First Things

[johnny]

selek

So it does.

The Mormon article says Ignatius was between the apostles and the apostasy as described by Mormons. Ignatius wrote:

• Ignatius of Antioch "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89)
  

But the article then goes on to say that they were part of the process of Apostasy:

Which I would disagree with ...

[johnny]

selek

True- but they again, we're not the one's trying to deny that others are Christian, now are we?

I am denying Mormons are not Christians based on the inspired word of God. A Christian is a disciple (Acts 11:26). A disciple or Christian continues in the words of Christ (John 8:31). A disciple of Christ believes in one God (Mark 12:32). A follower of Joseph Smith believes in "three Gods".

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall

The key word is "underway " ...

Yep. Underway, as in "already begun", "in the process of"

[selek]

Hello selek (btw what does your name mean?)

It's Swahili for "He who engages in inane arguments that will only be settled to everyone's satisfaction by the Second Coming of Christ".

Actually, it's the name of a Star Trek character I played in my misbegotten youth.

how so? it actually does...if the New covenant is only symbolic then the Old covenant must be symbolic too...there IS a difference...

Not quite- becuase I don't believe that either covenant is merely symbolic. Some of the trappings and rites of the covenant are symbolic, but the covenants themselves are very real.

yes however here is a big catch....Jesus cleared it up...he explained what he meant...baptism...and baptism is not a metaphor....

Incorrect- Baptism is a specific rite symbolizing the death and rebirth of the believer.

see if the Eucharist was just a metaphor he would of cleared it up just like he did with Nicodemus....so thank you for that...this is what I explained before...if it is symbolic he would of cleared it up...especially when his other disciples left in John 6...he would of cleared what he means...

Not necessarily- unlike the Apostles, Nicodemus lacked the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Christ explained to Nicodemus because he needed to.

There is no evidence that the Apostles didn't get the metaphor. There's no evidence that Christ needed to explain the symbolism to them.

so again thank you for bringing that example up...even though that was not what you intended to do....but when he was talking to Nicodemus and he thought that he had to be reborn from the womb...Jesus made it clear what he means by baptism...

Yes- and he used a metaphor to explain it.

oh so you dont think it is required to enter heaven? Jn 3;5 and Mk 16;16 clearly states that baptism is required to enter Heaven...

I do think that baptism is necessary- but that baptism is a metaphor for the spiritual death and rebirth that Christ requires of his followers.

what exactly is your point to do baptism for the dead if it is just.....symbolic?

The rite is necessary and commanded- even if it is only symbolic of the death and rebirth of the natural man.

Ironically, the Catholic concept of "baptism of desire" argues more strongy against the necessity of the actual rite than does baptism for the dead.

If it's necessary, then it's necessary for both the living and the dead.

If a strong desire is enough, then the rite itself is not absolutely required. Which is it?

some people believe that they are saved by faith alone...they use one scripture to support their belief....but they ignore alot of scripture that says otherwise....

they dont read the bible as it is meant to...

so you have these people who believe they are saved alone and ignore the scriptures that says "faith without works is dead"...."if you love me keep my commandments"....

but if you read it as a whole like it is meant to....you have one that says saved by faith alone....and the other says faith without works is dead...

what it is saying is you must have faith AND works to be saved...

I agree- but I don't see how that means the Scriptures absolutely require transubstantion of the Sacrament.

see what im getting at?

Apparently not.

"fair and open-minded"....reflect on that...will ya?

so does this mean you are sort of apologizing when you made that statement about the Roman Pagans being right????

Yes and no- the original comment was wry and tongue-in-cheek (that's a metaphor, too, BTW).

Nonetheless- if the body and blood are literally present, then the charge of cannibalism is objectively correct- if both inflammatory and insulting.

well maybe..........but since I read the bible and I would even if I thought it was symbolic....I wouldnt want Christ saying "you read what I said 'whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life in them' why did you ignore it?"

Can a Savior who will accept the baptism of desire quibble over that?

Personally, I doubt it. Christ is going to be far more concerned about whether you kept his commandments and lived his life with his Spirit in your heart and his image in your coutenance (yet another metaphor, BTW- I can't see you with a beard) than over whether you understood so minor a scriptural foot note.

what? could you point out where I said you were NOT a Christian because we disagreed?

This thread devolved to this point becuase someone argued that Mormons could not be Christian because they didn't believe exactly as the Catholics do.

I didn't mean you specifically.

[johnny]

Flyonthewall

Yep. Underway, as in "already begun", "in the process of"

While the apostles were still alive an apostasy was occurring, some fell away from apostolic doctrine and some held to the faith as taught by the apostles.

[selek]

selek

The Mormon article says Ignatius was between the apostles and the apostasy as described by Mormons. Ignatius wrote:

• Ignatius of Antioch "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89)
  

Which I would disagree with ...

Of course you would disagree with the Mormon Church's understanding.

Like the Catholic Church, your claims are predicated upon Ignatius being what you claim him to be.

If Ignatius is not what you claim him to be, you are not what you claim to be.

[Flyonthewall]

selek

The Mormon article says Ignatius was between the apostles and the apostasy as described by Mormons. Ignatius wrote:

• Ignatius of Antioch "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89)
  

I can see how this can be misunderstood. We also say the bread is the body of Christ and the water is the blood, but symbolically, not literally. That concept is unpalatable for a reason.

[johnny]

selek

Like the Catholic Church, your claims are predicated upon Ignatius being what you claim him to be.

My claim is predicated on the word of God. Ignatius was a bishop. Bishops were proven men who were made overseers over the church of God by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28). Bishops were stewards of God who held fast to the word the apostles taught (Titus 1:9). Bishop care for the church of God and continue in what they learned from the apostles (2Tim 3:14). Bishops were nourished up with good doctrine (1Tim 4:6).

[selek]

selek

I am denying Mormons are not Christians based on the inspired word of God.

You are denying we are not Christians, and basing that denial upon the inspired word of God.

Therefore you are asserting that we are Christians.

Thank you for the concession.

A Christian is a disciple (Acts 11:26).

As are we.

A disciple or Christian continues in the words of Christ (John 8:31).

As do we.

A disciple of Christ believes in one God (Mark 12:32).

As do we.

A follower of Joseph Smith believes in "three Gods".

No- we beleive in one God/Godhead, composed of three person- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Your "three Gods" idea comes from a single cherry-picked quote and ignores the rest of the Church's teachings.

This is the same error you made with the article about Ignatius.

You seize upon one sentence which supports your suppositions and ignore all the rest.....and in so doing bear false witness against us.

[johnny]

Flyonthewall

I can see how this can be misunderstood. We also say the bread is the body of Christ and the water is the blood, but symbolically, not literally. That concept is unpalatable for a reason

If a person understands other early Christian writings beside Ignatius it is clear it is literal ...

[johnny]

selek

Your "three Gods" idea comes from a single cherry-picked quote and ignores the rest of the Church's teachings.

It comes from the teachings of Joseph Smith and the teachings of the Mormon Church, see below:

Joseph Smith Teachings â??I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Godsâ? Ensign, Mar 2008

Mormon Bible Dictionary Godhead "... the Godhead: ... God the Father: ... Elohim . . . God the Son: The God known as Jehovah is the Son . . God the Holy Ghost: The Holy Ghost is also a God."

[selek]

selek

My claim is predicated on the word of God.

I' sorry Johnny- but the letters between the Bishops are not the word of God.

Ignatius was a bishop. Bishops were proven men who were made overseers over the church of God by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28).

No- Bishops were appointed over local areas of the church- not over the Church as a whole. You've admitted this repeatedly.

Bishops were stewards of God who held fast to the word the apostles taught (Titus 1:9).

Yes- the apostles taught the Gospel. There is no evidence that they ever taught that bishops succeed apostles.

Bishop care for the church of God and continue in what they learned from the apostles (2Tim 3:14).

Yes- they care for the flock appointed to them (local congregations) and teach them the Gospel.

Bishops were nourished up with good doctrine (1Tim 4:6).

I agree- but that doesn't mean they didn't stray after the death of the Apostles.

The article you cited above demonstrates that with the death of the apostles, the Church was in disarray both doctrinally and logicstically until the Council of Nicea- which finallized the pattern which had been emerging.

None of these scriptures show that Bishops were appointed or entitled to succees the Apostles. The Scriptures demonstrate that they were local stewards of the Church and are silent on anything more.

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall

While the apostles were still alive an apostasy was occurring, some fell away from apostolic doctrine and some held to the faith as taught by the apostles.

The Apostacy was more than just individual apostacy. It involved the removal of the keys of the kingdom, which the apostles had. The keys of the kingdom are like a ship's rudder, without it, a ship will drift wherever the wind blows or currents take it. Once the rudder is lost, there still may be passengers and crew on the ship, but the whole ship is not going to end up where it set out to at first. The passengers and crew will end up wherever the ship ends up.

[selek]

selek

It comes from the teachings of Joseph Smith and the teachings of the Mormon Church, see below:

Joseph Smith Teachings â??I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Godsâ? Ensign, Mar 2008

And the rest of the article clarifies your single quote: we beleive in one God/Godhead comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

As I charged- a single cherry-picked quote which support your claims and a total disregard of everything that challenges your preconceptions.

You are not being intellectually honest, Johnny.

Mormon Bible Dictionary Godhead "... the Godhead: ... God the Father: ... Elohim . . . God the Son: The God known as Jehovah is the Son . . God the Holy Ghost: The Holy Ghost is also a God."

One God- One Godhead, comprised of three parts.

Do you beleive that the God the Father is God, Johnny?

Do you beleive that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, Johnny?

Do you beleive that the Holy Ghost is God, Johnny?

God the Father+The Lord Jesus Christ + the Holy Ghost= three Gods, according to your logic.

Is that what you believe?

If not, then you are guilty of bearing false witness against us- because the only difference between your belief and ours is that we do not assume "one substance."

[johnny]

selek

I' sorry Johnny- but the letters between the Bishops are not the word of God.

The word of God describes a bishop and what they taught, they taught doctrine as taught by the apostles.

No- Bishops were appointed over local areas of the church- not over the Church as a whole. You've admitted this repeatedly.

While the apostles were alive.

Yes- the apostles taught the Gospel. There is no evidence that they ever taught that bishops succeed apostles.

While the apostles were alive they were ordaining bishops to ordain other bishops.

I agree- but that doesn't mean they didn't stray after the death of the Apostles.

The church is the pillar and ground of truth.

The article you cited above demonstrates that with the death of the apostles, the Church was in disarray both doctrinally and logicstically until the Council of Nicea- which finallized the pattern which had been emerging.

Clearly a Mormon perspective ..

None of these scriptures show that Bishops were appointed or entitled to succees the Apostles. The Scriptures demonstrate that they were local stewards of the Church and are silent on anything more.

Apostolic tradition and scripture shows this, Christians are "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2Thes 2:15). Flyonthewall

The Apostacy was more than just individual apostacy. It involved the removal of the keys of the kingdom, which the apostles had. The keys of the kingdom are like a ship's rudder, without it, a ship will drift wherever the wind blows or currents take it. Once the rudder is lost, there still may be passengers and crew on the ship, but the whole ship is not going to end up where it set out to at first. The passengers and crew will end up wherever the ship ends up.

The apostolic church of Rome has the keys of the kingdom which the apostles had.Flyonthewall

The Apostacy was more than just individual apostacy. It involved the removal of the keys of the kingdom, which the apostles had. The keys of the kingdom are like a ship's rudder, without it, a ship will drift wherever the wind blows or currents take it. Once the rudder is lost, there still may be passengers and crew on the ship, but the whole ship is not going to end up where it set out to at first. The passengers and crew will end up wherever the ship ends up.

The apostolic church of Rome has the keys of the kingdom which the apostles had.

[selek]

selek

The word of God describes a bishop and what they taught, they taught doctrine as taught by the apostles.

Agreed.

While the apostles were alive.

Agreed.

While the apostles were alive they were ordaining bishops to ordain other bishops.

Yes they did- but there is no evidence that they had any authority to do so. When this exercise in presumptive power began, the Apostles were either dead, imprisoned, or thousands of miles away. There is no evidence that the surviving apostle(s) approved the practice.

The church is the pillar and ground of truth.

Agreed. But there is no evidence that the Catholic Church is that pillar and ground. Their foundations are extremely questionable.

Apostolic tradition and scripture shows this, Christians are "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2Thes 2:15).

Scriptures show that we are commanded to stand fast and hold to the traditions we were taught by the Apostles.

The Scriptures also show that they very Churches you are citing had real problems with actually doing it.

Apostolic tradition assumes that they succeeeded, but that's begging the question- because if they did not succeed, then the tradition is based on a falsehood.

[Servant]

It's Swahili for "He who engages in inane arguments that will only be settled to everyone's satisfaction by the Second Coming of Christ".

Actually, it's the name of a Star Trek character I played in my misbegotten youth.

so you like Star Trek...i was never a big fan however I did played in a movie where I forget his name but he was the captian he had a mustache and a beard...anways he directed it and also played a role...it was a tv movie called "dying to live"...I wasnt a main character though...

Not quite- becuase I don't believe that either covenant is merely symbolic. Some of the trappings and rites of the covenant are symbolic, but the covenants themselves are very real.

well in the Old Covenant it was real and it was real and not symbolic to cut off the foreskin of a male....that is real all around.....as of the New Covenant it was the same...but it is ok we are not seeing eye to eye here..apparently you and I can go on and on forever..and still get the same answer and belief

Incorrect- Baptism is a specific rite symbolizing the death and rebirth of the believer.

hmmm...ok i think this is the problem...we believe the baptism is different...baptism washes the Original sin away...and that is why it is required to enter heaven because nothing that enters heaven is defiled...nothing....there is already a discussion about baptism...but since you believe that baptism is a symoblic and doesnt wash the original sin away...you will never see how real the Eucharist or Baptism really is...this is where the stumbling block is...but anyways...lets move on lets not flood this with baptism since there is topic on baptism already...

Not necessarily- unlike the Apostles, Nicodemus lacked the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Christ explained to Nicodemus because he needed to.

There is no evidence that the Apostles didn't get the metaphor. There's no evidence that Christ needed to explain the symbolism to them.

uhm...the Aposlte didnt receive the Holy Spirit yet...

there is alot of evidence that Christ explained when he was speaking symbolic...just like he explained to Nicodemus....he explained baptism....he explained the parables which was symbolic............but he doesnt explain the Eucharist....because it was literal..again we can go on and on and on...and still get the same answer...

Yes- and he used a metaphor to explain it.

yep...he sure did.....this is why I believe that the Eucharist is not symbolic....

when ever he used metaphors he explained it....

I do think that baptism is necessary- but that baptism is a metaphor for the spiritual death and rebirth that Christ requires of his followers.

as i said before...i think we have a difference in baptism...

The rite is necessary and commanded- even if it is only symbolic of the death and rebirth of the natural man.

Ironically, the Catholic concept of "baptism of desire" argues more strongy against the necessity of the actual rite than does baptism for the dead.

If it's necessary, then it's necessary for both the living and the dead.

If a strong desire is enough, then the rite itself is not absolutely required. Which is it?

we have a difference in baptism...that seems to be getting in the way of understanding..

I agree- but I don't see how that means the Scriptures absolutely require transubstantion of the Sacrament.

ok...well the bible has alot of OT forshadowing the NT (I can show you the forshadows of the Eucharist if you want?)....also some nt testament forshadows alot of other stuff...

for example.......................Jesus turning the water into wine...forshadows transubstantion in the Eucharist...

Yes and no- the original comment was wry and tongue-in-cheek (that's a metaphor, too, BTW).

Nonetheless- if the body and blood are literally present, then the charge of cannibalism is objectively correct- if both inflammatory and insulting.

thank you.....it would be true if we were ripping limbs and eating them like turkey drum sticks and taking quanties of blood and eating them...then that would be correct....however that is not the case...

Can a Savior who will accept the baptism of desire quibble over that?

Personally, I doubt it. Christ is going to be far more concerned about whether you kept his commandments and lived his life with his Spirit in your heart and his image in your coutenance (yet another metaphor, BTW- I can't see you with a beard) than over whether you understood so minor a scriptural foot note.

if I knew the truth and then not acted on it then yes he would...but if i didnt know but kept the commandments and lived good...then no....

This thread devolved to this point becuase someone argued that Mormons could not be Christian because they didn't believe exactly as the Catholics do.

I didn't mean you specifically.

ok well I thought you were directing me because of what you said "You do not, however, have the right to claim that I am not a Christian because we disagree."

you were replying to me and you said "you" and I thought you were directing that at me...but since you cleared it up...well then there you have it...cleared up...

i hope you have a wonderful day..

[johnny]

selek

You are not being intellectually honest, Johnny.

You are not being intellectually honest if dont' believe Joseph Smith said "three Gods" ...

One God- One Godhead, comprised of three parts.

The Mormon church teaches one Godhead comprised of three Gods.

Is that what you believe?

I believe in one God in three persons.

If not, then you are guilty of bearing false witness against us- because the only difference between your belief and ours is that we do not assume "one substance."

There is a big difference better your belief and my belief .. the difference is that my belief is consistent with scripture. Jesus and his apostles taught "one God".

[johnny]

selek

Yes they did- but there is no evidence that they had any authority to do so.

The apostle Paul said "ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee"., see below

• Titus.1 ([4] To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. [5] For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: [7] For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre
  

Agreed. But there is no evidence that the Catholic Church is that pillar and ground. Their foundations are extremely questionable.

The Catholic Churches foundation is the apostles and prophets.

The Scriptures also show that they very Churches you are citing had real problems with actually doing it.

Scripture reveals some did and some didn't ..

[Ambrose]

selek, if I had enough money, I would have you turned into a woman, so I could marry you.

But I have noticed a couple of things that bother me. You are very quick to point out the fallacies of others, but seem to miss your own number.

Truly, there must be a measure by which historicity is gagued in this thread, else the goalposts will be continually proverbially moved.

Truly, you must be a Romulan.

Truly, you have not adequately demonstrated why "symbol" must necessarily be exclusive of "Sacrament" (as Catholics say the word).

[selek]

selek

You are not being intellectually honest if dont' believe Joseph Smith said "three Gods" ...

I believe he used the words- it is you who are ripping them from context.

The Mormon church teaches one Godhead comprised of three Gods.

I believe in one God in three persons.

And the only functional difference between your belief and mine is the concept of "one substance".

There is a big difference better your belief and my belief .. the difference is that my belief is consistent with scripture. Jesus and his apostles taught "one God".

No....you're begging the question again.

Your belief is consitent with your interpretation of the Scriptures (known in modern parlance as "spin").

Other people disagree with your spin and believe differently- while still remaining consistent with the Scriptures.

[johnny]

selek

I believe he used the words- it is you who are ripping them from context.

My point exactly ... Joseph Smith used the words "three Gods".

Other people disagree with your spin and believe differently- while still remaining consistent with the Scriptures.

Please show me were in the scriptures it say's "three Gods" ... I will be glad to show you scriptures that say "one God".

[selek]

selek, if I had enough money, I would have you turned into a woman, so I could marry you.

Unfortunately, not all the money in the world could turn me into a woman. Gender-reassignment surgery is a superficial mutilation of the body- but fundamentally, no matter how I lied or how many shots I got and pills I took, and surgeries I underwent- I would still be a man.

Such is the cross I must bear.

But I have noticed a couple of things that bother me. You are very quick to point out the fallacies of others, but seem to miss your own number.

Such is life in the kingdom of the blind.

As I said, these matters cannot be proven to everyone's satisfaction on this side of the Second Coming.

Truly, there must be a measure by which historicity is gagued in this thread, else the goalposts will be continually proverbially moved.

I agree that we can (and probably do) share a fairly broad foundation vis-a-vis history and the correct method of determining facts.

It's when we delve into what those facts are likely to mean that the trouble arises, because then we've moved from the realm of fact into interpretation.

It's like the continued debate over archaeology and the Bible. We know that the city of Jerusalem exists and that Pontius Pilate served as the Roman governor of Palestine during certain dates.

Those facts, however, do not prove the divinity of Jesus, anymore than the existence of Troy proves the divinity of Zeus or the existence of Crete proves the existence of the minotaur.

Truly, you must be a Romulan.

Not quite- though my character was half-Romulan.

Truly, you have not adequately demonstrated why "symbol" must necessarily be exclusive of "Sacrament" (as Catholics say the word).

I haven't demonstrated it because I don't believe it.

I'm not arguing that transubstantiation isn't possible- I'm arguing that it's not required.

I'm not arguing that the Scriptures regarding the Sacrament must be interpreted in a particular way, but that honest people of good faith and sincerity can interpret them differently.

[selek]

selek

My point exactly ... Joseph Smith used the words "three Gods".

So have you......shall I now follow you around proclaiming to all and sundry that you believe in "three Gods"?

While that sounds like a perfectly delightful way to utterly waste my life- it would be dishonest- just as it is when you do it.

Please show me were in the scriptures it say's "three Gods" ... I will be glad to show you scriptures that say "one God".

You're begging the question again, Johnny.

We believe in one God/Godhead.

[Flyonthewall]

FlyonthewallThe apostolic church of Rome has the keys of the kingdom which the apostles had.FlyonthewallThe apostolic church of Rome has the keys of the kingdom which the apostles had.

Jesus explicity conferred the keys of the kingdom to the Apostles. The scriptures are silent on the Apostles conferring the keys to anyone else. Even Ignatius made a distinction between his office, and the Apostles. If he could not "order"/instruct as an apostle, then he did not have the authority of an apostle, and if not the authority, then the keys were absent.

So you are basically left with tradition. And judging by how the Jews used tradition to try and discredit Jesus, tradition alone is not a reliable claim for authority.