1st/2nd century church

ave maria · October 13, 2005

Wasn't it just a few years ago when fellow Christians held up signs outside temple square mocking this "unique" doctrine of the LDS church infront of the world. Saying Christians had never had such a doctrine and it goes against the Bible. And here we are 4 years later, we see a complete reversal, and find out that it was Christian Orthodoxy for at least 300 years, till the councils stamped it out and dubbed it heresy? And now we see a complete flip flop and it added to the Cathesim?
oops... <blush>

It's never disappeared from Catholic teaching or tradition. It's right in the New Testament.

It's just more visible to you because the new official Catechism is the first universal Catechism in several hundred years.

ave maria · October 13, 2005

Over even more time the Bishop of Rome emerged as Pope, the capstone of his authority being the decree of Papal Infallibility 1830 years after Christ’s death. The Eastern Church never accepted the Pope as “prime,” because they saw this as a non-valid development.
I merely suggest that all of the above was a non-valid development.

I assume that having one person as visible head of the Church is not a problem for you, however.

Zakuska · October 13, 2005

Being in the scriptures does not mean it did not disappear.

The application, potification and understanding of the scripture has changed profusly through the ages.

Why are Cahtolics so suprised and hell bent when a Mormon turns up and shows it to them?

Immediate reaction that Ive seen is... Deny Deny Deny.

I think it must be an imbreed reaction.

Archon · October 13, 2005

Folks I am enjoying reading this thread. I can see a tendency to slip back into personal attacks and vacous comments. I would like to see the discussion develop as a real discussion of thoughts and ideas rather than a series of one liners and meaningless attacks on the ideas of others.

Please pay attention as I will not hesitate to take anyone off the thread who cannot contribute to the discussion. I simply am interested in what people have to sayabout the subject.

Archon

countbasie · October 13, 2005

Countbasie: Tom, don't you think that the Jehovah's witnesses make similar claims. And basically any group that maintains beliefs that do not square with the early councils? ANY religious group that has problems with the Trinity is going to claim that they match up very well with the earliest of the ECFs. This isn't inexplicable. It simply reflects the plurality of opinions in the early post NT times--the plurality that necessitated the councils.
T-shirt: I think you are making a huge assumption without foundation. I would like to see some examples of this. I frankly doubt it is as you say, but maybe you can show some examples.

If you think LDS are the only folks around appealing to the early church fathers to justify their heretical views of the Trinity, check out this website which discusses how the J Witnesses do the same thing.

all along the watchtower

countbasie · October 13, 2005

I don't believe it's that difficult to understand how Joseph Smith could have formulated doctrines or practices found in early Christian writings, even if you believe he didn't have access to them personally. One cannot view Joseph Smith in a vacuum. He certainly came from a Protestant context, and a Protestant environment, and Protestantism derives initially from early Christianity. The Early Christian Fathers were not entirely unknown to the Protestant world, or to Protestant theologians

That's a good point. Just to amplify it this is a quote from Fr. Nehaus

source

In 1831, Alexander Campbell, cofounder of the Disciples of Christ, said that Smith pasted together "every error and almost every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years." Much of the teaching reflects the liberal Protestantism of the time, even the Transcendental and Gnostic fevers that were in the air: e.g., a God in process of becoming, progressive revelation, the denial of original sin, and an unbridled optimism about the perfectibility of man.

Archon · October 13, 2005

Let me Clarify my earlier statement.

The topic of this thread is how 1st and 2nd century writings reflect LDS teachings. It does not directly concern how the JW's treat the subject or if the Catholic's are justified in their doctrine. It is how the early writings reflect current LDS teachings.

I would like to read more about this.

Therefore I ask you all to stay on topic or be deleted. OK?

Archon

juliann · October 13, 2005

=rhinomelon,Oct 12 2005, 01:04 PM] Now, to your quotes. As far as baptism/preaching to the dead, as I expected, you were unable to find even five places in which any ECF states that preaching/baptizing the dead is within the realm of possibility for the follower of Christ. You found many about Christ doing it, but since mainstream Christianity has held that belief for two thousand years without your help, that was not unexpected.

I'm not sure how to get this back on track and there is too much for me to read right now. If we get going on deification and baptism for the dead we are going to go all over the place. There have been ample quotes put up regarding deification.

For baptism for the dead, I would look for what it represents. Methods may vary. So we are looking at salvation for the dead. The last I heard, Paul's mention of baptising for the dead has over a hundred different interpretations trying to wiggle out of the plain meaning. The most commonly referred to extrabiblical mention is:

"From Asia and Gaul has reached us the account [tradition] of a certain practice, namely that when any die without baptism among them, they baptize others in their place and in their name, so that, rising in the resurrection, they will not have to pay the penalty of having failed to receive baptism, but rather will become subject to the authority of the Creator of the World. For this reason this tradition which has reached us is said to be the very thing to which the Apostle himself refers when he says, "If the dead rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead?" (Epiphanius, Against Heresies I, 28, 6, in PG 41:384-85.)

Ambrose confirms:

Fearing that a dead person who had never been baptized would be resurrected badly [male] or not at all, a living person would be baptized in the name of the dead one. Hence he [Paul] adds: "Else why are they baptized for them?" (Ambrose, Commentaria in Epistolam I ad Corinthios (Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians), in PL 17:280.)
Shepherd of Hermas spoke of the earliest apostles who "went down living into the water" in behalf of those who had died." (Shepherd of Hermas, Similitudes III, 9, 16).

The most thorough treatment is from this book:

This book has examined a number of Christians from the first several centuries who believed that non-Christians could be saved posthumously, in various ways: Paul (in his most universalistic moment), perhaps the author of 1 Peter, the authors of the Apocalypse of Peter and the second Sibylline Oracle, the author of The Acts of Paul and Thecla, Clement of Alexandria, Perpetua and the editor of Perpetua

juliann · October 13, 2005

I've heard there are 1st and 2nd century writings by Church leaders which suggest doctrines exclusive nowadays to the LDS Church are supported. Could someone point me in the right direction? (Links?) I think this could be an interesting discussion, once I read the quotes for myself.

The most comprehensive treatment is Early Christians in Disarray: contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy, ed. Noel B. Reynolds. This will give you every source you would ever need. It also contains an appendix with short bios on the main players and a description of each council.

Restformationist · October 13, 2005

Thank you juliann. I'll be sure to check that out.

Tanyan · October 13, 2005

http://www.scrollpublishing.com

http://www.earlychristianwrittings.com

http://www.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcri...tianals/2004_...

http://www.14lds.com/corrupt.htm

rhinomelon · October 13, 2005

Thanks for the info, juliann. I'll have to check this out.

Anyway, I was thinking about the posts I popped off yesterday, and decided that I owe BCSpace an apology. I was being pretty testy, for a variety of reasons yesterday, which is not the best position to be in when discussing sensitive issues, much less all out debating them.

Please forgive my frustration.

This doesn't mean that I agree with BC, or that I think his case is overwhelming. It just means I should know better how to discuss such topics with both truth and grace, as I see Jesus doing.

More later. Take care, everyone

Magyar · October 13, 2005

Thanks for the info, juliann. I'll have to check this out.
Anyway, I was thinking about the posts I popped off yesterday, and decided that I owe BCSpace an apology. I was being pretty testy, for a variety of reasons yesterday, which is not the best position to be in when discussing sensitive issues, much less all out debating them.
Please forgive my frustration.
This doesn't mean that I agree with BC, or that I think his case is overwhelming. It just means I should know better how to discuss such topics with both truth and grace, as I see Jesus doing.
More later. Take care, everyone

This board drives us all to be testy at times, rhinomelon. I'm glad you're here, in spite of our differences.

Zakuska · October 13, 2005

One quick comment... There is a huge difference.

Christians say we need to go back to the oldest manuscripts for the bible thats fine.

But here is the Issue.

Catholics claim to be the old church. But when we look back at that church we find they have deviated, profusly.

Protestants claim to be a reformation of the church, yet again we look back and there again we see deviation.

JWs don't claim to be a restoration nor a reformation IIRC.

LDS we look back claiming to be a restoration of that primitive church, find our key unique doctrines there so the big difference is... It strengthens our claim rather than weakening it.

Enough about that.

To add to Julianns list of Baptism for the dead quotes we can't forget this Gem provided ala Ave Maria. <_<

Concerning baptism for the dead, a curious and difficult passage in St. Paul's Epistle has given rise to some controversy. The Apostle says: "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them?" (I Cor., xv, 29), There seems to be no question here of any such absurd custom as conferring baptism on corpses, as was practiced later by some heretical sects. It has been conjectured that this otherwise unknown usage of the Corinthians consisted in some living person receiving a symbolic baptism as representing another who had died with the desire of becoming a Christian, but had been prevented from realizing his wish for baptism by an unforeseen death. Those who give this explanation say that St. Paul merely refers to this custom of the Corinthians as an argumentum ad hominem, when discussing the resurrection of the dead, without approving the usage mentioned,

So some later groups started baptising corpses... but wait...

Archbishop MacEvilly in his exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, holds a different opinion. He paraphrases St. Paul's text as follows: "Another argument in favor of the resurrection. If the dead will not arise, what means the profession of faith in the resurrection of the dead, made at baptism? Why are we all baptized with a profession of our faith in their resurrection?" The archbishop comments, as follows: "It is almost impossible to glean anything like certainty as to the meaning of these very abstruse words, from the host of interpretations that have been hazarded regarding them (see Calmet's Dissertation on the matter). In the first place, every interpretation referring the words 'baptized', or 'dead' to either erroneous or evil practices, which men might have employed to express their belief in the doctrine of the resurrection, should be rejected; as it appears by no means likely that the Apostle would ground an argument, even though it were what the logicians call an argumentum ad hominem, on either a vicious or erroneous practice. Besides, such a system of reasoning would be quite inconclusive. Hence, the words should not be referred to either the Clinics, baptized at the hour of death, or to the vicarious baptisms in use among the Jews, for their departed friends who departed without baptism. The interpretation adopted in the paraphrase makes the words refer to the Sacrament of Baptism, which all were obliged to approach with faith in the resurrection of the dead as a necessary condition. 'Credo in resurrectionem mortuorum'. This interpretation -- the one adopted by St. Chrysostom--has the advantage of giving the words 'baptized' and 'dead' their literal signification. The only inconvenience in it is that the word resurrection is introduced. But, it is understood from the entire context, and is warranted by a reference to other passages of Scripture. For, from the Epistle of the Hebrews (vi, 2) it appears that a knowledge of the faith of the resurrection was one of the elementary points of instruction required for adult baptism; and hence the Scriptures themselves furnish the ground for the introduction of the word. There is another probable interpretation, which understands the words 'baptism' and 'dead' in a metaphorical sense, and refers them to the sufferings which the Apostles and heralds of salvation underwent to preach the Gospel to the infidels, dead to grace and spiritual life, with the hope of making them sharers in the glory of a happy resurrection. The word 'baptism' is employed in this sense in Scripture, even by our divine Redeemer Himself -- 'I have a baptism wherewith to be baptized', etc. And the word 'dead' is employed in several parts of the New Testament to designate those spiritually dead to grace and justice. In the Greek, the words 'for the dead', uper ton nekron that is, on account of or, in behalf of the dead, would serve to confirm, in some degree, this latter interpretation. These appear to be the most probable of the interpretations of this passage; each, no doubt, has its difficulties. The meaning of the words was known to the Corinthians at the time of the Apostle. All that can be known of their meaning at this remote period, can not exceed the bounds of probable conjecture" (loc. cit., chap. xv; cf. also Cornely in Ep. I Cor.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Paul a Jew and the Jews practicing proxy Baptism (mikva) for their kindred dead.

1 Cor 15

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Adds quite a bit of context to what Paul was saying don't you think?

Pauls grounding of an argument in the practice is an admition of validity!

EDIT to add..

Theres also the little fact that Unanimously, the "Heads" of the Early church interpreted John 3:5 exactly as LDS do.

http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/ap...nt/hermsima.htm

Sorry Protestants.

ave maria · October 13, 2005

But here is the Issue.
Catholics claim to be the old church. But when we look back at that church we find they have deviated, profusly.
Protestants claim to be a reformation of the church, yet again we look back and there again we see deviation.
JWs don't claim to be a restoration nor a reformation IIRC.
LDS we look back claiming to be a restoration of that primitive church, find our key unique doctrines there so the big difference is... It strengthens our claim rather than weakening it.

But Zakuska, respectfully, your statements aren't parallel.

The LDS Church claims to be the original church, too. "But when we look back at that church we find they have deviated, profusly (sic)."

You could likewise say about both Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Protestantism that they "find their key unique doctrines there."

Deviation doesn't seem to be the issue for the LDS Church that you perceive it to be with other faiths.

Zakuska · October 13, 2005

Here is another one I just found...

Zakuska

Abulafia · October 13, 2005

This is a subject of interest to me also. The theology and doctrine of the LDS church does appear to contain what may be authentic practices from the earliest christian church.

The difficulty I have is how soon after Jesus died, did things became a little fuzzy.

Peter proclaiming that Jesus is the Messiah, is given the initial keys, (Matthew 16) and this I think is one of the only places where Jesus is quoted as having begun a 'church' as well as giving Peter the binding and loosing keys.

Luke and Mark are suprisingly quiet on this issue, and because of this, Vermes (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. P 362) suggests that this may indicate that Peter's nomination is a 'secondary accretion'. John is also blissfully silent on this issue.

Vermes therefore suggests that 'words about Peter's promotion should be credited not to Jesus, but to Matthew or his editor....' (p362)

There is some evidence within the New Testament itself that it was infact James the brother of Jesus who becomes the leader of the early church.

Sign In

1st/2nd century church

Recommended Posts

ave maria

ave maria

Zakuska

Archon

countbasie

countbasie

Archon

juliann

juliann

Restformationist

Tanyan

rhinomelon

Magyar

Zakuska

ave maria

Zakuska

Abulafia

ave maria

Zakuska

ave maria

Zakuska

docrick

ave maria

ave maria

Zakuska

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse