If God was to appear out of Heaven today and physically lift someone up to establish that they were certifying them as the official voice of Heaven, how would you react?
Upvote
0
LDS LDS, when did Jesus become God?
- Thread starter Rescued One
- Start date
If God was to appear out of Heaven today and physically lift someone up to establish that they were certifying them as the official voice of Heaven, how would you react?
Ignatius the Kiwi
Dissident
- Mar 2, 2013
- 7,099
- 3,777
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
I would wonder why he didn't do it sooner when there were faithful men and women all throughout history who sought after him. They are now forever denied the highest happiness.
Upvote
0
- Dec 12, 2002
- 35,531
- 6,412
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
We have the same true prophets that were there in the early church's foundation and they are the foundation not walls.
When a firm foundation has been built, the builder doesn't need to build another foundation on it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
mmksparbud
Well-Known Member
- Dec 3, 2011
- 17,312
- 6,821
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
2Co_11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
That "God" would have to stand up to some scrutiny by me. At some point in time, this will probably happen on a grander scale. The bible stands as to what to believe.
1Ti_2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Upvote
0
Peter1000
Well-Known Member
This is the reason God did not keep the apostles and send new prophets:
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.
That is a lot of the early Christians. If they turned away from Paul, they either rejected Christ, or taught a new gospel, either way they rejected an apostle of the Lord and who knows if they accepted any of the others to come and teach them that they were on the wrong path and to repent and straighten up. I'm sure they didn't want to hear these kinds of words, so they just threw out the apostles and prophets. Done, gone.
Here is the reason they turned from Paul:
1 Corinthians 3:2 King James Version (KJV)
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
Remember that these were the same people that practically had a civil war in the church over who baptized them? Now, Paul tells us that they cannot bear to hear the "meat" of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and for this reason they were turning away from Paul and Jesus's gospel.
This is why the people threw out the apostles and prophets and why God was not able to bring new ones on:
2 Corinthians 11:12-15 King James Version (KJV)
12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
This happened in Paul's time, not JS's time.
This is another reason God did not replace apostles after a while:
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.
So what Christian church did Diotrephes's church turn into?
God was faithful with his church until after the apostles were gone and then they turned against him. When the church rejected the true gospel, Christ withdrew and their own wisdom took over, and we see from history how that worked out.
Upvote
0
Peter1000
Well-Known Member
Yes, Jesus did have 12 apostles, and he did send Seventy out to preach. Yes, that is all quite biblical. But to try to make a case that he named no prophets, therefore they are not important and should be thrown aside is a little short thinking.
Prophets are named by Paul as part of the foundation of the church. Ephesians 2:20
Prophets were set in the church by Jesus himself. 1 Corinthians 11:12-15.
Prophets were given to the church by Jesus himself. Ephesians 4:11-15.
And there are 20 other scriptures that give credence to the importance of prophets in the time of the first century.
If you see my post 305 you can get an idea why the church pulled away from apostles and prophets. Primarily because there were so many fake and false prophets that came among them, they threw out the baby with the dishwater.
These things come with a restitution/restoration of all things. One day we will sacrifice animals to God as in the days of ancient Israel. I have no idea how that will take place or how long, but we have been told that someday the sons of Levi will again offer sacrifices to their Lord. So it become very interesting.
That is right, see my post #305, it will give you some information why the office of apostleship did not evolve in your church.
Your right, the bishops took the place of the apostles and prophets, and it was bishop Diotrephes in 3 John 1:9-10 that rejected John the apostle and kicked members out of his church that did accept John in their homes. Is this just 1 bishop that went haywire or was it contageous, and eventually systemic. The Didache and other early writings indicate that the members eventually got to a point they could not trust men who came saying they were apostles and prophets and were rufused honor. Therefore the bishop became the primary office and eventually 5 mighty bishops became preeminent, with Rome become first among equals. Powerful, wealthy, arrogant, great oratory skills, ruthless, etc., etc., etc.
It is also interesting that you use the word "evolve", from early writings, and such. Where is the revelation from Jesus Christ to his apostle and prophets. Oh, that right, they are gone. So who gets the revelation? Or is everything based on the writings of the fathers that replaced current revelation from Jesus.
You quote this scripture that we quote to prove that we have the chance, if we overcome this world, to partake of the "divine nature", the same "divine nature" that God and Jesus enjoy. We will have the oosia as them. I am glad to see that you agree by quoting this scripture.
Well you sure wooshed away Ephesians 4:11-15. Looks like you have had centuries of meetings after meetings and philosophers after philosophers to somehow whitewash this scripture to mean nothing. Good work. Fortunately for us, JS through revelation of Jesus Christ, restored the office of apostle and prophets and bishops and elders, and teachers, and seventy, and priests etc. as was present in the Church of Jesus Christ of the First Century, and conspicuously missing in the Fourth Century. But, all is well and in tact today for the push to the second coming of Christ.
Upvote
0
Peter1000
Well-Known Member
What true prophets do you have today as in the first century?
As you know, a foundation can become corrupted over time and needs to be refurbished often. The Lord called other people to be apostles after the original 12. But see my post #305 to see why the foundation was partly disabled.
JS through the revelation of Jesus Christ restored the foundation to the first century brightness. Thank goodness.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
He is the way
Well-Known Member
When did Jesus become God? What does the Bible say?
(New Testament | Philippians 2:5 - 11)
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
(New Testament | Philippians 2:5 - 11)
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2003
- 47,493
- 27,114
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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
mmksparbud
Well-Known Member
- Dec 3, 2011
- 17,312
- 6,821
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Ignatius the Kiwi
Dissident
- Mar 2, 2013
- 7,099
- 3,777
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
Except what your quoting isn't the entire picture. Paul still wrote to the Corinthian Church, he still addressed faithful people. As Mormons should know there will be people who walk away and this can hardly be said to represent the entire Church. We must therefore judge the Church on the basis of what we know it to have done and said, rather than what we assume. You assume the Church fell into Apostasy, not because there is evidence of that happening but because Mormonism is dependent on it.
What do you do with men like Ignatius? How do you explain how sinful and evil men were able to preserve the New Testament and correctly guess it's contents over the centuries? How do you explain the martyrdom and faithful striving towards God throughout every century? I won't let you get away with the accusation that the Church was unfaithful as a whole. It is not our fault God didn't provide the necessary prophets to prevent the Church from falling astray. That was his responsibility. Not ours. The Mormon God could not keep up with his promises. Which makes sense, he is just a man after all.
Upvote
0
dzheremi
Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
- Aug 27, 2014
- 13,567
- 13,728
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
Peter, you do know that Corinth was not in the Roman province of Asia, right? So what St. Paul writes to Corinth about what he has taught them is not related to the people in the churches of Asia turning away from him, since they were completely different places and populations.
And Asia was not actually that large. It is not comparable in size nor directly related to what we call "Asia" today. Check it out:
Here is Corinth, for comparison:
As you can tell by the fact that you can see Ephesus, the 'capital'l of Asia, in the map showing Corinth above (look to the right; the name cuts off, but is clearly visible), you should conclude if you are being honest that these passages, even if you do relate them because your Mormon faith requires you to in order to claim its 'great apostasy' theory, aren't talking about some giant area. They are across the Aegean Sea from one another, but not really far away. While they didn't have cars back then, the driving distance is apparently only 99 miles, which makes me think that the sailing distance could be even less (since it's a straighter -- if not straight -- shot).
I don't want to understate it, because I'm sure in the ancient world it would've been quite a trek, but my point is that it is not this vast area containing so many people as it might seem when you first hear or read "Asia". It is not talking about a giant geographical area as that term is today.
And anyway, the second epistle to Timothy was, of course, written to Timothy, who was a disciple of St. Paul himself, so as to strengthen him in his own evangelistic works, not as evidence of some kind of 'apostasy'. Such was never witnessed by the early Church, and cannot be found in its writings but by the eisegesis (reading into scripture) of the self-interested who need it to be there for their own reasons (*COUGH COUGH*).
From the third homily on Second Timothy by our father St. John Chrysostom:
Then he describes his trials and temptations, not to depress his disciple, but to elevate him, that if he should ever fall into the same, he may not think it strange, when he looks back and remembers what things happened to his Teacher. What then says he? Since it was probable that Timothy might be apprehended, and be deserted, and be relieved by no friendly attention, or influence, or assistance, but be abandoned even by his friends and the faithful themselves, hear what he says, "This you know, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me." It seems that there were then in Rome many persons from the regions of Asia. "But no one stood by me," he says, no one acknowledged me, all were alienated. And observe the philosophy of his soul. He only mentions their conduct, he does not curse them, but he praises him that showed kindness to him, and invokes a thousand blessings upon him, without any curse on them. "Of whom is Phygellus and Hermogenes. The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain. But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out diligently and found me." Observe how he everywhere speaks of the shame, and not of the danger, lest Timothy should be alarmed. And yet it was a thing that was full of peril. For he gave offense to Nero by making friends with one of his prisoners. But when he was in Rome, he says, he not only did not shun intercourse with me, but "sought me out very diligently, and found me."
So, to prepare St. Timothy for the alienation he was likely to experience as an evangelist, his father St. Paul reminds him that he himself experienced the same from all the people of Asia (see above map), but there were also still some who did not shun him, but actually sought him out.
In short, there is no apostasy here or in the other passages you have improperly invoked.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Peter1000
Well-Known Member
Well, if you start counting miles, we have:Peter, you do know that Corinth was not in the Roman province of Asia, right? So what St. Paul writes to Corinth about what he has taught them is not related to the people in the churches of Asia turning away from him, since they were completely different places and populations.
And Asia was not actually that large. It is not comparable in size nor directly related to what we call "Asia" today. Check it out:
Here is Corinth, for comparison:
As you can tell by the fact that you can see Ephesus, the 'capital'l of Asia, in the map showing Corinth above (look to the right; the name cuts off, but is clearly visible), you should conclude if you are being honest that these passages, even if you do relate them because your Mormon faith requires you to in order to claim its 'great apostasy' theory, aren't talking about some giant area. They are across the Aegean Sea from one another, but not really far away. While they didn't have cars back then, the driving distance is apparently only 99 miles, which makes me think that the sailing distance could be even less (since it's a straighter -- if not straight -- shot).
I don't want to understate it, because I'm sure in the ancient world it would've been quite a trek, but my point is that it is not this vast area containing so many people as it might seem when you first hear or read "Asia". It is not talking about a giant geographical area as that term is today.
And anyway, the second epistle to Timothy was, of course, written to Timothy, who was a disciple of St. Paul himself, so as to strengthen him in his own evangelistic works, not as evidence of some kind of 'apostasy'. Such was never witnessed by the early Church, and cannot be found in its writings but by the eisegesis (reading into scripture) of the self-interested who need it to be there for their own reasons (*COUGH COUGH*).
From the third homily on Second Timothy by our father St. John Chrysostom:
Then he describes his trials and temptations, not to depress his disciple, but to elevate him, that if he should ever fall into the same, he may not think it strange, when he looks back and remembers what things happened to his Teacher. What then says he? Since it was probable that Timothy might be apprehended, and be deserted, and be relieved by no friendly attention, or influence, or assistance, but be abandoned even by his friends and the faithful themselves, hear what he says, "This you know, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me." It seems that there were then in Rome many persons from the regions of Asia. "But no one stood by me," he says, no one acknowledged me, all were alienated. And observe the philosophy of his soul. He only mentions their conduct, he does not curse them, but he praises him that showed kindness to him, and invokes a thousand blessings upon him, without any curse on them. "Of whom is Phygellus and Hermogenes. The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain. But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out diligently and found me." Observe how he everywhere speaks of the shame, and not of the danger, lest Timothy should be alarmed. And yet it was a thing that was full of peril. For he gave offense to Nero by making friends with one of his prisoners. But when he was in Rome, he says, he not only did not shun intercourse with me, but "sought me out very diligently, and found me."
So, to prepare St. Timothy for the alienation he was likely to experience as an evangelist, his father St. Paul reminds him that he himself experienced the same from all the people of Asia (see above map), but there were also still some who did not shun him, but actually sought him out.
In short, there is no apostasy here or in the other passages you have improperly invoked.
The Greece area which is represented by Corinth that are sideways.
We have Asia that has turned against Paul and are sideways.
We have Galatia that Paul writes to and asked how they could so soon have turned away from their first love, whcih means Jesus Christ.
We have the Jerusalem area that is rocked by persecution so that all are scattered and the name of the city is changed for a time. Persectuion ravished the church, killed many of the first and second century leaders.
We have Bishop Diotrephes, we do not know where he was bishop, but lets say it was Cappadocia. Was Diotrephes the only bishop that rebelled against the apostles? It is not recorded, but the arrogance of Diotrephes could be a description of many bishops that filled the void of persecuted area, where many of the second generation of strong but humble bishops were taken to Rome and suffered death.
Many scriptures sound off that after the apostles were gone, there would be massive troubles and upheaval in the church. Many scriptures tell us that the apostles were surprized as to how soon certain areas had turned away. What was going to happen when they were gone altogether?
We know what happened. Read your history. Read your history of Dioscorus and what kind of the bishop he was. It is not a description of a humble servant of Jesus Christ, it is more of a description of a power hungry manipulator set on a throne in Alexandria trying to secure support for his seat by excommunicating enemies and condoning the sins of his friends, as recorded in the minutes of the Robber council, even the death of Flavian and the threat of death to many.
Second Council of Ephesus - Wikipedia
This reads like a complete loss of the Spirit of Christ, and this is just 3 pages of material of the history of the Second Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. The full history is full of this intrique and power struggle between the 5 sees, and it is over centuries of trouble.
So there is a basis for us to say that there was an apostasy, the history is clear, that by the 5th century, Christ was not at the head of these church thrones.
Upvote
0
Ignatius the Kiwi
Dissident
- Mar 2, 2013
- 7,099
- 3,777
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
It seems to me you are making assumptions based on the biblical texts which point to at most local apostasy at most and are extrapolating that into a universal apostasy. This is akin to me pointing out modern Mormons who prefer the original teachings of the Church whom the current LDS Church brands as heretics or apostates and using that as evidence of a universal apostasy within Mormonism. It seems disingenuous at best, dishonest at worse.
Still, we know there were faithful men and women all throughout the world at that point in history. You can point to any number of bishops or church leaders whom were corrupt (there are just as many good ones we can point to) but that doesn't negate the original point I made that started this thread diversion. God is the one who has to provide prophets. Men can't make themselves prophets and receive the oracles of God, he has to appoint someone to that task and there is nothing we can do to influence that. If he could take someone as ignorant as Joseph Smith and make him a Prophet, he surely could have found someone and made him a prophet.
Yet the Mormon God didn't and what resulted was a Christianity which challenges the true Gospel and has people like myself believe Mormonism to be a lie. Your God is limited by the divine synapses of his brain but even he should have been able to predict what would happen. Also It should make you fear the possibility of the current LDS church becoming Apostate. It happened before. It can happen again. Mormon God clearly doesn't care about preserving his Church or his faithful.
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
dzheremi
Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
- Aug 27, 2014
- 13,567
- 13,728
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
Peter, Ephesus II has nothing to do with anything. Stop trying to use the history of the Church against it when you don't even understand what you're reading. I'm not going to respond to such nonsense anymore. You are inching closer to my ignore list with every ignorant and irrelevant post. Answer the criticisms of Mormonism or don't both posting.
Upvote
0
Peter1000
Well-Known Member
What you have to remember is that God did not abandon good people in the church. The bad people of the church abandoned God. Did you read about the Second Ecumenical Council of Ephesus? That was at the top eschelon of the church, and it read like a den of thieves (at the top) If the top is acting like that, I can only guess what the middle management is acting like, and even down to the people. Were they getting the spiritual council they needed? Were the top really coming up with true doctrines, or did they have alterior motives as they came up with their doctrines? For instance if the bishop of Constantinople came up with a winning doctrine, would that help him become preeminent, above the bishop of Rome and Alexandria and Antioch and Jerusalem? Of course, that is how they thought of things. It was literally a game of thrones.
I don't think the east was as bad off as the west, but by the time of Luther, 1/2 of the Christian church was under the pope of Rome. Luther called the Vatican, the home of satan, and the cardinals were demons of satan. Not a good description for the head of the Christian church. Have you read the history of the pope lately. Not good.
The apostasy was universal, just read any ecumenical council and see the arguing and look at the next council and see the changes made. It reads like a soap opera rather than the Church of Jesus Christ.
Upvote
0
dzheremi
Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
- Aug 27, 2014
- 13,567
- 13,728
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
I'm not embarrassed by our teacher HH St. Dioscorus at all. He is in my confession considered a valiant fighter for Orthodoxy. Rather, I'm embarrassed thinking about how you're convinced that you are making some kind of point by bringing up the Chalcedonian controversy and matters surrounding it yet again, apropos of absolutely nothing. It's a bit cringe-worthy. And as I've said before, since you suddenly love the Chalcedonian confession so much, you should definitely leave Mormonism and join one of their churches. My own Church may prefer wording other than what they have codified (but which they nevertheless approved of when probably understood, according to their fifth council...or did you not catch that in what I'm sure was an exhaustive and serious study?), but there is no doubt that to belong to one of their jurisdictions would be a zillion times better than remaining in a non-Christian religion like Mormonism.
So go! Become Melkite1000! I'd even attend your baptism, if you wish, to offer an Axios of my own, despite our obvious differences. (I assume you live in the United States...)
So go! Become Melkite1000! I'd even attend your baptism, if you wish, to offer an Axios of my own, despite our obvious differences. (I assume you live in the United States...)
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
- 7,099
- 3,777
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
He absolutely did abandon them, according to your own words, to corrupt Church leaders who told them lies. It's not our responsibility to do something we cannot do. God must provide prophets and if you admit there were faithful good people in the church before Joseph Smtih and during the apostasy, there is no excuse for God not giving them the faith they needed to enter the Celestial Kingdom.
Now they are doomed forever to live as angels in the service of God, rather than become gods themselves. Actually it's even worse, they were doomed to believe in a corrupt faith they had no alternative to believe. How cruel of the Mormon god.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
