1st/2nd century church

[juliann]

No, that does not necessarily logically follow.

Your usual unresponsive noncontribution to any discussion. Pick pick pick...never add anything except links to apologetic Catholic websites about modern belief.

Since the point here is to distort, dodge and weave....I'd better give my own definitions:

It follows that to charge someone with apostasy is not to say that they have committed any particular sin.  It is to say that person has rebelled against god in some way or another.  Heresy and sin are ways in which one can apostatize, but they are not the same as apostasy.  This means that one can have or sometimes even teach false beliefs without necessarily turning against Divinity.  One can leave the church without apostatizing, as someone might do who has never had a testimony. One can lose one

[Zakuska]

No the Spirit was introduced at pentacost.

And on this account will they be transferred, because they have partaken of the righteous Word. And then only will they be removed from their punishments when the thought of repenting of the evil deeds which they have done has come into their hearts. But if it does not come into their hearts, they will not be saved, on account of the hardness of their heart.

Where do you get... "Transfered to the tower" out of the text?

They are transfered out of there punishment. But they are still in the inferior place.

In LDS theology after final judgment their are three different kingdoms.

So is there in the Bible.

Those outside the camp, those inside the camp, and those who have been taken to Gods throne.

What are these two towers?

The two churches. The wheat and the tares.

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

Johhny Don't insult everyones inteligence.

The verses you have shown support the Catholic View.

As Miller showed us this points to 1844 when Joseph sealed the testimony of the restoration with the spilling of his blood. Cleasing the sanctuary.

The verse do not point to 1844 ... they do point to the time immediately after Christ's ascension

[juliann]

The succession and authority of the Bishop of Rome's is evidence.

Great. Fine. Now prove itwith any evidence whatsoever. That means something contemporary to the time these bishops were supposed to live. Understand? Not a list of names that was put together centuries later. I can give you lists of names, too. So what?

Stop wasting everyone's time!

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

Where do you get... "Transfered to the tower" out of the text?

From Hermas words (see the link for information)

But in another and much inferior place they will be laid, and that, too, only when they have been tortured and completed the days of their sins. And on this account will they be transferred, because they have partaken of the righteous Word.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=291885

So is there in the Bible.

The Bible reveals different glories prior to the Last Judgment.

[Zakuska]

Yes they do... that the Beast over came the saints and stamped on them.

The verse do not point to 1844 ... they do point to the time immediately after Christ's ascension

Not according to Luther and Calvin and Miller

You said on another thread that the Lord came in his Glory with all his Saints at his acension, Correct?

EDIT: To Remove Snide remark.

[juliann]

Well, here goes this thread......

[Zakuska]

I removed my snide remark Juliann. Johnny when Did Christ come in his Glory with all his saints? Was it at his acension?

[Zakuska]

DP

[juliann]

Z, all we get from AM and Johnny are 2 liner imperial announcements of the truth of Catholicism with catchy responses like "no its not". It's boring and a complete waste of time.

[johnny]

juliann writes,

Great. Fine. Now prove itwith any evidence whatsoever.

Since is off-topic go to the links for more details ... I have provided a few words ... if you want to continue the discusion open another thread and I will be glad to discuss this topic.

Early Father Teachings

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/success.htm

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, 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. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties."

Clement,Epistle to Corinthians,42,44(A.D. 98),in ANF,I:16,17

Teachings from the Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church. Before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head. (CE The Pope).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

Clement was the fourth pope. Clement was ordained by St. Peter. Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle. Clement saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them. Clement wrote with authority while the Apostle John was still alive. Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul. Clement had learned the Faith from St. Peter, and had given his life for it. He received episcopal ordination from Peter in the life-time of the Apostles, and declined the office. He wrote, "And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the office of bishop. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they have given a law, so that, if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration." (Clement, Epistle to Corinthians,42,44(A.D. 98),in ANF,I:16,17). (CE St. Clement of Rome).

[Zakuska]

Zakuska

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

Johnny when Did Christ come in his Glory with all his saints? Was it at his acension?

This is off-topic ...

[Zakuska]

No its not please answer the question. Or can you? A simple yes or no will do.

[Paul Osborne]

No its not please answer the question. Or can you?

God is a Man.

Paul O

[johnny]

juliann  writes,

Well, here goes this thread......

The following might put the thread back on-topic ...

The 1st and 2nd century writings do not support the following LDS teachings:

- men can become another God like the Heavenly Father

- the apostles practiced ordinances, like Baptism, for the dead

- their was an apostasy as described by the LDS church

- their was a restoration as described by the LDS church

- the Father, the Son, and the HG are three Gods

The 1st and 2nd century writings do support the following Catholic teachings:

- the Father, the Son, and the HG are not three Gods

- Real Presence of the flesh in the Bread

- The bread and wine transubstantiation

- Infant Baptism

- Apostolic Succession

- Purgatory

- Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary

- Devotion and intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary

- Original Sin

- Ex Nihilo(Creation out of Nothing)

Z, all we get from AM and Johnny are 2 liner imperial announcements of the truth of Catholicism with catchy responses like "no its not". It's boring and a complete waste of time.

Why don't you use your time to show us how the above LDS teachings are supported by the 1st and 2nd century writings ... thanks ...

[Zakuska]

Could you please answer the question.

When did Christ come in his Glory, sit on his throne and set his kingdom up on the earth? The acension correct? 40 days after his ressurection? Correct?

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

Could you please answer the question.

Open another thread and I will be glad to answer ...

[Zakuska]

Done.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=10828

[David Waltz]

Hi Johnny,

You posted the following:

>>The Catholic perspective of deification is supported by the Early Church Father's and the Bible.>>

Me: I have been studying the doctrine of deification in depth for over a decade now, and can say with confidence that there exists more than

[ave maria]

And lastly, certain aspects of some early Catholic theologians teachings on deification are very close to the Mormon view.

Rendering it in any case not the least exclusive to LDS tradition currently.

However the point is disputed ("theosis" means exactly thus-and-such), it is not the exclusive provenance of the LDS faith.

David, I'd be interested to know your perspective on those beliefs of early Christianity that are truly currently unique to Mormonism, and not found elsewhere, or non-existent at the time of Joseph Smith.

[johnny]

  David Waltz  writes,

Further, and this importantly, very little has been said in official Catholic documents concerning the doctrine of deification, but what has been said is at odds with the post-Palamas Eastern Orthodox position, which was defined at 3 EO councils.

Do you agree with this "official Catholic document"?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm#brief

No creature has the infinite power necessary to "create" in the proper sense of the word, that is, to produce and give being to that which had in no way possessed it (to call into existence "out of nothing") (CCC318).

And lastly, certain aspects of some early Catholic theologians teachings on deification are very close to the Mormon view.

Would Catholic theologians agree with this Mormon teaching (LDS GP Chapter 47):

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-59,00.html

We can become a creator like our Heavenly Father.

Would Catholic theologians agree with the following discourse:

The King Follett Sermon by Joseph Smith

http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.org/V...efJDvol6-1.html

Here, then, is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you,-namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one,-from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me.

These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners, when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again, to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more; but they shall be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory, and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the track of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children. It is plain beyond disputation; and you thus learn some of the first principles of the Gospel, about which so much hath been said.

This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know it is good; and when I tell you of these things which were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and I rejoice more and more.

I AM AUTHORIZED to say, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that you have no occasion to fear; for he is gone to the home of the just. Don't mourn; don't weep. I know it by the testimony of the Holy Ghost that is within me; and you may wait for your friends to come forth to meet you in the morn of the celestial world.

[ave maria]

Christ is the head of the church.  The church is the bride.  Christ says the gates of hell will not prevail against the church--in other words, it won't die.  These are all NT principles.  If a great apostasy occurs, and the church is cut off from Christ, this seems to me to be a failure.  This is not a polemical statement, its an accurate characterization. 

   

Actually, for the gates of hell (hades) to have any meaning at all you have to be behind them. That means you are dead. The gates of hell do not hold back the dead, however...they are resurrected. So was Christ's church.

I've seen this "gates of hell" argument appealed to by others in the LDS Church, yet it fails to address how the term is applied differently when used in LDS scripture.

As it's also off the central topic of discussion, perhaps you'd like to address it in another thread.

[ave maria]

And lastly, certain aspects of some early Catholic theologians teachings on deification are very close to the Mormon view.

Would Catholic theologians agree with this Mormon teaching (LDS GP Chapter 47):

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-59,00.html

We can become a creator like our Heavenly Father.

Would Catholic theologians agree with the following discourse:

The King Follett Sermon by Joseph Smith

http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.org/V...efJDvol6-1.html

Here, then, is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you,-namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one,-from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me.

These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners, when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again, to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more; but they shall be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory, and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the track of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children. It is plain beyond disputation; and you thus learn some of the first principles of the Gospel, about which so much hath been said.

This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know it is good; and when I tell you of these things which were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and I rejoice more and more.

I AM AUTHORIZED to say, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that you have no occasion to fear; for he is gone to the home of the just. Don't mourn; don't weep. I know it by the testimony of the Holy Ghost that is within me; and you may wait for your friends to come forth to meet you in the morn of the celestial world.

johnny--

I think it's fair to say that not only, as David pointed out, are there differences of opinion regarding the nuts and bolts of deification in historical Christianity/EO and Catholic belief; there are just as many differences of opinion on the nuts and bolts of deification in LDS belief. So asserting there is "one single accepted LDS belief on men becoming gods" is equally inaccurate.

When David asserts that some Catholic definitions of deification come closer to the LDS view, I interpret that (perhaps incorrectly, and David can correct me if I'm mistaken) to mean closer to one particular version of the LDS view. That is, there can be a place in the middle where the two can approach the same general concepts.

Zakuska has another thread on another forum on this website on theosis if you want to explore it further there.

[johnny]

ave maria  writes,

So asserting there is "one single accepted LDS belief on men becoming gods" is equally inaccurate.

Do you think it is accurate to say that a creature(man) can become a creator like God?

Do you think it is accruate to say that LDS theology teaches a creature can become a creator like God?

Do you think it is accurate to say that Catholic theology teaches a creature can not become a creator like God?