The Oddity of Protestant Apologetics

[poptart]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Yeah, hit the nail on the head. I haven't met very many high church protestants, but I feel like high church types of people tend to be less aggressive towards LDS generally because they're also skirting the line of "saved by works/rituals" like LDS are.

What are those three things you referenced? Should I be taking time to look into them?

I figured as much, it's not so much they're less aggressive, they prefer to stick with those who have the same confessions, everyone's on the same page.  Also nope, not saved by works, saved by Grace through Faith.  Whole point of the Augsburg Confession (which is all backed by Holy Scripture) is to justify this.  You still have to do good works, that's how you show the world you're a Christian.  Another issue, once the OG German/Northern Euro Americans lost their roots, a lot of the US Churches followed so yep, it's not as common.  Across the Pond, in Canada, Australia and E.Asia?  Different story.  

Hmm, that's up to you.  If you're interested, here you go.

Augsburg Confession - Wikipedia  

The Augsburg Confession · BookOfConcord.org  

-Pro tip, stick with the 1530 version, the later one is what started a lot of problems, ones that ended up coming to the USA thanks to the 30 years war.

Here's what the Anglicans had, not really my thing but I've known Anglican clergy who still adhere to this strictly.

Book of Common Prayer - Wikipedia

Here's a personal favorite.

Jordan B Cooper - Home

Enjoy!

BTW, here's the part in the Book of Concord that addresses the issue of faith and works, all backed by Scripture.  

IV. Good Works | Book of Concord

Edited December 5, 2025 by poptart

[poptart]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

All of Christianity is just Jewish apostates.

We’re all going to burn in hell for our heresy.

That is all.

You may find this interesting.

Hong Kong Institute of Jingjiao Studies – Jingjiao – for those who feel deeply Chinese and deeply Christian

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, poptart said:

You may find this interesting.

Hong Kong Institute of Jingjiao Studies – Jingjiao – for those who feel deeply Chinese and deeply Christian

Yes, I now worship El and his goddess Asherah. I keep going back further in time.

[poptart]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, I now worship El and his goddess Asherah. I keep going back further in time.

The Chaldean/Assyrian Orthodox are a very, very interesting study, right up there with the St. Thomas Christians.  Supposedly the Nestorians even made it to Japan, a few Mongol Emissaries who were Nestorians were executed at the Tatsunokuchi grounds outside of Kamakura.  Fun fact, Temujin (Genghis) Khan's boss, Wang Khan was a Nestorian Christian.  This was not lost on the Daimyo in Japan, the monks on mt. Hiei saved records of those times.  When the Jesuits showed up, folks started asking questions.   Between the Mongols and the non stop wars Japan had a crazy amount of firearms, ohh boy the samurai loved guns.  If it wasn't for that I suspect the Portuguese and Spaniards would have tried what they did in S.America.

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, poptart said:

Between the Mongols and the non stop wars Japan had a crazy amount of firearms, ohh boy the samurai loved guns.  If it wasn't for that I suspect the Portuguese and Spaniards would have tried what they did in S.America.

I think an attempt would have gone very badly for them. There was no Columbian exchange of disease to depopulate Japan and Japan was relatively unified compared to the fractured groups that populated South and Central America. No strategic alliances to aid in conquest. So their usual approach wouldn’t work.

[poptart]

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think an attempt would have gone very badly for them. There was no Columbian exchange of disease to depopulate Japan and Japan was relatively unified compared to the fractured groups that populated South and Central America. No strategic alliances to aid in conquest. So their usual approach wouldn’t work.

Oh absolutely!  To add to this, considering the times good luck with supply lines and yep, no worthy strategic alliances.  Biggest thing of all though were the samurai.  Japan wasn't exactly united, When the Jesuits showed up Nobunaga was busy unifying (With a crazy amount of solders with muskets) Japan, his main interest was how they could help him deal with Ikko Ikki and of course trade for more firearms, till then they were still manufacturing ones based on Chinese firearms.  Something about the Japanese, when push comes to shove they've historically united as one, fast.  The founder of Hokke-shu/Nichiren Buddhism, Nichiren Shonin made a work called Rissho Ankoku Ron, establishing the correct teachings of the land.  That was made when Kublai Khan almost invaded, that was one great uniting event.  Other thing, their wars with Korean and everyone else.  People underestimate just how aggressive and mean the samurai could be, they were no joke.  

Here, from an old NHK series on Nobunaga Oda, I've watched the whole series, good stuff.  Great example of the warfare samurai were doing when the Jesuits showed up.

 

[marineland]

On 12/4/2025 at 6:04 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

If the Catholic Church lacks authority- where does that leave her Protestant daughters?

If there was no apostasy, why the need for the Protestant Reformation?  

The reformation was against Catholic doctrine.

[marineland]

On 12/4/2025 at 5:12 PM, 3DOP said:

It came to my attention as a desperate attempt to show that Catholicism is anti-sexual.

Does sexual activity continue in all kingdoms of glory?

[marineland]

On 12/5/2025 at 1:41 PM, InCognitus said:

and Christ's church at the time of the Roman empire [the legs of iron in Daniel 2] was given to another people (see Matthew 21:43). 

Can you identify the kingdom of the feet; iron mixed with clay?

[InCognitus]

12 minutes ago, marineland said:

Can you identify the kingdom of the feet; iron mixed with clay?

Not kingdom, but kingdoms.  As it says in verse 44, "in the days of these kings [plural] shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed".  Who they are is not as important as the fact that they came long after the period of the Roman Empire [the legs of iron], and have aspects of the Roman Empire integrated within them (as they are iron mixed with miry clay, and they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay).  They would likely be the European nations and modern states of the world.

Edited December 9, 2025 by InCognitus

[Calm]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

The reformation was against Catholic doctrine.

I think that was the point.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Does sexual activity continue in all kingdoms of glory?

Are you asking a Catholic this or throwing it out to generally?

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Does sexual activity continue in all kingdoms of glory?

Pope John Paul II, adhering to the ancient teaching of the Church, appeals to Holy Scripture for his authority in affirming that with the Resurrection of the Body, each of us retains the same gender that they had on earth, with the meaning we can learn from the differences and compatibility of the sexes:

"When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage." (Mk 12:25)

Those of course are Christ's words to the Sadducees who denied the Resurrection and knew it would be absurd for a woman's seven legitimate husbands to be wife to all of them in any Resurrection. Which is to be the husband? Clearly, none of them. The pope goes on to explain:

These words have a key meaning for the theology of the body...All three synoptic Gospels report the same statement, except that Luke's version is different in some details from Matthew and Mark. Essential for them all is the fact that, in the future resurrection human beings, after having reacquired their bodies in the fullness of the perfection characteristic of the image and likeness of God - after having reacquired them in their masculinity and femininity - neither marry nor are given in marriage.

In the next paragraph he succinctly states the teaching of the Gospels:

As can be seen from these words, marriage, that union in which, according to Genesis, "A man cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (2:24) - the union characteristic right from the beginning - belongs exclusively to this age. Marriage and procreation, do not constitute on the other hand, the eschatological future of man.

---The Theology of the Body, Human Love in the Divine Plan, Pope John Paul II, Daughters of St. Paul, Boston MA, 1997, p. 238 (bold mine)

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, marineland said:

Can you identify the kingdom of the feet; iron mixed with clay?

If it was written during the Maccabean Revolt as many believe I expect the best identification would be the successor kingdoms. At this point the Seleucids were the ones doing a lot of the stuff in the book of Daniel like violating the temple and dedicating it to Zeus.

[marineland]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you asking a Catholic this or throwing it out to generally?

Generally to all.

[marineland]

21 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Not kingdom, but kingdoms.  As it says in verse 44, "in the days of these kings [plural] shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed".  Who they are is not as important as the fact that they came long after the period of the Roman Empire [the legs of iron], and have aspects of the Roman Empire integrated within them (as they are iron mixed with miry clay, and they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay).  They would likely be the European nations and modern states of the world.

Rome, like Babylon, Medes/Persians, and Greece had several leaders (kings, emperors, 
etc) but each was still viewed as one kingdom.

I expect the same for the last kingdom, what some have referred to as the revival 
of the Roman Empire, in the form of the European Union.  Or it might be a set of ten
European kings that Revelation 17 might symbolize.

"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom 
as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These shall make war 
with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King 
of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful".

Ten kings - kingdom, not kingdoms. And they receive power for one hour with the
beast.

Another thing the four previous kingdoms had in common was their control over the
Holy Land.

Daniel 2:34 says, "As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck
the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces".

When did that happen?

Edited December 10, 2025 by marineland

[InCognitus]

35 minutes ago, marineland said:

Rome, like Babylon, Medes/Persians, and Greece had several leaders (kings, emperors, 
etc) but each was still viewed as one kingdom.

I expect the same for the last kingdom, what some have referred to as the revival 
of the Roman Empire, in the form of the European Union.  Or it might be a set of ten
European kings that Revelation 17 might symbolize.

"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom 
as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These shall make war 
with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King 
of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful".

Ten kings - kingdom, not kingdoms. And they receive power for one hour with the
beast.

Another thing the four previous kingdoms had in common was their control over the
Holy Land.

The kingdoms in Daniel's dream interpretation were successive.  So you need to look at the kingdoms that succeeded the Roman Empire if you want to identify the feet and toes of clay and iron.  What you are proposing creates a gap in the "image" that Daniel saw.

37 minutes ago, marineland said:

Daniel 2:34 says, "As you looked, [A] a stone was cut out by no human hand, and [B] it struck
the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces".

When did that happen?

Point A (in red above) happened in 1830.  Point B is soon to come.

[3DOP]

On 12/9/2025 at 4:50 PM, 3DOP said:

Pope John Paul II, adhering to the ancient teaching of the Church, appeals to Holy Scripture for his authority in affirming that with the Resurrection of the Body, each of us retains the same gender that they had on earth, with the meaning we can learn from the differences and compatibility of the sexes:

"When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage." (Mk 12:25)

Those of course are Christ's words to the Sadducees who denied the Resurrection and knew it would be absurd for a woman's seven legitimate husbands to be wife to all of them in any Resurrection. Which is to be the husband? Clearly, none of them. The pope goes on to explain:

These words have a key meaning for the theology of the body...All three synoptic Gospels report the same statement, except that Luke's version is different in some details from Matthew and Mark. Essential for them all is the fact that, in the future resurrection human beings, after having reacquired their bodies in the fullness of the perfection characteristic of the image and likeness of God - after having reacquired them in their masculinity and femininity - neither marry nor are given in marriage.

In the next paragraph he succinctly states the teaching of the Gospels:

As can be seen from these words, marriage, that union in which, according to Genesis, "A man cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (2:24) - the union characteristic right from the beginning - belongs exclusively to this age. Marriage and procreation, do not constitute on the other hand, the eschatological future of man.

---The Theology of the Body, Human Love in the Divine Plan, Pope John Paul II, Daughters of St. Paul, Boston MA, 1997, p. 238 (bold mine)

Hey marineland. Thanks for the upvote! I hope you can follow me as I continue my thoughts on comparisons to the LDS point of view.

I have to be sure that LDS thinkers have pondered over the same passages that led Pope John Paul II to say "Marriage and procreation, do not constitute...the eschatological future of man." I would be disappointed if the LDS haven't arrived at some kind of biblical solution to the pope's interpretation which appears to contradict the LDS teaching on family life after the resurrection.

I deliberately added the first word "appears to contradict". This is because while I must conclude that the LDS position can't be entirely right from a Catholic perspective, there is a very important sense that can be easily missed in which we agree wholeheartedly with the LDS. Family life continues. It is an admirable and good instinct to be repulsed at the idea that our most intimate earthly family ties will have no correspondence in heaven. 

It is plain to me from our discussions lately, that there are highly distorted ideas among LDS about those who accept John Paul's point of view, which is the same as most Protestants. Some LDS seem think that there must of necessity be a dehumanizing of the current nature of man in non-LDS thought. I have seen words like transhuman to describe what they think John Paul's position implies. Some even seem surprised that we believe that we retain our genders eternally. They also seem to think that we doubt the full humanity of the Lord Jesus. There was a long thread recently dedicated to discovering if non-LDS believed that Christ could have been fertile! There is so much ignorance about each others faiths and it gets perpetuated wherever we find a desire to understand the belief of the other in the least attractive and sensible light. It can be reassuring to know that only our own beliefs make any sense. 

There is no point in discussion if we cannot see the areas in which we agree. Again, I agree with the LDS about the necessary human need for family forever. I will not suggest that LDS can easily start teaching against a century or more of belief in eternal families, sealings for time and eternity, etc. But I want our LDS friends to see that what we believe is not so different and alien as perhaps they have thought. This post is already too long. If there is interest when I have some more time, I would be happy to make a followup post which might help Latter-day Saints to disagree with the pope's conclusions, while on the other hand, finding his concept of "eternal family" to be not unattractive. 

It seems like we should be able to reach that point. In the meantime, maybe some of our LDS friends might like to explain their problems with John Paul's exegesis of the Gospel passages that led him to his conclusion. 

(Does anybody think I should start another thread? This doesn't exactly fit with "The Oddity of Protestant Apologetics", but now this thread has the preliminary information needed to be able to easily discuss our agreements and disagreements on the subject) 

3DOP

Edited December 11, 2025 by 3DOP

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hey marineland. Thanks for the upvote! I hope you can follow me as I continue my thoughts on comparisons to the LDS point of view.

I have to be sure that LDS thinkers have pondered over the same passages that led Pope John Paul II to say "Marriage and procreation, do not constitute...the eschatological future of man." I would be disappointed if the LDS haven't arrived at some kind of biblical solution to the pope's interpretation which appears to contradict the LDS teaching on family life after the resurrection.

I deliberately added the first word "appears to contradict". This is because while I must conclude that the LDS position can't be entirely right from a Catholic perspective, there is a very important sense that can be easily missed in which we agree wholeheartedly with the LDS. Family life continues. It is an admirable and good instinct to be repulsed at the idea that our most intimate earthly family ties will have no correspondence in heaven. 

It is plain to me from our discussions lately, that there are highly distorted ideas among LDS about those who accept John Paul's point of view, which is the same as most Protestants. Some LDS seem think that there must of necessity be a dehumanizing of the current nature of man in non-LDS thought. I have seen words like transhuman to describe what they think John Paul's position implies. Some even seem surprised that we believe that we retain our genders eternally. They also seem to think that we doubt the full humanity of the Lord Jesus. There was a long thread recently dedicated to discovering if non-LDS believed that Christ could have been fertile! There is so much ignorance about each others faiths and it gets perpetuated wherever we find a desire to understand the belief of the other in the least attractive and sensible light. It can be reassuring to know that only our own beliefs make any sense. 

There is no point in discussion if we cannot see the areas in which we agree. Again, I agree with the LDS about the necessary human need for family forever. I will not suggest that LDS can easily start teaching against a century or more of belief in eternal families, sealings for time and eternity, etc. But I want our LDS friends to see that what we believe is not so different and alien as perhaps they have thought. This post is already too long. If there is interest when I have some more time, I would be happy to make a followup post which might help Latter-day Saints to disagree with the pope's conclusions, while on the other hand, finding his concept of "eternal family" to be not unattractive. 

It seems like we should be able to reach that point. In the meantime, maybe some of our LDS friends might like to explain their problems with John Paul's exegesis of the Gospel passages that led him to his conclusion. 

(Does anybody think I should start another thread? This doesn't exactly fit with "The Oddity of Protestant Apologetics", but now this thread has the preliminary information needed to be able to easily discuss our agreements and disagreements on the subject) 

3DOP

I saw a running battle in NOR (New Oxford Review) between Catholics who believe in the absolute "No Marriage in Heaven" crowd and the "Hold On, Let's Explore This" crowd. So I think it's not a totally settled question in Catholicland.

Long way of saying... Start a new thread.

Edited December 11, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I saw a running battle in NOR (New Oxford Review) between Catholics who believe in the absolute "No Marriage in Heaven" crowd and the "Hold On, Let's Explore This" crowd. So I think it's not a totally settled question in Catholicland.

Long way of saying... Start a new thread.

On the contrary, if this is a question that is unsettled for Catholics, I have nothing to say except that I apologize for my haste, and retract my comments on the subject. I didn't want to start a new thread anyway. 

On the other hand, I was quoting authentic teaching from a canonized Pope St. John Paul II. What level of ecclesiastical authority was being cited by those Catholics at New Oxford Review who disagree with the pope? Did they quote papal bulls or encyclicals, doctors of the Church, church fathers, ecumenical councils, bishop's conferences, etc.?

How do they explain the question the Sadducees asked of Jesus about people who are married multiple times? To which will they be married in heaven? Catholics are free to marry again after the death of a spouse. The question must be answered. I am not sure, but I think LDS can only marry one spouse "for time and eternity"? How would a Catholic deal with that?  

Articles in a respected periodical like New Oxford Review are only slightly more weighty than letters to the editor. I have a feeling that this "Hold on let's explore this" crowd are well-meaning people, perhaps widows and widowers happily married once for many years. Maybe they are kids remembering their good parents? Perhaps the Church can be blamed for failing to teach them about how marriage is a sacramental symbol of the marriage that will be perfected in Heaven between Christ and His Church, where all will be family as sons and daughters of the Father? I suspect that these are fine people whose understandable sentimentalism about the subject is misplaced.

But my main point is still valid even if I have to retract what I mistakenly wrote. Either way my main point was that we are in much more agreement with LDS than a lot of people seem to think.

Edited December 11, 2025 by 3DOP

[ZealouslyStriving]

17 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

On the contrary, if this is a question that is unsettled for Catholics, I have nothing to say except that I apologize for my haste, and retract my comments on the subject. I didn't want to start a new thread anyway. 

On the other hand, I was quoting authentic teaching from a canonized Pope St. John Paul II. What level of ecclesiastical authority was being cited by those Catholics at New Oxford Review who disagree with the pope? Did they quote papal bulls or encyclicals, doctors of the Church, church fathers, ecumenical councils, bishop's conferences, etc.?

How do they explain the question the Sadducees asked of Jesus about people who are married multiple times? To which will they be married in heaven? Catholics are free to marry again after the death of a spouse. The question must be answered. I am not sure, but I think LDS can only marry one spouse "for time and eternity"? How would a Catholic deal with that?  

Articles in a respected periodical like New Oxford Review are only slightly more weighty than letters to the editor. I have a feeling that this "Hold on let's explore this" crowd are well-meaning people, perhaps widows and widowers happily married once for many years. Maybe they are kids remembering their good parents? Perhaps the Church can be blamed for failing to teach them about how marriage is a sacramental symbol of the marriage that will be perfected in Heaven between Christ and His Church, where all will be family as sons and daughters of the Father? I suspect that these are fine people whose understandable sentimentalism about the subject is misplaced.

But my main point is still valid even if I have to retract what I mistakenly wrote. Either way my main point was that we are in much more agreement with LDS than a lot of people seem to think.

Didn't mean to upset you. I just thought it interesting that NOR, which leans more traditional, Latin Mass supporting, would even allow the discussion if there wasn't some room (however little) for debate.

🤷🏻‍♂️ But what do I know?

[3DOP]

8 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Didn't mean to upset you. I just thought it interesting that NOR, which leans more traditional, Latin Mass supporting, would even allow the discussion if there wasn't some room (however little) for debate.

🤷🏻‍♂️ But what do I know?

Its okay ZealouslyStriving. Next time I will try to remember to wait until my wrath subsides, hopefully before nightfall.🤪

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I am not sure, but I think LDS can only marry one spouse "for time and eternity"?

One can be sealed to multiple spouses, just not concurrently while all are living.

Pres. Oaks is currently in his second sealed marriage and Pres Nelson was also in his second sealed marriage before his passing.

Edited December 11, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[JVW]

47 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

On the contrary, if this is a question that is unsettled for Catholics, I have nothing to say except that I apologize for my haste, and retract my comments on the subject. I didn't want to start a new thread anyway. 

On the other hand, I was quoting authentic teaching from a canonized Pope St. John Paul II. What level of ecclesiastical authority was being cited by those Catholics at New Oxford Review who disagree with the pope? Did they quote papal bulls or encyclicals, doctors of the Church, church fathers, ecumenical councils, bishop's conferences, etc.?

How do they explain the question the Sadducees asked of Jesus about people who are married multiple times? To which will they be married in heaven? Catholics are free to marry again after the death of a spouse. The question must be answered. I am not sure, but I think LDS can only marry one spouse "for time and eternity"? How would a Catholic deal with that?  

Articles in a respected periodical like New Oxford Review are only slightly more weighty than letters to the editor. I have a feeling that this "Hold on let's explore this" crowd are well-meaning people, perhaps widows and widowers happily married once for many years. Maybe they are kids remembering their good parents? Perhaps the Church can be blamed for failing to teach them about how marriage is a sacramental symbol of the marriage that will be perfected in Heaven between Christ and His Church, where all will be family as sons and daughters of the Father? I suspect that these are fine people whose understandable sentimentalism about the subject is misplaced.

But my main point is still valid even if I have to retract what I mistakenly wrote. Either way my main point was that we are in much more agreement with LDS than a lot of people seem to think.

I would like it if you started a new thread about eternal families. I didn't know there was any other religion that had explicit teachings on the topic of what happens to family relations after death. I know that everyone that I've met "feels" like they'll be with their family and loved ones forever. And NDEs certainly indicate that family lines are special and important. But doctrinally I haven't seen any creeds or whatever specifically address the issue.

And, as far as I can tell on the LDS side, even though it is our capstone doctrine, it has probably had the least amount of revelation around it out of any of our doctrines. All I know about what it means to be sealed is that a couple's marriage won't end at "death do you part". Other than that, I don't know that we really know anything else about it.

I think a separate thread would facilitate the more intelligent among us (i.e. not me) to provide more information from a variety of perspectives and sources.

[The Nehor]

On 12/9/2025 at 2:27 PM, marineland said:

Does sexual activity continue in all kingdoms of glory?

Probably. It is pleasurable and reinforces emotional bonds. Even if it doesn’t lead to reproduction why end it? Because Plato thinks it will distract us from philosophy?