Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JeffreyLloyd

The Great Apostasy?

Recommended Posts

We are all entitled to personal revelation and guidance from God.

i love this topic and see so much to get into but i wanted to first ask: i understand that the rcc believes that all are entitled to personal revelation and guidance which to me still undermines the revelation thing . why? because why would God want people to progress personally with his guidance but not have the same happen for Christ's church? doesn't make much sense . it would put the members out of balance with the scripture if people were constantly evolving and progressing but the guidance on a whole remained the same . if that's the case then i could easily say that god told me so . afterall, i am provided personal revelation . but that's fine .

my big question is how do you reconcile the rcc receiving "revelation" or "divine will" in the process of choosing a new Pope? THAT is revelation on a level not personal but for the church as a whole . that is what the Apostles and Prophets did . receive revelation for the church . yes, they also received revelation on a personal level . we know in the nt that personal revelation is happening when we read about cornelius and others like him . but there is revelation for the church also . peter received revelation to take the gospel to the gentiles . this is revelation for the church, not for him personally .

so, my next question is this: if peter received revelation for the church then the rcc has no grounds to say that Christ fulfilled all revelation . (such is what i've been taught about the rcc by devout family members) how do you reconcile that ? shouldn't the true church still be receiving revelation as peter did ?

Share this post


Link to post
Big Dogger,

Incedently you raise another question that I have asked before that no one has responded to. If Peter ordained Clement then how is it that Linus and Cletus, who both came before Clement, were considered the first and second Popes in succession to Peter? It makes no sense. Unless you see it the logical way, that Linus, Cletus and Clement were all bishops of Rome, duly ordained by Peter or Paul, but they were not Peter's successors, just bishops, like every other bishop.

Can you explain this to me?

Thanks,

T-Shirt

T-Shirt,

I know that you have been asking this question for some time now. It is a valid question and deserves to be addressed. Just to clarify your positition, are your questioning the validity of the ancient lists that shows the Bishops of Rome? Or are you questioning their supreme rule of the Church?

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Thanks for the information,  Dogger.  I've always found it fascinating how two different religions can use the same thing and come away feeling vindicated.  :P  Clement presents no problem for our theology.  Another thing that disappeared was prophecy...and no one knows why.    I have yet to see any declaration that is is no longer necessary...only that it is no longer there.  I continue to maintain that apostles were not dispensible the minute one of them was replaced.  Without a proclaimation of some sort negating that....I think it is self-evident that this was considered necessary or it would not have been done at all.

juliann,

I would obviously, but also respectfully, disagree with your position that Clement presents no problem for your theology.

There is only one instance in Holy Scripture that shows a member of the Twelve Apostles being replaced. That is in Acts chapter 1 when Matthias replaced Judas. Matthias qualified for that office because he was with Christ from the baptism of John until Christ's ascension. Clement clearly states the following, "Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ." So the Apostles were sent forth (by Christ Himself) to witness to the world and ordain other worthy men. Clement goes on to say, "they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe". The key word here is "afterwards". After what??? After the Apostles are physically gone from the earth.

In regard to prophecy, may I ask what more needs to be added to Christ's Gospel? The Good News has been proclaimed. Ancient Scripture was fulfilled. Christ came and set an example for how we should live our lives. He died for our sins so that we may be forgiven. He resurrected from the dead. He ascended into Heaven and will come again to judge the living and the dead. Is there anything that we should add to this Good News?

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
However... they continued filling their vacanies in their ranks by other Apostles as well (Acts 1). Catholics have to down play this.

One Apostle was replaced with very specific requirements to fill that office. Please read my post above.

What happens when the foundation of a building is taken away?

Common misunderstanding. The Church is not built upon the physical bodies of the Twelve Apostles. The Church is built on the Faith and teachings of the Twelve Apostles. The Faith and teachings of the Apostles is the foundation of the Catholic Church and has never changed and it never will.

The stones above fall all over them selves.  They acted like a bunch of crabs in a bucket... continually pulling each other down so no one ever gets to the top.

The foundation of the Catholic Church is solid and unwaivering. It has remained solid for 2000 years and will until Christ returns. That is what Christ promised.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest johnny_cat

One thing I've never understood (from a mainstream Christian point of view) is, if the coming of Christ and the witness of His apostles were sufficient, why the need for someone like Paul, who saw Christ only in vision/revelation, after the ascension? And why was he the only one?

Share this post


Link to post
One thing I've never understood (from a mainstream Christian point of view) is, if the coming of Christ and the witness of His apostles were sufficient, why the need for someone like Paul, who saw Christ only in vision/revelation, after the ascension? And why was he the only one?

Excellent question.

As all the world knows, Saul of Tarsus was present at the martyrdom of St Stephen and heard him pray for his murderers. That prayer was answered. Not very long after, on his way to Damascus, Saul had that blinding vision of the risen Christ which turned him from a persecutor into a leader of the Christians.

Immediately after his baptism St Paul retired for two years of meditation in the desert, after which he returned to Damascus. It was not until three years had passed that he went up to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles, and after that he retired once more to Tarsus. There is thus a period of about ten years (34-44 A.D.) during which St Paul is almost lost to our sight, and it must have been then that his powerful intellect, with God's help, wrought that bridge between Judaism and Christianity, Hebrew and Gentile, which is his greatest gift to the world.

I don't know why Saul/Paul was the only one to receive this vision. I'm trusting that God knew what Paul was capable of doing in spreading the Gospel message. He was not a witness to Christ's life, death and resurrection but he certainly was instrumental in spreading the Good News.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post

The Gospel of Christ has been proclaimed...no need to change it. No matter how the world changes, the Gospel never will.

So why the need for all of the Councils to come to an agreement of what "The Church" teaches?

This is a quote from Hugh Nible's Book (The World and the Prophets) about some people didn

Share this post


Link to post
So why the need for all of the Councils to come to an agreement of what "The Church" teaches?

To define the teachings of the Church. Never to change the Gospel.

Paul was an Apostle correct?  He was one of the 12?

Paul was referred to as an apostle, but not as one of the Twelve. Christ Himself was referred to as an apostle; we all know that He wasn't one of the Twelve Apostles.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post

To define the teachings of the Church. Never to change the Gospel.

These things (that were counciled on) where not defined up to this point?

Share this post


Link to post
These things (that were counciled on) where not defined up to this point?

Perhaps..."better defined" would be a more appropriate way of putting it.

For example...read the Apostles Creed then read the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed does not contradict the Apostles Creed, but rather better defines its contents.

Apostles Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty, 

creator of heaven and earth. 

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, 

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, 

born of the Virgin Mary, 

suffered under Pontius Pilate, 

was crucified, died, and was buried; 

he descended to the dead. 

On the third day he rose again; 

he ascended into heaven, 

he is seated at the right hand of the Father, 

and he will come again to judge the living and the dead. 

I believe in the Holy Spirit, 

the holy catholic church, 

the communion of saints, 

the forgiveness of sins, 

the resurrection of the body, 

and the life everlasting. AMEN.

Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all that is, seen and unseen. 

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, light from light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one Being with the Father;

through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation

he came down from heaven,

was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary

and became truly human.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end. 

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Incedently you raise another question that I have asked before that no one has responded to.  If Peter ordained Clement then how is it that Linus and Cletus, who both came before Clement, were considered the first and second Popes in succession to Peter?  It makes no sense.  Unless you see it the logical way, that Linus, Cletus and Clement were all bishops of Rome, duly ordained by Peter or Paul, but they were not Peter's successors, just bishops, like every other bishop.

Can you explain this to me?

Thanks,

T-Shirt

T-Shirt,

I just came across this post from David Waltz in another thread. I hope he doesn't mind me using his words. Anyway T-Shirt, would you mind reading his post and commenting on it?

Hi Lee,

I just now read this thread and found the following which you posted:

>>I would like to see how David Waltz comments on what has been said in this thread.

I've asked him before, but have never seen a satisfactory answer, from any Catholic at that. All you ultimately get is "tradition" with no evidence (and they won) is what makes Rome the true church with the true authority.>>

Me: Wow, really do not quite know where to begin

Share this post


Link to post

Big Dogger,

One Apostle was replaced with very specific requirements to fill that office.

Just like clock work... Predictable down play.

What happens when the foundation of a building is taken away?

Common misunderstanding. The Church is not built upon the physical bodies of the Twelve Apostles. The Church is built on the Faith and teachings of the Twelve Apostles. The Faith and teachings of the Apostles is the foundation of the Catholic Church and has never changed and it never will.

Who ever said anything about "physical bodies" of Apostles?

The Apostleship was ment to last... or so says the Bible.

The Church has an Office called an Apostle... can you show me the office of "Pope" in the Bible?

The Church is built on the Faith and teachings of the Twelve Apostles.

And what was one of their teachings? That Apostle was an office and pope was not.

Little bit of wishfull think there.

The foundation of the Catholic Church is solid and unwaivering.

Share this post


Link to post
[How about when their was no more scriptures being written/reveled. If you can figure out when that was that is probably around when the Apostasy started?]

July 1978. Oh wait, we're talking about mainstream Christianity...

Hey it made me laugh :P

As for the church in general (us - the LDS folks), I do not believe God will just keep piling on revelations that we are not ready for as a people. Some key issues are re-emphasised such as the importance marriage, temple work, and staying morally clean. Paul stated it quite well in one of his letters (ch? vers?) where he tells the saints that the reason he has to repeat himself is because they failed to listen the first time - somethings never change.

Individually I know that we can recieve personal revelation from God - if we are ready and ask for it. I also know that the church is guided by God via personal revelation. My favorite words uttered by Moses, "if only all of Israel were prophets". Prophets are men called of God to teach and lead His children to also become prophets gifted with a fullness of the testimony of Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Big Dogger,

Incedently you raise another question that I have asked before that no one has responded to.

Share this post


Link to post
T-Shirt,

I just came across this post from David Waltz in another thread. I hope he doesn't mind me using his words. Anyway T-Shirt, would you mind reading his post and commenting on it?

I will respond to this in the other thread.

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post

Big Dogger,

Given your interpretation of Peter and the rock... When did/will this event take place?

Rev 12

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Rev 13

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Dan 7

21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

...

25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time (same as 42 months).

Share this post


Link to post
Just like clock work...  Predictable down play.

It's not a downplay, but rather what scripture tells us. Please indicate where another of the Twelve Apostles was ordained after Matthias.

Who ever said anything about "physical bodies" of Apostles?

My point to that was the Church is built, not on their mere presence, but rather the faith and teachings of the Apostles.

The Apostleship was ment to last... or so says the Bible.

Please provide your proof from the Bible.

The Church has an Office called an Apostle... can you show me the office of "Pope" in the Bible?

The Church had on office of the Twelve Apostles. They were unique in that they were a witness to the life, death and resurrection of Christ.

No, I can't show you the office of Pope in the Bible. Can you show me the "Telestial" Kingdom in the Bible?

And what was one of their teachings?

Apostles Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty,

creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, died, and was buried;

he descended to the dead.

On the third day he rose again;

he ascended into heaven,

he is seated at the right hand of the Father,

and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy catholic church,

the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and the life everlasting. AMEN.

Little bit of wishfull think there.

It is my Faith...if you want to get technical.

Why doesn't the Catholic Church have the same organization as Chirst Instituted in the Bible.

They do.

Hint: Sahedran means "Seventy" (ie Seventy elders)

Sanhedrin is the name given in the mishna to the body of seventy-one sages who constituted the supreme court and legislative body in Judea during the Roman period. The make-up of the seventy-one sages included a president, vice president, and sixty-nine general members who all sat in the form of a semi-circle when in session.

The Sanhedrin traced its lineage back to its formation in the time of Moses, although the Greek root for the word suggests that the institution may have developed during the Hellenistic period. The Sanhedrin ceased to exist some time after the destruction of the Second Temple. One of the requirements of being a member of the Sanhedrin is having received semicha. According to Rabbinic tradition, semicha was transmitted in an unbroken line extending back to Moses.

The Sanhedrin as a body claimed powers that other courts did not have. As such, they were the only ones who could try the king, extend the boundaries of the Temple and Jerusalem, and were the ones to whom all questions of law were finally put. The Jewish anticipation for the arrival of the Messiah includes the reconstitution of this body of sages.

The Sanhedrin is mentioned frequently in the New Testament. According to the Gospels, the council conspired to have Jesus of Nazareth killed by paying one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, thirty pieces of silver in exchange for delivery of the rabbi into their hands. When the Sanhedrin was unable to provide evidence that Jesus had committed a capital crime, false witnesses came forward and accused the Nazarene of blasphemy. Because the council was deprived of the ability to condemn criminals to death circa 30 CE, Jesus was brought before the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for a decision concerning his fate.

Was the Sanhedrin really a part of Christ's Church?

That is what Christ promised.
No... thats what misinterpretation of Scripture says.

Death will not prevail against the Church because God will always ressurect her.

Hummm...How many times does Christ have to establish His Church before it will finally stand for good?

Feeling the heat?

No, it is currently 34 degrees outside and I'm a bit chilled. :P

David is exactly right.  It can't be proven.

No, that is why God has bestowed us with the gifts of faith and mental reasoning.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Keep reading for a few more verses and you will learn:

Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back, but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post

Dogger,

Was the Sanhedrin really a part of Christ's Church?

Did I say that it was?

It was part of the Apostate Church that Christ came to call to repentance.

If you'll notice Christ did the same thing as Moses did. Luke 10:1

They do.

Excuse me... where are the Apostles? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Dogger,
Was the Sanhedrin really a part of Christ's Church?

Did I say that it was?

It was part of the Apostate Church that Christ came to call to repentance.

If you'll notice Christ did the same thing as Moses did. Luke 10:1

I thought you were trying to use that as an example for the LDS Quorum of the Seventy.

Share this post


Link to post
Rev 13

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Read both verse 7 and 8:

7

It was also allowed to wage war against the holy ones and conquer them, and it was granted authority over every tribe, people, tongue, and nation.

8

All the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, all whose names were not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life, which belongs to the Lamb who was slain.

All those people who do not belong to Christ....

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
They do.

Excuse me... where are the Apostles? :P

They died. They are with God in Heaven.

Share this post


Link to post

And how does one belong to Christ?

Is it not by dying a martyrs death?

Thats how the Beast over powers them... by... burning them at the stake and feeding them to the lions, and persecuting them. And they are in his hands and tribulation for 1260 Years.

So when did it happen? The correct answer for a Catholic would have to be... prior to Christ setting up his Church.

However... This prophecy is not completed until after 70AD.

So IMHO your misinterpetation of Matt 16:18 is not viable.

Share this post


Link to post
They do.

Excuse me... where are the Apostles? :P

They died. They are with God in Heaven.

Yes they are... they died the Marytrs death. My point exactly. But why arent they in the Catholic Church. Becuase the Bishops userped power over them.

Infact... verse 8 proves the point.

"ALL the inhabitants of the earth worship it."

Because those who belonged to Christ and ARE written in the book of life where taken in death. They where conquered. As verse 7 says.

Once again... the Church was taken from the earth.

And Catholic interperetation of Matt 16:18 stands in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes they are... they died the Marytrs death. My point exactly. But why arent they in the Catholic Church. Becuase the Bishops userped power over them.

I think you might be missing my point. The office of the Twelve Apostles could not be a permanent one. It is impossible. To be one of the Twelve Apostles a person needed to be an eye witness to Christ's ministry, death and resurrection. That requirement is spelled out so clearly in Scripture. Can anyone today say that they physically walked with Jesus? Can anyone today say that they were an eyewitness to his death and resurrection?

The Twelve Apostles were sent out as witnesses to the Gospel. They entrusted their witness accounts to the Bishops. The Bishops then teach the Gospel message to the masses.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...