp, things went downhill quickly and so by the end of the second century, we would not be comfortable with that church, and they would be uncomfortable with our church today.Since you are keen to play games and ignore Mormon distinctives, let's play games. Christianity accepts all of these doctrines, therefore there was no Apostasy to which you can point to since we believed in all of these things from the start.
Still, i find it hard to continue this conversation since you are not addressing the historical point I and others here are making. You've claimed that the lack of Churches (and Christians in general) today in Asia Minor is evidence of Apostasy. Dzhremmi did a good job laying out the history more thoroughly than I did and yet you haven't amended your initial claim.
You haven't even dealt with Ignatius or Polycarp as evidence of those Churches in Asia Minor accepting Paul. You've extrapolated from one text of the Bible a general attitude of Paul apparently being rejected, yet when we look at the legacy of Paul we find he was upheld by the pillars of the community the Bishops and the Fathers. What's the point of this conversation if we can't even address each other's points?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?