1st/2nd century church

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes, 

Three gods united in power and will.

But not three Gods like the LDS church teaches ...

The Early Church Father did not teach LDS theology, they taught

- A Triad is preached by Scripture, neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods (Dionysius 262 AD)

- The Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other (Tertullian 213AD)

- For both are one--that is, God (Clement of Alexandria 202AD)

- No division of substance, but merely an extension. Christ is Spirit of Spirit ... the two are one (Tertullian 197AD)

- The Logos is God, being the substance of God (Hippolytus 220AD)

[Zakuska]

You froget the pslam Johnny. Scripture reveals they become gods.

Pslam 82

6 I ha ve said, Ye are gods; and all of you are achildren of the most High.

Rom 8

16 The Spirit itself beareth awitness with our bspirit, that we are the cchildren of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; aheirs

[johnny]

TOmNossor  writes, 

The arguments that Paul disapproved of the practice (rather than approving of it) are weak and contrived.

It may be weak, that is why the Catholic Church clarified it.

Your theology is not built upon what we can prove the Apostles did or did not do, but the EVIDENCE supports the CoJCoLDS in this generally.

My theology is built on apostolic tradition and divine revelation.

Zak did well enough and I already leaned upon his words from earlier in the thread.

Could you provide the link or the words ...

The most consistent read of the ECF before 360AD involved a Social Trinity WITH subordination of Christ to God the Father. The most consistent read of LDS scriptures is also a social Trinity. When people say three Gods in one God, what do they mean. The term

[johnny]

writes,

You froget the pslam Johnny. Scripture reveals they become gods.

These verse reveals they are children of the most High. ... it does not reveal the LDS teaching that they become like the most High.

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor

[johnny]

TOmNossor  writes, 

You are free to

[Zakuska]

Was Hippolytus a Mormon?

200 AD Hippolytus "A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine. In these things, however, which are thus set forth by us, we are at one. For there is one God in whom we must believe, but unoriginated, impassible, immortal, doing all things as He wills, in the way He wills, and when He wills." (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus)

3 gods united in power and glory.

[Zakuska]

writes,

You froget the pslam Johnny. Scripture reveals they become gods.

These verse reveals they are children of the most High. ... it does not reveal the LDS teaching that they become like the most High.

Go ahead break scripture just like the Jews did.

Children of God are called gods. Do you deny it?

You can't bring yourself to utter and admit the scirpture becuase of your trained blind spot.

[3DOP]

Hi TOm,

I can't say I've read every 700 plus posts on this thread, but as always, I look for yours. I agree that a reading of Hermas and Maccabees could be compatible with creation ex materia. I don't see why creation ex nihilo is a problem if the first formulated appearance is after 100 AD (2nd Century).

Do you think the omnipotence of God is also a 2nd Century invention? If it was assumed by Old Testament Jews and Jewish Apostles that creation sprang from pre-existent material, that only means that we should not expect any specific references to creation ex nihilo. The Jewish genius was not philosophical. They weren't worrying about the implications of change and whether you could jump into the same river twice.

It was the Greek speaking world which quickly responded to the Apostles doctrine, and was was also the best prepared to reflect most perfectly on what God meant at the Burning Bush when He told Moses, "tell them I AM hath sent you." You are right, none of the Greek philosophers taught creation ex nihilo, but then nature never revealed to them the key truth that God is pure existence. When the Greek world, steeped in natural philosophy heard Christ reiterate the truth revealed to Moses in the Old Testament, creation ex nihilo was probably an inevitable development and at any rate, it came quickly.

Both of us turn to philosophy for our ultimate answers. If Catholics can't demonstrate that the Scriptures teach creation out of nothing, Mormons can't show us where the Scriptures say matter and intelligence is eternal. There are not that many choices for how things came to be. Joseph Smith chose one of the choices. It so happens that his view is also Platonic. Souls are eternal. Matter is eternal. That doesn't mean he was influenced by Greek thought. It just means that nobody for about 2,300 years has thought of anything very original, except for the Catholic Christians who reconciled natural revelation as developed by the Greeks, with supernatural revelation as given to the Jews.

This state of matters (heh...matters...get it?) isn't something for Catholics to be ashamed of at all. I have not read Gerhard May or studied this question closely. It is for sake of argument that I am conceding everything you say is so. Of course I qualify everything I have said with the possibility that you might be wrong in regard to Maccabees and the Jewish revelation. However, I lean toward thinking you have been thorough, and that your conclusions, although devastating tp a Protestant creation ex-nihilist, and making Catholics re-examine presumptions, ultimately presents little problem from a Catholic perspective which allows for the probability that the Apostles were reporters, who often wrote that which they never appreciated for its fullest implications.

Scott Pierson's analysis of Mt 16:18 is irrefutable in my opinion if it is understood in connection to a restoration. It is conveniently short, simple, and popular, but I wish Catholics would quit using it with restorationists. I agree that Mt 16:18 is compatible with apostasy and restoration. But compatibility...for those who will jump to conclusions here, not you Tom, in no way suggests probability. Mt 16:18 prooftexting is not much of a loss anyway.

Good day to you TOm!

3DOP

[juliann]

Baptism for the dead is certainly not unique to Mormonism. The Ephrata Society in Pennsylvania was practicing it contemporary to Joseph Smith.

The more general concepts of "redemption of/for the dead," or "salvation of/for the dead," are not unique to Mormonism either.

I've posted previously on this thread on both.

To assert that "covenant" is unique to Mormonism is likewise incorrect, as you yourself could easily determine with a little research.

Sure you have. You said exactly what you did now. Uh UH! That is all you ever say. You then turn to redefining words when you back yourself into your corners and then move on to misrepresenting what has been said...as you are doing right now. It might be clever if you ever did something different to throw us off a little.

[juliann]

The topic for the benefit of some: I've heard there are 1st and 2nd century writings by Church leaders which suggest doctrines exclusive nowadays to the LDS Church are supported.

[Zakuska]

Tom,

As time passes it seems to me that the things that were AND ARE uniquely LDS are being increasingly supported by non-LDS scholars who are seeing things in the data that LDS have said was there all along.

Yep.. and don't forget beat over the head and laughed at.

How many times have I been presented a tract that contrasts the BOM with the Bible that has already made up the mind that the uniquley LDS doctrines where not in the bible. What I find lacking in these arguments is the utter refusal to look at the bible against the bible.

[David Waltz]

Hello Johnny and Ave Maria,

Just got back from a shopping trip across river and see the thread is still thriving!!!

Ave Maria has done an excellent job in summing up my position, in the light of Johnny

[David Waltz]

Hi Tom,

You wrote the following:

>>No ECF before Augustine said,

[David Waltz]

Hello again Johnny,

You wrote:

>>That is my point their is no ECF teaching that would support the LDS teaching that men can become like the Father.>>

Me: The general consensus of the ECF

[David Waltz]

Hello again Ave Maria,

You posted:

>>Baptism for the dead is certainly not unique to Mormonism. The Ephrata Society in Pennsylvania was practicing it contemporary to Joseph Smith.>>

Me: And there have been others too down through the corridors of time.

>>The more general concepts of "redemption of/for the dead," or "salvation of/for the dead," are not unique to Mormonism either.>>

Me: Excellent point. Catholics have performed rites for the dead from apostolic times to our day. (And BTW, St. Francis de Sales has a very interesting, and Catholic, interpretation of

[ave maria]

The topic for the benefit of some: I've heard there are 1st and 2nd century writings by Church leaders which suggest doctrines exclusive nowadays to the LDS Church are supported.

Yes. We're all eagerly awaiting your participation on the topic.

Baptism for the dead? Covenants? That's it?

Neither are exclusive to the LDS Church nowadays.

Got more?

[johnny]

David Waltz  writes,

Just got back from a shopping trip across river

I do miss the Pacific Northwest ... My wife and I lived next to the water and we had a sailboat that was pure fun.

Ave Maria has done an excellent job in summing up my position, 

While you were gone I made the following statement to Ave Maria ... what are your thoughts?

For me the multiple interpretations boil down to the number of Gods like the Father ... LDS would say many and Catholics would say one.

Now, with that said, I agree with the section you quoted. However, this section is primarily dealing with the creative power of God, and not deification, as such, it says nothing about the future abilities of deified saints in eternity.

That is my point ... it is dealing with the creative power of God ... this power is unique to the Father. Even the Son does not receive "being Father" (CCC246).

the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son." (CCC246)

my reading of SS and ST seems to indicate that God will in fact bestow ALL of His attributes upon the redeemed/deified saints.

I believe God does not bestow "being Father" on his sons.

Paul put it this way:

Paul describe the uniqueness of the Father ... the Father is "whom are all things"

1Cor 8

[4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

[5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

We know from Phi. 2:6-8 the richness of Christ that Paul was referring to is His divinity, and His poverty is His taking on a human nature. Paul states, in a very simple formula, that the deified saints will become

[johnny]

David Waltz  writes,

Me: The general consensus of the ECF

[Zakuska]

johhny,

I believe God does not bestow "being Father" on his sons.

If that is so... then why did Paul and John usurp the title?

2 Cor. 6: 13

13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

3 Jn. 1: 4

4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.

"Light from Light"

When there are two Lights there are two sources of light.

[juliann]

Yes. We're all eagerly awaiting your participation on the topic.

Baptism for the dead? Covenants? That's it?

Neither are exclusive to the LDS Church nowadays.

Got more?

I'm all ears. Who is performing baptisms for the dead nowadays? Be very specific. You continue to try to change what I am saying and you continue to refuse to address the cites I gave from CFs regarding baptism for the dead. We are talking post-humous salvation. Stop twisting what I say to make it mean what you need it to mean.

The stress in this Vatican II document [Catechism of the Catholic Church] is still on actions within this life: baptism or seeking God with a sincere heart.  Thus, it does not advocate "post-humous salvation," defined as a turn toward god after death or a posthumous offer of god's grace. It does, however, go a long way to resolve many of the troubling issues of theodicy raised by Augustine's formulations.  Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism seem to have moved much closer on these issues than they were at the Council of Ferrare/Florence in 1438.  Jeffrey A. Trumbower, Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity (New York: Oxford Press, 2001), 153.

Got more?

[ave maria]

Yes. We're all eagerly awaiting your participation on the topic.

Baptism for the dead?  Covenants?  That's it?

Neither are exclusive to the LDS Church nowadays.

Got more?

I'm all ears. Who is performing baptisms for the dead nowadays? Be very specific. You continue to try to change what I am saying and you continue to refuse to address the cites I gave from CFs regarding baptism for the dead. We are talking post-humous salvation. Stop twisting what I say to make it mean what you need it to mean.

The stress in this Vatican II document [Catechism of the Catholic Church] is still on actions within this life: baptism or seeking God with a sincere heart.

[ave maria]

I'm all ears. Who is performing baptisms for the dead nowadays? Be very specific

Strangites.

[juliann]

Strangites.

Oh, please. Gosh...I wonder why.

[juliann]

Go back and review the thread, and you'll find where I addressed the cites you gave regarding baptism for the dead.

Nice diversionary tactic. You have not even mentioned the cites. EVER. All you have done is ask the same "question" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Oh...and let's not forget the "is NOT" responses.