1st/2nd century church

[Zakuska]

- Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Actually it doesn't support this at all.

Luke 11

27

[johnny]

juliann  writes,

Oh, please. This is supposed to be a contest and whoever can give the most quotes wins? What do I win? Make it worth my time.

It seems to me like their are not many Early Church Father quotes that would support LDS theology.

Even you believe a form of deification. Get over it. Baptism for the dead was being practiced by some in the early church. This is in the NT. Why would I need it anywhere else? I have put up cites on any number of things and you ignore them and keep asking the same thing over and over.

The apostles did not practice baptism for the dead

I have put up cites on any number of things and you ignore them and keep asking the same thing over and over.

What have I ignored ... I agreed with you that your citiations do not all agree.

And your point is...?

My point is that LDS theology is not what the Earth Church Father's taught.

[Zakuska]

The apostles did not practice baptism for the dead

Not according to Hermas

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

- Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary .

This is the verse that supports it ...

Luke 1

[48] For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

- Original Sin

These are the verses that support it ...

Rom 5

[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

[17] For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

[18] Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Rom 3

[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

Not according to Hermas

Are you referring to Shepherd of Hermas, Similitudes III, 9, 16 ... if so when did they get "the seal"?

[Zakuska]

Yes original sin was there but it no longer is there, Christ has taken it out of the way, for all men everywhere.

Calling Mary blessed is not the same thing as praying to her.

I call Joseph Smith blessed. "Praise to the Man" But I would never presume to pray to him.

Rom 5

[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

[17] For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

[18] Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

[juliann]

My point is that LDS theology is not what the Earth Church Father's taught.

Oh, sheesh. Like anyone claimed it was.

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

Yes original sin was there but it no longer is there, Christ has taken it out of the way, for all men everywhere.

Calling Mary blessed is not the same thing as praying to her.

Since this a big topic ... open another thread and I will be glad to discuss these topics.

[johnny]

juliann  writes, 

Oh, sheesh. Like anyone claimed it was.

Earlier you said "we hook up in the 1st and 2nd centuries" ... do you mean just a tiny, tiny, tiny hook.

I guess I expected some serious posting from you because earlier you said "My knowledge of early Christianity comes from Claremont Graduate University and it is my area of study and I'm going to do some serious posting here".

[TOmNossor]

Johnny,

- men can become another God like the Heavenly Father

Many ECF before Augustine said that

[Zakuska]

Yes, the early Christian writer Hermas definitely provides evidence that baptism for the dead was a biblical and Christian concept. His writings were even revered as scripture by some early Christians, though they are not part of the modern canon. Richard L. Anderson in his book, Understanding Paul (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), provides an excellent discussion of the teachings in Hermas on this topic. I quote from pages 408 - 410:

Some scholars are too cautious to link 1 Peter 3:19 on Christ preaching in the spirit prison with 1 Peter 4:6 on the general preaching to the dead. But the key words for preaching in those verses are kerusso and euangelizo, the only two words in the New Testament that are consistently used of the missionary proclamation of the gospel. These synonyms show that Peter is talking of similar events. God cannot reach all his children without sending messengers to the worlds of the living and of the dead. And the two Greek words just mentioned constantly refer to teaching baptism as well as faith. For instance, nearly every baptism mentioned in Acts is preceded by one of these words, generally translated "preach" or "preach the gospel." Christ's commission to the Twelve at the end of Matthew and Mark commands baptism as the immediate result of the preaching. Thus, Peter virtually suggests Paul's baptism for the dead in his verbs for preaching to the dead, the same verbs that are found in the above early Christian references on Christ's visit to the spirit world. In turn, Paul virtually suggests Peter's concern for the living and the dead in the context of baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29, as already discussed in the chapter treating that letter. And the two interrelated doctrines come together in the document known as the Shepherd of Hermas, which derives its name from a series of visions and teachings from an angel as a shepherd. In the second century the Muratorian Canon gives the date as midcentury: "But Hermas composed the Shepherd quite recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother, Pius, the bishop, occupied the chair of the city of Rome."

The Shepherd of Hermas is not a source for new doctrine, for its main theme is preserving the faith. Its author is dutiful and conservative, seeking to hold to what he had been taught in a Christian career going back to the turn of the century and Clement of Rome, whom he mentions.... Thus, he is a source for the common doctrines and practices of the Christian Church. And he welds preaching to the dead to baptism for the dead. These doctrines come in the allegory of building the tower, which the angel defines as the Church [Anderson cites The Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 9.16.2-4 (Loeb Classical Library, Kirsopp Lake trans.) I have a slightly different translation with essentially the same content: The Third Book of Hermas, Similitude 9, in The Lost Books of the Bible, Alpha House, Inc., Newfoundland, 1926, reprinted by World Publishing, New York, 1972, pp. 247-267; see especially verses 150-159, p. 258. Another translation is available online at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0201309.htm.] The three lower courses of stones represent the foundation generations of the righteous men of the Old Testament, with the last and largest number of 40 representing the "prophets and teachers of the preaching of the Son of God." These have the seal, clearly defined as baptism by (1) the requirement "to come up through the water that they might be made alive"; (2) the quotation of John 3:5, referring to water as the way to "enter into the kingdom of God"; and (3) the summary, "the seal, then, is the water." As the following passage begins, Hermas's messenger is explaining that the pre-Christian dead - "who had fallen asleep" - were also baptized; this is followed by the explanation that the New Testament priesthood bearers had been baptized again to make this possible [Anderson cites Sim. 9.16.3-7; see also The Third Book of Hermas, Sim. 9, vs. 152-160]:

"So these also who had fallen asleep received the seal of the Son of God and 'entered into the kingdom of God'. . . . This seal, then, was preached to them also, and they made use of it 'to enter into the kingdom of God.'"

"Why, Sir," said I, "did the 40 stones also come up with them from the deep, although they had received the seal already?"

"Because," said he, "these apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, having fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to those who had fallen asleep before them, and themselves gave to them the seal of the preaching. They went down therefore with them into the water and came up again, but the latter went down alive and came up alive, while the former, who had fallen asleep before, went down dead but came up alive. Through them, therefore, they were made alive, and received the knowledge of the name of the Son of God. . . . For they had fallen asleep in righteousness and in great purity, only they had not received this seal. You have then the explanation of these things also."

Some parts of the above message are obvious, and others are clear in the light of Hermas's purpose in writing. Since the above words explain the vision-parable or allegory, they relate to Christian doctrine and practice. The plainest point is that after death the "apostles and teachers" continued their missionary labors in the spirit world, adding the dimension that preaching to the dead continued after Christ. The consequences of that doctrine are revolutionary. Thus, the spirits do not merely receive an announcement of Christ's victory; continued preaching assumes individual growth there and acceptance of gospel principles beyond simple belief. Thus, the emphasis on baptism for the pre-Christian righteous logically fits the scheme. But what kind of baptism? . . .

Hermas's book proves that he is a Christian traditionalist, and the spirit-world passage underlines the point by three repetitions of the words of John 3:5 on entering the kingdom of God through water. He is so bound by scripture that he cannot imagine salvation without baptism, and he obviously writes with consciousness of Peter's words on preaching in the spirit world. Thus, Hermas also writes with awareness of Paul's reference to baptisms of the living for the dead. Those "fallen asleep" in his passage are, of course, the dead, and his subject closes with plain words about the righteous who had died without baptism. So Hermas is discussing what Christians believe about baptism for the dead; so this "pious and conscientious" author certainly refers to the known baptism for the dead and not the unknown. That explains his question to the angel, for he found it contradictory that the New Testament priesthood leaders went into the deep again, the symbol of their personal baptisms. If they would merely baptize others, there could be no puzzle. So Hermas's question was really about rebaptism of those already baptized. The explanation was that both groups go into the water, but the effect of remission of sins is only for those dying without baptism. This cooperative baptism is proxy baptism, the only type mentioned by the "apostles and teachers" that he refers to. The joint immersion in water is part of the symbolism not expressly interpreted, referring to the earthly baptisms that were a shared experience of the living and the dead.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BaptDead.shtml

[TOmNossor]

Johnny and Ave Maria,

There is no evidence for Creation ex Nihilo before the 2nd Century.

Maccabees is not. Hermas is not. And nothing in the Bible (Catholic or Protestant) is either.

I have already responded to your using of Maccabees and Hermas. Gerard May has allayed a few scholars who have actually looked at the evidence and they agree with him.

Here is something I have written in the past including a quote from May and another scholar (who provides a Maccabees translation).

Actually, I am well aware of 2 Maccabees 7:28. And I agree that we do not need to discuss if it is or is not canonical, because it is clearly pre-second century AD. The problem is that it does not actually show that anyone, author of 2 Maccabees or lady mentioned in 2 Maccabees believe in creation ex nihilo. The creation out of things that

[johnny]

TOmNossor  writes, 

No ECF placed limits upon what deified man could become until Augustine started writing. PROVE ME WRONG!

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

There have been many dozens of explanations for Paul

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes, 

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BaptDead.shtml

And your point is ... clearly this does not support the LDS practice of baptism for the dead.

[Zakuska]

How is it wrong Johnny?

"Because," said he, "these apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, having fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to those who had fallen asleep before them, and themselves gave to them the seal of the preaching. They went down therefore with them into the water and came up again, but the latter went down alive and came up alive, while the former, who had fallen asleep before, went down dead but came up alive. Through them, therefore, they were made alive, and received the knowledge of the name of the Son of God. . . . For they had fallen asleep in righteousness and in great purity, only they had not received this seal. You have then the explanation of these things also."

They Preached to those who had died in the flood of Noah, and they performed Baptisms for them by Proxy. These where the Apostles themselves.

[johnny]

TOmNossor  writes, 

There is no evidence for Creation ex Nihilo before the 2nd Century.

Maccabees is not. Hermas is not. And nothing in the Bible (Catholic or Protestant) is either.

I would disagree ... Hermas says "nothing" ... Maccabees says "that were not" ... sounds like ex Nihilo.

Here is something I have written in the past including a quote from May and another scholar (who provides a Maccabees translation).

I prefer to believe the interpretaion of the Catholic Church since they have the authority from Christ to interpret the scriptures.

But it was a development and while I do not go so far as to say it is unbiblical, it is not the most clear read of the Biblical (this is accepted by the majority scholars, I can even quote a Catholic if you like).

I view it as it was clarified later by the Church. I believe that all that that the Catholic Church proposes for belief as being divinely revealed and is drawn from a single deposit of faith. Divine assistance is given to the successors of the apostles.

[ave maria]

Some of what is unique to Mormonism is baptism of the dead and covenant...both of which you have completely avoided

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.

[TOmNossor]

I want to offer these two things from Catholics that bear on some of the discussions we are having.

Concerning Matthew 16:18. The most simple argument about this revolves around the word

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

They Preached to those who had died in the flood of Noah, and they performed Baptisms for them by Proxy. These where the Apostles themselves.

It does not reveal "they performed Baptisms for them by Proxy" ... are the apostles on earth?

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor  writes, 

No ECF placed limits upon what deified man could become until Augustine started writing. PROVE ME WRONG!

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

They said

[ave maria]

Catholics usually suggest that the Apostasies that happened were local not global and/or in the future (as Ave Maria seems to suggest). 

I think you need to distinguish between two things here, Tom.

"Apostasy" is acknowledged to have existed throughout the history of the (Christian) church. (Peripherally, I'm not certain how the LDS Church can be exempt from it.)

The "falling away" that is implied to be more complete is foretold to precede the Second Coming. Other than that, writers of scripture give us no firm indication when that is actually to take place.

This is not strictly impossible (although Hermas said it was soon at hand

The same expression has been used to describe the Second Coming from the time of the crucifixion.

and there is the “turned out the lights” time Juliann mentioned which fits nicely with Hermas).

An interesting Nibleyism.

Anyway, to say that the ECF do not support LDS apostasy ideas is to be either ignorant of what the ECF or radically BIASED.

Again, I think it's helpful to distinguish between the ECF supporting the idea of a falling away prior to the Second Coming that would be compatible with LDS belief, and asserting that it has already taken place, which is foundational to it.

[johnny]

TOmNossor  writes, 

Concerning Matthew 16:18. The most simple argument about this revolves around the word

[Zakuska]

- I do not mean that there are two Gods (Hippolytus 210AD)

200 AD Hippolytus

200 AD Hippolytus "For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy (i.e., the number and disposition of persons in the Trinity)." (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus)

200 AD Hippolytus "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" (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus)

200 AD Hippolytus "Let us look next at the apostle's word: "Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever."(13) This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father."(14) He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, "Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."(15) And well has he [John] named Christ the Almighty. For in this he has said only what Christ testifies of Himself. For Christ gave this testimony, and said, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father;"(16) and Christ rules all things, and has been appointed" (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus 6)

200 AD Hippolytus "For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings,(7) rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shall resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shall have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish ought of the divinity of His divine( perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory" (Elucidations, Ch. 30, Author's Concluding Address)

200 AD Hippolytus "She hath mingled her wine" in the bowl, by which is meant, that the Saviour, uniting his Godhead, like pure wine, with the flesh in the Virgin, was born of her at once God and man without confusion of the one in the other. "And she hath furnished her table:" that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity." (Hippolytus on Prov 9:1, fragment, "Wisdom hath builded her house.")

200 AD Hippolytus "But there is also that which is more honourable than all--the fact that Christ, the Maker of all, came down as the rain, and was known as a spring, and diffused Himself as a river, and was baptized in the Jordan." (Discourse On The Holy Theophany)

200 AD Hippolytus [Applying Rev 1:8 to Christ] "He who is over all, God blessed, has been born, and having been made man. He is God forever. For to this effect John also has said, 'Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.' And well has he named Christ the Almighty." (Against Noetus, Part 6)

200 AD Hippolytus "Beside Him there was nothing; but He [God], while existing alone, yet existed in plurality." (Against Noetus, Part 10)

200 AD Hippolytus "Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven,... He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body, coming forth too as a perfect man.." (Against Noetus, Part 17)

200 AD Hippolytus "The Logos is God, being the substance of God." (Refutation of all Heresies, Book X, ch 29)

200 AD Hippolytus "For Christ is the God above all..." (Refutation of all Heresies, Book X, ch 30)

200 AD Hippolytus "The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the Being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29).

200 AD Hippolytus "Therefore, this sole and universal God, by reflecting, first brought forth the Word--not a word as in speech, but as a mental word, the reason for everything. . . . The Word was the cause of those things which came into existence, carrying out in himself the will of him by whom he was begotten. . . . Only [God's] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" ... "For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33,34).

200 AD Hippolytus "Thus, after the death of Zephyrinus, supposing that he had obtained (the position) after which he so eagerly pursued, he [Callistus] excommunicated Sabellius, as not entertaining orthodox opinions" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7).

200 AD Hippolytus "Against The Heresy Of One Noetus: 1. Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, (and) lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died. Ye see what pride of heart and what a strange inflated spirit had insinuated themselves into him. Froth his other actions, then, the proof is already given us that he spoke not with a pure spirit; for he who blasphemes against the Holy Ghost is cast out from the holy inheritance. He alleged that he was himself Moses, and that Aaron was his brother. When the blessed presbyters heard this, they summoned him before the Church, and examined him. But he denied at first that he held such opinions. Afterwards, however, taking shelter among some, and having gathered round him some others who had embraced the same error, he wished thereafter to uphold his dogma openly as correct. And the blessed presbyters called him again before them, and examined him. But he stood out against them, saying, "What evil, then, am I doing in glorifying Christ?" And the presbyters replied to him, "We too know in truth one God; we know Christ; we know that the Son suffered even as He suffered, and died even as He died, and rose again on the third day, and is at the right hand of the Father, and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And these things which we have learned we allege." Then, after examining him, they expelled him from the Church. And he was carried to such a pitch of pride, that he established a school. 2. Now they [Noetus] seek to exhibit the foundation for their dogma by citing the word in the law, "I am the God of your fathers: ye shall have no other gods beside me;" and again in another passage, "I am the first," He saith, "and the last; and beside me there is none other." Thus they say they prove that God is one. And then they answer in this manner: "If therefore I acknowledge Christ to be God, He is the Father Himself, if He is indeed God; and Christ suffered, being Himself God; and consequently the Father suffered, for He was the Father Himself." But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner. But they make use also of other testimonies, and say, Thus it is written: "This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him. He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant (son), and to Israel His beloved. Afterward did He show Himself upon earth, and conversed with men." You see, then, he says, that this is God, who is the only One, and who afterwards did show Himself, and con-versed with men." And in another place he says, "Egypt hath laboured; and the merchandise of Ethiopia and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, (and they shall be slaves to thee); and they shall come after thee bound with manacles, and they shall fall down unto thee, because God is in thee; and they shall make supplication unto thee: and there is no God beside thee. For Thou art God, and we knew not; God of Israel, the Saviour." Do you see, he says, how the Scriptures proclaim one God? And as this is clearly exhibited, and these passages are testimonies to it, I am under necessity, he says, since one is acknowledged, to make this One the subject of suffering. For Christ was God, and suffered on account of us, being Himself the Father, that He might be able also to save us. And we cannot express ourselves otherwise, he says; for the apostle also acknowledges one God, when he says, "Whose are the fathers, (and) of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." ... "8. In this way, then, they choose to set forth these things, and they make use only of one class of passages; just in the same one-sided manner that Theodotus employed when he sought to prove that Christ was a mere man. But neither has the one party nor the other understood the matter rightly, as the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth. See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they have introduced, when they say without shame, the Father is Himself Christ, Himself the Son, Himself was born, Himself suffered, Himself raised Himself. But it is not so. The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different mind from them. Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated. For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy (i.e., the number and disposition of persons in the Trinity). The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages by these men, and then to explain their real meaning. For it is right, in the first place, to expound the truth that the Father is one God, "of whom is every family," "by whom are all things, of whom are all things, and we in Him." (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus)

200 AD Hippolytus "Against The Heresy Of One Noetus: Many other passages, or rather all of them, attest the truth. 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. What, then, will this Noetus, who knows nothing of the truth, dare to say to these things? And now, as Noetus has been confuted, let us turn to the exhibition of the truth itself, that we may establish the truth, against which all these mighty heresies have arisen without being able to state anything to the purpose. (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus)

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)

200 AD Hippolytus "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" (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus)

Three gods united in power and will make the one God.

It seems he was writing against a Modalist.

[johnny]

TOmNossor  writes, 

They said

[TOmNossor]

There have been many dozens of explanations for Paul