LDS What caused eternal matter to exist?

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟217,719.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No person besides Christ is my keeper and Savior. I listen the His Spirit alone to testify of Truth.

Just by this statement you are opposing what you advocate. If what you believe is the "spirit" testifying of some "truth", without validating that truth against Scripture as handed down from the time of the Apostles, then you are listening to "man" (or in your case "woman"). Joseph Smith tried this. He talked to a preacher, perhaps several preachers from the sounds of it, and he didn't like the answers from the men ordained by God to preach His word, so JS went off on his own and claimed it was from God. Jesus warned against such things.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
But you are doing that anyway - listening to another human being. You have chosen to believe the lds version of the truth vs. what is actually written in the Bible. The Bible does not teach Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers, existance of a heavenly mother, a second chance gospel in the afterlife, etc. In order to believe those things, God had to lie.
I agree, incorrect statements all around.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Just by this statement you are opposing what you advocate. If what you believe is the "spirit" testifying of some "truth", without validating that truth against Scripture as handed down from the time of the Apostles, then you are listening to "man" (or in your case "woman"). Joseph Smith tried this. He talked to a preacher, perhaps several preachers from the sounds of it, and he didn't like the answers from the men ordained by God to preach His word, so JS went off on his own and claimed it was from God. Jesus warned against such things.
How did the early church members do this before the NT even came into existence?
 
Upvote 0

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟217,719.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How did the early church members do this before the NT even came into existence?
Confirmed teachings against Scripture (Acts 17:11). Listened to the Apostles. Listened to the disciples who were taught by the Apostles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dzheremi
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
You mean Pentecost, the baptism of the Church? Y'know, the 'abominable' Church that fell into worldwide, irrecoverable apostasy? Strange to see a Mormon appealing to that event, given their low opinion of the Church as a historically real and present body.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
You mean Pentecost, the baptism of the Church?
Individuals reaching the Spirit to guide them.
Y'know, the 'abominable' Church that fell into worldwide, irrecoverable apostasy?
As individuals abandoned listening to the Spirit in favor of listening to men.
Strange to see a Mormon appealing to that event, given their low opinion of the Church as a historically real and present body.
LDS have quite reverence for the Day of Pentecost, and people receiving the Holy Ghost. We are all to listen to Him and His testimony.
 
Upvote 0

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟217,719.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Devoid of the Spirit? No day of Pentacaust?
Were you not paying attention? I answered his question appropriately as it related to our conversation. See Post 343 where I mention to validate what the Spirit tells you with Scripture. He asked about how pre-NT early church fathers did this, to which I noted Acts 17:11, which is way past the day of "Pentacaust" (sic).
 
Upvote 0

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟217,719.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Individuals reaching the Spirit to guide them.

Pentecost was not about "(i)ndividuals reaching the Spirit". It was about the Spirit being poured out to the church and it's individuals.

As individuals abandoned listening to the Spirit in favor of listening to men.

Once again, another baseless assertion with no facts or truth behind it all in a vain effort to validate the lds theology.

LDS have quite reverence for the Day of Pentecost, and people receiving the Holy Ghost. We are all to listen to Him and His testimony.
That's not true either. The "spirit" that the lds church listens to is not the same as the Spirit that was given on the day of Pentecost, as the lds church is theologically in fundamental opposition to what the Spirit teaches as truth on numerous topics (nature/essence of God, heavenly mother, pre-existence, etc). The lds church has to make a Great Lie (i.e. a so-called Great Apostasy) to even begin to attempt to make their restoration theology valid.

1 John 4:1 - Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Joseph Smith's spirit encounters do not pass the Biblical test.
 
Last edited:
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
Individuals reaching the Spirit to guide them.

Nope. In Acts, where the day of Pentecost is described, St. Paul quotes liberally from the Prophet Joel, who tells us that the Lord says "I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh". It is an act of God upon the assembled people.

As individuals abandoned listening to the Spirit in favor of listening to men.

When was this, exactly? Because in the same book in which Pentecost is described (Acts 2), the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem is described (Acts 15). And the Apostolic Council is the model for the later Councils, having been called as they were to settle disputes concerning how the Church ought to operate and who ought to be included in it and by what means. For the Apostolic Council, the issue was the reception of Gentile converts. There, the local bishop James spoke for the gathered assembly. Fast forward a little while later, and we can point to other synods/councils such as that of Hierapolis in 177 (treated as a council in some sources, and in some as a local synod) which condemned the Montaninsts (the believers in 'New Prophecy'...ahem), also known as Phrygians for the place from which they originated. That council/synod was presided over by Apollinaris, who was the local bishop of the area, just as James had been in that role at the Council at Jerusalem approximately 120 years earlier, as recorded in the Bible itself.

So at what point does 'listening to men' become bad? Because in the Bible itself, men were listened to, and I'm going to suppose for the sake of argument that this is fine, since it is recorded in the Bible itself as not just being okay, but being authoritative (read: the decision of the Council at Jerusalem governed how the Church actually operated from there on out with regard to the reception of Gentile converts). And then we have a little while after that other councils or synods (a synod being basically a more localized regional/national council) being set up on that same model, which likewise guided the Church in their places and times (I used the example of Hierapolis, but could just as easily have used any of the many early synods of Carthage, Antioch, Arabia, etc. which occurred before the ecumenical era beginning in 325).

I have been told by Peter1000, another Mormon poster, that the great apostasy which Mormons believe happened was "in full swing" by ~200 AD, so if we take that as a cut-off line between the 'good' kind of listening to men as recorded in Acts 15 and the 'bad' kind supposed by Mormons to have occurred within about 170 years from the date of Pentecost (33 AD), then we still have the issue that the synodal/conciliar model is well established before then (e.g., the local synods which expelled the aformentioned Montanists, as well as other earlier heretics such as Marcion and his followers in the 140s), and even having one such notable synod condemning those who believed in so-called 'New Prophecy' when it was found to not be in conformity with what the Church Herself had received, which is a pretty damning indictment of Mormonism (and Islam, etc.) centuries before the fact.

LDS have quite reverence for the Day of Pentecost, and people receiving the Holy Ghost. We are all to listen to Him and His testimony.

I find it strange that an event which is marked by the 'unconfusing' of the tongues so that the gathered people could understand each other even while each preached in their own language ("Cretans and Arabs" and so on) is being co-opted by Mormons who refashion it into being about the individual's experience. In light of what another poster, Ignatius the Kiwi, has rightly termed Mormonism's "radical subjectivity" in this regard, it seems to be inverting the actual purpose of the event from being one of emphasizing the unity of faith exhibited across cultures (by the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit as manifest upon the assembled people) to giving Mormons in particular some Biblical antecedent to their historical and present day activities. I would ask again (this time rhetorically, since I remember your answer from last time) if you feel that the Holy Spirit leads everyone everywhere (i.e., to Mormonism, to Orthodoxy, to Catholicism, to Islam, to Buddhism, etc.), or if He is in fact teaching one thing.

The interpretation of Pentecost in the Christian tradition, and of the Holy Spirit more generally, is that He is teaching one thing according to the faith as established by God in the Church to which He is sent. For instance, in my own Coptic Orthodox tradition, we read the following prayer every day in the Prime hour of the Agpeya (the Coptic book of the hours/daily prayer book), under the heading "The Faith of the Church":

One is God the Father of everyone.


One is His Son, Jesus Christ the Word, Who took flesh and died; and rose from the dead on the third day, and raised us with Him.


One is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, one in His Hypostasis, proceeding from the Father, purifying the whole creation, and teaching us to worship the Holy Trinity, one in divinity and one in essence. We praise Him and bless Him forever. Amen.

+++

So it is our belief that it is these essentials of the Christian faith which are directly learned from the Holy Spirit. Other things are not of the Spirit just because someone may say they are. This is the faith of the Church, confirmed and taught by the Spirit. There is no 'individualized' message to be given to any person which may contradict this, because in that case what they'd be listening to is certainly not the Holy Spirit, Who taught us the above, not Mormonism, or Islam, or Shintoism, or whatever.

I am sure other Christian traditions with firm theology would say the same (maybe not in the exact same words, though I think the above is simple and 'open' enough that any Christian may pray it with equal conviction as any Coptic person does).
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: NYCGuy
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

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
And the Apostolic Council is the model for the later Councils
In chapter 15, Peter, the prophet of the Lord, stands up and reveals the will of the Lord in the matter and it was declared to be scripture. This is of course elaborating on the revelation God gave him in chapter 10: God spoke, prophet delivered His words, disciples followed.

Whom was the prophet to speak the will of the Lord through revelation in the the Eumerical Councils? Where in scripture may I read their words given by the Lord?
 
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
In chapter 15, Peter, the prophet of the Lord, stands up and reveals the will of the Lord in the matter and it was declared to be scripture.

Citation, please? I don't see anything in Acts 15 where anything is 'declared to be scripture', and what St. Peter says which is received by the assembly is a short exposition concerning the equality between the Jewish and the Gentile converts (verses 7-11). Then St. Paul and Barnabas speak concerning the miracles worked among the Gentiles (verse 12), and then, as I wrote already, St. James speaks of the decision of the assembly in this matter (verses 13-21), with a long quotation from Amos before giving the judgment, in his own words and in first person ("Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles..."), to be followed by a letter composed by all of them to be given for the instruction of the brothers among the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (verses 23-29).

This is of course elaborating on the revelation God gave him in chapter 10: God spoke, prophet delivered His words, disciples followed.

Yes, of course, because the entire point of both is that there ought not be this division between Jew and Gentile in the Church. We're not in disagreement about that; my point is that the Councils which you reject by virtue of them being examples to you of "following men" follow the same pattern of the Council of Jerusalem which you presumably accept, as it is found in Bible itself.

Whom was the prophet to speak the will of the Lord through revelation in the the Eumerical Councils?

Is St. James a prophet because he spoke for the assembly at Jerusalem? In that case, we can say that of any of the bishops who presided over the various councils and synods in that same role: HH St. Alexander of Alexandria at Nicaea, the several who presided over the various sessions of Consantinople I (HH St. Timothy of Alexandria, St. Gregory Nazianzus, etc.), etc. That is not my position, however. For one thing, you immediately then run into problems when you consider that Meletios of Antioch presided at Constantinople I, but the same Meletios was opposed by HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic for elsewhere having condemned the Orthodox (Nicene) Patriarch of Antioch HH Eustathios at the synod of Melitene for confessing that Christ was homoousios with the Father, as is necessary to uphold the faith of the Church. For another thing, having spoken and quoted scripture, as St. James did, is not what put him in the position that he had at the Council. It was rather a matter of him being the local bishop that he would declare the ruling of the assembly. That was my point in pointing out that ~120 years later, the same happened with regard to HG Apollinarius, who presided over the synod at Heirapolis which was in Phrygia, as the Montanists were likewise Phrygians who had come out of his local diocese/area. So it's the same pattern that we see in the Bible also practiced well after the Council described in Acts 15.

Where in scripture may I read their words given by the Lord?

First of all, don't think I'm not seeing what you are doing here: We are talking about what is found in the Acts of the Apostles, which is already scripture, so the standard to which you are holding the later fathersis one that is already 'pre-met' due to the fact that scripture is what we're talking about (so it makes your position look stronger than it is because you are 'arguing from scripture', whereas I am 'arguing from the words of sinful men' or whatever dumb nonsense non-point there is in maintaining this anachronistic pseudo-division). This is why I already pointed out that James argued in his own words in verses 18-21, wherein he pronounces the judgment of the Council to be related via epistle a few verses later. The fact that they are his own words and not a verbatim quote from previously accepted scriptures (as his earlier quote from Amos is) is irrelevant, of course, as both are scripture. The question I would have then is: What if they weren't? I say this because of course at the time, it was simply the ruling that St. James was giving, in accordance with the mind of the Church as arrived at in council. That was the point of meeting in council in the first place. Because in so far as any one man is concerned (James, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, etc.), they are dealing in real time with the problem before them, and with recourse to the teachings they have been given both presently (from our Lord Jesus Christ within every man's recorded memory, and through their fellow apostles) and through the deposit left by their own fathers (in the Old Testament).

This is the exact same situation that there is in any subsequent later Council or Synod, down to this very day, hence my question regarding when something which is clearly acceptable becomes unacceptable, and by what measure. If it's the same situation, and the same methodology, and the same everything, then there is no basis by which to say that anyone ever went astray, at least not according to the same metric by which we find Jerusalem acceptable. You must instead invent some other artificial division whereby what was acceptable in 50 AD is suddenly unacceptable in 144 AD or 177 AD or whenever, and you must show why it is so, if all else has remained constant (read: if they're not doing anything appreciably different at Antioch in 160 than they did at Jerusalem in 50).

Requiring that anyone presiding at a council be a prophet is merely an attempt to force Mormon epistemology on the Church, and since I bet we wouldn't agree on that anyway (after all, none of the men you call your 'living prophets' today are recognized as such by any Christian tradition), it is useless to waste anyone's time discussing it. However, your question regarding where their words are so that you may read them in scripture is easy enough to answer by looking at the surviving acts of the various councils, which are preserved in various places should you wish to study them as actual history and not to buttress Mormon theories about what must've happened at said councils vis-a-vis the 'Great Apostasy' theory.

For instance, HH St. Cyril's Epistle to Nestorius forms part of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431), preserved under the Latin title "Cum Salvator Noster" at the Catholic Encyclopedia (not a source I am actually all that fond of, as its Roman Chalcedonian bias is palpable, but which is nevertheless a good repository of English translations of such things, if you cannot find them elsewhere). Quoting it here would be a bit daunting (it is many, many paragraphs long, and should really be read in its entirety), but what is handy about that particular website is that it places quotations from scripture in italics, so we can see that in introductory paragraph alone, which is only six total sentences, there are three such direct quotations woven into the text. The rest of the letter continues in a similar mode.

It has been said, though I cannot remember by whom exactly, that if the Bible were lost to us somehow, we would be able to reconstruct it from direct quotations in the fathers alone. Not all of these were given in councils, but some were (as in the above example), and at any rate there is no division between an epistle like Cum Salvator Noster and one of St. Cyril's other writings, such as That Christ is One, his commentary on the Gospel of St. John, or Against Julian the Apostate.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: NYCGuy
Upvote 0

NYCGuy

Newbie
Mar 9, 2011
839
162
New York
✟33,519.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Also, amusingly, the latest Mormon scripture, Official Declaration 2, which is on the reversal of the ban of blacks from the Mormon priesthood (and temple), is actually not "words given by the Lord", but a press release saying that a revelation was received (not the words of an actual revelation).
 
  • Like
Reactions: dzheremi
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
You mean Pentecost, the baptism of the Church? Y'know, the 'abominable' Church that fell into worldwide, irrecoverable apostasy? Strange to see a Mormon appealing to that event, given their low opinion of the Church as a historically real and present body.
The day of Pentecost was well within the bright glow of the early church.

The abominable Chruch that fell into worldwide, irrecoverable apostacy did not take place till about 170ad and especially by 200ish. You know, after the apostles were murdered and gone. It is then that Eusebius in his church history says that Jerusalem lost her virginity. Up until the time the apostles died, the Jerusalem saints were pure and virgin.

We have no low opinion of the historical aspects of a real a present body until after these dates. In fact, Jesus Christ lead JS to fashion the restored church after the early church so that it could be recongnized as the true church. Many people join the church today because of the historical correctness of the organization compared to the NT church.

We are students of the early church and how the apostles did their work and received their revelation from Jesus Christ and recieved the truth from the HS. We emulate them today.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Also, amusingly, the latest Mormon scripture, Official Declaration 2, which is on the reversal of the ban of blacks from the Mormon priesthood (and temple), is actually not "words given by the Lord", but a press release saying that a revelation was received (not the words of an actual revelation).
Yes, you are right, that is interesting. It would be better to have the words of the revelation. However, we do not, but the reversal was put into affect and we now have millions of righteous black members of the church.

In fact there are now 4 temples in operation in Africa, and 2 more that are under construction, and 3 more that have been announced and will start construction soon, and 1 that has been proposed. So within 2-3 years there will be at least 10 operational temples in Africa, along with over a hundred regular chapels. The Lord is blessing the church and its members, especially in Africa.
 
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
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
The day of Pentecost was well within the bright glow of the early church.

The abominable Chruch that fell into worldwide, irrecoverable apostacy did not take place till about 170ad and especially by 200ish.

Funny how you now say "about 170" after being presented with information concerning how the early Church condemned those who followed new prophecy in 177 AD. Talk about moving the goalposts. Also, that new date doesn't matter, as there is also the other example I gave of Marcion who was thrown out by the same mechanism c. 144 AD. It is inescapable that the early Church functioned both before and after these arbitrary dates you are picking in a manner after the Council of Jerusalem, which Mormons cannot dissent from without openly rejecting the Bible that they say they accept and base their faith around. Why that doesn't include also accepting the reality of how the early Church functioned, I don't know, but then that's hardly surprising, given how you'd effectively invalidate yourselves should you recognize that there's nothing that's happening in the Church in 215 AD or 325 that wasn't in line with what happened before 200 or 170 or whenever the magic year is. The only thing that's changed is the scope (more bishops in more territories) and the specific nature of the problem to be dealt with (Arianism, Sabellianism, etc.), not the way by which things are dealt with.

You know, after the apostles were murdered and gone. It is then that Eusebius in his church history says that Jerusalem lost her virginity. Up until the time the apostles died, the Jerusalem saints were pure and virgin.

So now you're trusting Eusebius' work, which was written in the 4th century, over 150 years after you said the entire Church fell into "worldwide, irrecoverable apostacy" [sic]. Including presumably Caesarea, where Eusebius served as a bishop. In that same Church. Caesarea being a part of the world. And Eusebius being an advocate of the Church. The one that fell into worldwide apostasy.

I just want to make sure you see how much damage you're doing to your own point.

We have no low opinion of the historical aspects of a real a present body until after these dates.

These dates which you have shown to be completely arbitrary by your willingness to change them as suits your argument, and to argue on the basis of sources written well after them as though these are some kind of authority despite their living and writing during the period of the 'great apostasy'.

In fact, Jesus Christ lead JS to fashion the restored church after the early church so that it could be recongnized as the true church. Many people join the church today because of the historical correctness of the organization compared to the NT church.

Balderdash. You have convinced them that it is so, but have so little to back up that assertion that you appeal without shame to the bishops and historians of the NT church as authorities concerning those time periods about which your own church can say nothing beyond "the apostasy was happening by then". What folly.

We are students of the early church and how the apostles did their work and received their revelation from Jesus Christ and recieved the truth from the HS. We emulate them today.

Then why am I, and Ignatius the Kiwi, and NYCGuy, and Armenian John (etc, etc.) the ones actually referencing and quoting them and their writings and acts? Other than your frankly bizarre hang-up concerning St. Justin Martyr, and the abusive misuse of a few fathers in one document on 'becoming God' on the LDS website (linked by Jane Doe, if memory serves), I have seen zero direct reference to any early Church figures or their writings in any Mormon's posting on this website.

You study an early church of your own making, just like you reject one of your own making, too. And your prophet did the same, as all Mormon leaders and followers must do in order to have any reason to be Mormon in the first place.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BigDaddy4
Upvote 0

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟217,719.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In chapter 15, Peter, the prophet of the Lord, stands up and reveals the will of the Lord in the matter and it was declared to be scripture. This is of course elaborating on the revelation God gave him in chapter 10: God spoke, prophet delivered His words, disciples followed.

Whom was the prophet to speak the will of the Lord through revelation in the the Eumerical Councils? Where in scripture may I read their words given by the Lord?
Where in the Bible can I read that water is an acceptable "fruit of the vine" (Luke 22:18) alternative for communion/sacrament, or for the Passover meal itself, as given by the Lord himself?

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matt 7:2, KJV)
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
dzheremi says:

Funny how you now say "about 170" after being presented with information concerning how the early Church condemned those who followed new prophecy in 177 AD. Talk about moving the goalposts. Also, that new date doesn't matter, as there is also the other example I gave of Marcion who was thrown out by the same mechanism c. 144 AD. It is inescapable that the early Church functioned both before and after these arbitrary dates you are picking in a manner after the Council of Jerusalem, which Mormons cannot dissent from without openly rejecting the Bible that they say they accept and base their faith around. Why that doesn't include also accepting the reality of how the early Church functioned, I don't know, but then that's hardly surprising, given how you'd effectively invalidate yourselves should you recognize that there's nothing that's happening in the Church in 215 AD or 325 that wasn't in line with what happened before 200 or 170 or whenever the magic year is. The only thing that's changed is the scope (more bishops in more territories) and the specific nature of the problem to be dealt with (Arianism, Sabellianism, etc.), not the way by which things are dealt with.
This is not rocket science. The church started into an apostacy even before the apostles died. But by the time the apostles were all killed, the apostacy was in a sharper decline. By 150-170, at the time of Justin were still those that lived that had learned directly from the apostles and had been ordained by the hand of apostles, but the apostacy decline was continuing. There is no magic date, but by 200, Sabellius was messing with the very nature of God and Jesus and the HS, and was creating a proto-1 god Christian God. The last of those taught by the apostles were now dying, and the apostacy decline moved sharper down.
With the Arian disputes and the head of the church being in the hands of a non-Christian tyrant, the apostacy decline moved markedly downward, so that by Constantines Council of Nicea, it was in full swing. By this time the church was in the hands of the Constantines and it was gone. Good and righteous people still performed good and righteous deeds, but the priesthood was gone, the true foundation of the church was gone, the keys of the kingdom of heaven were gone, so the doctrines were changed, there was no more revelation. What is left?

So now you're trusting Eusebius' work, which was written in the 4th century, over 150 years after you said the entire Church fell into "worldwide, irrecoverable apostacy" [sic]. Including presumably Caesarea, where Eusebius served as a bishop. In that same Church. Caesarea being a part of the world. And Eusebius being an advocate of the Church. The one that fell into worldwide apostasy.

I just want to make sure you see how much damage you're doing to your own point.

Just because I use a 4th century bishop to make a point about the 1st century, that does not damage my point at all. I will even quote a 16th century Luther to support my view of the apostacy, so how does that damage my point?

What do you think about Eusebius's comment about the church of Jerusalem was a beautiful virgin before the apostles were killed, but after the apostles died, it lost its virginity. What does that mean? You side stepped the quote by concentrating on the date of the quote.

Balderdash. You have convinced them that it is so, but have so little to back up that assertion that you appeal without shame to the bishops and historians of the NT church as authorities concerning those time periods about which your own church can say nothing beyond "the apostasy was happening by then". What folly.
I will compare the organization of the Mormon church to any mainline Christian church in existence today and I promise you that we will be far closer to the original church than any of them. People understand this and join our church because of this.
Then why am I, and Ignatius the Kiwi, and NYCGuy, and Armenian John (etc, etc.) the ones actually referencing and quoting them and their writings and acts? Other than your frankly bizarre hang-up concerning St. Justin Martyr, and the abusive misuse of a few fathers in one document on 'becoming God' on the LDS website (linked by Jane Doe, if memory serves), I have seen zero direct reference to any early Church figures or their writings in any Mormon's posting on this website.
You quote who you wish, I will quote who I wish. If you are going to quote a person after 200ad, then in my eyes it does not hold much weight, unless they are witnessing, and telling the truth about the apostacy.

You study an early church of your own making, just like you reject one of your own making, too. And your prophet did the same, as all Mormon leaders and followers must do in order to have any reason to be Mormon in the first place.
You study an early church of your own making too. Your leaders must maintain the illusion so as to continue to live in luxury and have power and prestige. Like I said before, since 200 or so, the history of the church is not a lot different than the game of thrones. If you were to read the history with that kind of a view, you would know that I am right. You read all the bad in the history with little thought, and tuck it away in some dark closet or sweep it under the rug.
These bishops were empire builders as much or more than they were overseers of the flock. The history is clear, and again that is why we have hundreds of Christian churchs all teaching different doctrines and ways of salvation. Think about it.
 
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
One of these days I will make a post with no egregious typos. Apparently not today, but one of these days. I have faith.

I am not a typist. Making long posts is very laborious for me.
 
Upvote 0