Is Another Great Apostasy Possible

[urroner]

Proof please.

Proof please that Jesus was resurrected. I don't understand what type of proof you would want.

[saemo]

Proof please that Jesus was resurrected. I don't understand what type of proof you would want.

Surely you can show historical proof for such an assertion? There is proof of Jesus' resurrection, found in the New Testament. Accounts of several hundred people who witnessed Him, alive and well.

I know the usual, Apostles death, Council of Nicaea, but none of this is proof, it is still only assertions.

[zerinus]

Proof please.

Try this, if you haven't already.

zerinus

[saemo]

Try this, if you haven't already.

zerinus

"For example, when did the Roman Empire fall?" We know when the Roman empire fell.

"But there is one thing that no one will argue about: the Roman Empire did fall! We know that it fell because we can see that it is not around any more." Oh but there is great argument that Christ's Church never failed. And proof of it's existence AND authority. And you can see that it is still around.

etc, etc, etc

Zerinus, I commend the work you put into this, but you still have nothing but assertions. You provide no proof.

And yes, individuals fall away from Truth, but Christ's promise remains.

The proof of authority is alive and well, to me, LDS just refuse to see it.

[zerinus]

Zerinus, I commend the work you put into this, but you still have nothing but assertions. You provide no proof.

It is full of proof.

zerinus

[saemo]

It is full of proof.

zerinus

Yes, I know you believe so. But, it is the sort of proof that only comes from a person who doesn't acknowledge (or have) all the facts. A child's proof. Like, when I was a kid and was convinced I was adopted, the proof was not so many photos of child #5 (me), and a bazillion photos of child #1 and #2. I was quite convinced. Until I saw my birth certificate.

[zerinus]

Yes, I know you believe so. But, it is the sort of proof that only comes from a person who doesn't acknowledge (or have) all the facts. A child's proof. Like, when I was a kid and was convinced I was adopted, the proof was not so many photos of child #5 (me), and a bazillion photos of child #1 and #2. I was quite convinced. Until I saw my birth certificate.

I could use that type of argument to dismiss any proof.

zerinus

[Richard]

I could use that type of argument to dismiss any proof.

zerinus

How can a Church that ceased to exist be the largest charitable organization on the face of the earth?

Place Catholic Charities into your search engine. Any country

Christ is there. We just work for Him. All Glory and praise is His alone.

Rich

www.utahmission.com

[saemo]

I could use that type of argument to dismiss any proof.

zerinus

Zerinus, if you had any proof to dismiss perhaps this argument would actually mean something.

[zerinus]

Zerinus, if you had any proof to dismiss perhaps this argument would actually mean something.

Be assured that that don't make any sense to me.

zerinus

[Richard]

Zerinus, you wrote in your blog concering the Apostacy this:

"So although all members are necessary for the functioning of the body, the head is the most important part. If the head is cut off, then everything else dies, and that is what happened to the Christian church."

Zerinus, this happened in the garden of Eden when man severed the Chord of Gods grace in wanting the wisdom for themselves, that which God gave them freely in order to live in His perfection. Christ established His Church, His Christian Church in order to bring man back to Gods Grace by dying for all men on the Cross in order for them also to die in Christ in order to be raised in Him. This is the journey I am on in His Catholic, apostolic Church

You also wrote this,( I added the bold to it below) The head was cut off, but the rest of the body was still around, giving the impression that it was still alive, while in reality it was dead, and in process of time it degenerated, doctrinally as well as structurally, into something alien to what God in the garden of Eden had originally established.

Hope that helps you understand the real Apostasy. We all die as a result. Jesus saves us through His Church. His one body, head included.

[urroner]

saemo, please present to me any independent evidence of the resurrection of Christ.

Honestly, your asking us to present proof of an apostasy is full of problems. For example, what would you consider to be valid proof of an apostasy. For example, would some letter from an early pope to a bishop saying something like "Yesterday, the apostasy was finally final" be proof enough. Suppose an early pope did conspire to subvert the Church, do you think he would make it known to all the Church. So if that is the type of evidence you are asking for, I seriously doubt there is any.

Beside saemo, don't you agree that the writing of history goes to the victors? How many documents were destroyed by the early church because these what was taught on this documents was outside of what the early church had determined was the gospel?

So, once again saemo, I don't know what you are asking for.

[saemo]

saemo, please present to me any independent evidence of the resurrection of Christ.

Honestly, your asking us to present proof of an apostasy is full of problems. For example, what would you consider to be valid proof of an apostasy. For example, would some letter from an early pope to a bishop saying something like "Yesterday, the apostasy was finally final" be proof enough. Suppose an early pope did conspire to subvert the Church, do you think he would make it known to all the Church. So if that is the type of evidence you are asking for, I seriously doubt there is any.

Beside saemo, don't you agree that the writing of history goes to the victors? How many documents were destroyed by the early church because these what was taught on this documents was outside of what the early church had determined was the gospel?

So, once again saemo, I don't know what you are asking for.

Hi, you are changing the subject and arguing from silence. Neither is proof.

[Cold Steel]

I am one of the many Christians that believe this kingdom was set up in the days of Christ, the footnotes in the NAB describe Daniel 2:36-45.

The four successive kingdoms in this apocalyptic perspective are the Babylonian (gold), the Median (silver), the Persian (bronze), and the Hellenistic (iron). The last, after Alexander's death, was divided among his generals (Daniel 2:41-42). The two resulting kingdoms, which most affected the Jews, were the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt and that of the Seleucids in Syria, who tried in vain, by war and through intermarriage, to restore the unity of Alexander's empire (Daniel 2:43). The stone hewn from the mountain is the messianic kingdom awaited by the Jews (Daniel 2:44-45). Our Lord made this image personal to himself; cf Luke 20:17-18.

This is what happens when one tries to fit a square peg into a round hole. The prophecy of Daniel has long been suspect among scholars because they proceed from the notion that no one can really foretell the future. So many believe Daniel was written during or shortly before the Maccabees, or in other words, until after the fulfillment.

The problems with your interpretation is that the Ptolemies and the Seleucids were remnants of Alexander's empire and not empires in their own right. Neither kingdom was an empire of "iron," which was mostly associated with the Romans, which split into two major components (Rome and Constantinople) suggested by the legs. After the fall of the iron empire (Romans), civilization largely degenerated into individual nation states, some strong and some weak. These are the toes of iron and clay. (This doesn't work to describe Rome, but rather, what came after.)

It's fascinating that Jesus never equated the church as the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy. He never described it as a stone without hands that would roll forth until it filled the Earth. The stone used in the Luke metaphor was not a rolling stone, but a builder's stone. "The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner." In this case, the stone is set. But even if it was the same stone, it still has reference to the church. There is no reference here to Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar's dream or the fulfillment, which, if it were the fulfillment, Jesus or the apostles would have hastened to note. President Rudger Clawson noted:

The head of the government in one division was at Rome and the head of the government

in the other division was at Constantinople. So these two great divisions represented the

legs of iron. Finally, the Roman empire was broken up into smaller kingdoms, represented

by the feet and toes of iron and clay, and as there were ten toes on the image we might

well conclude that the following ten kingdoms stand to represent the toes: Italy, established

in 496 A.D.; France, in 753; England, 853; Germany, 806; Holland, 922; Portugal, 1138;

Persia, 1139; Austria-Hungary, 1159; Spain, 1171; Greece, 1829 A.D.

This is a far more accurate fit. To think that Daniel could have missed the great Roman Empire is stretching credulity too far. In fact, there is no way the ten toes could find fulfillment in Roman times as the great iron empire far exceeded Alexander's brief rule. Add to this the fact that the Romans excelled in the use of iron in weaponry and armor and the metaphor can hardly be missed. Anciently and in modern times, the use of "iron" has been applied to the Roman Empire because of its ability to hold together longer than any previous empire.

Daniel wrote: "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it...." Note that these weren't two beasts, but one, so the Ptolemies and the Seleucids would not have met the criteria. This is much more, rather, the great Roman Empire. Again, the prophet saw that ten horns would proceed forth from this beast, which are the ten kings that would arise in Europe. The small horn is most likely a small ecclesiastical kingdom (a church and a nation) that would make war with the saints and "overcome them." But in the days of those kings, the God of Heaven would establish a kingdom that would never be destroyed, and would not be left to "another people" (meaning, I take it, that the Lord Himself would guide and direct it, not human beings). This would, of course, necessitate revelation.

You can, however, interpret it any way you think you can make it fit, but like the toaster you put together with parts left over, it just will never work.

---------

[wenglund]

I don't know about anyone else, but find it more useful to focus my thoughts and energies on me avoiding apostasy, rather than hypothesizing about a possible "great apostasy" of others in the future. Besides, what is so "great" about apostasy?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cold Steel]

What was so great about the apostasy? The fact that it was so far-reaching that it needed a restoration to repair it.

great, adj: Very large in size. 2. Larger in size than others of the same kind. 3. Large in quantity or number: A great throng awaited us. See Synonyms at large. 4. Extensive in time or distance: a great delay. 5. Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent: a great crisis. ...

The scriptures speak of a "falling away" that must precede the coming of Christ, as well as a "restoration of all things." If a restoration is needed, then whatever was lost must have been lost totally.

[johnny]

Cold Steel

The problems with your interpretation is that the Ptolemies and the Seleucids were remnants of Alexander's empire and not empires in their own right.

The problem with your interpretation it does not fit the Daniel 7:14.

It's fascinating that Jesus never equated the church as the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy.

Being seated at the Father's right hand signifies the inauguration of the Messiah's kingdom, the fulfilment of the prophet Daniel's vision concerning the Son of man: "To him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed" [Dan 7:14].

[johnny]

Cold Steel

The scriptures speak of a "falling away" that must precede the coming of Christ, as well as a "restoration of all things." If a restoration is needed, then whatever was lost must have been lost totally.

Scriptures speak that SOME will fall away (1Tim 4:1). The restoration of all things spoken of by the prophets comes after the second coming of Christ (Acts 3:21; Rev 21:5).

[erichard]

Yes.

No.

zerinus

Wow.

If you had been the Stake President at my trial, I would still be in the church.

Richard

[saemo]

Be assured that that don't make any sense to me.

zerinus

It means your proof isn't proof.

We look at this way...the first council that was held was in Jerusalem, discussing whether or not the Jewish law of circumcision had to be followed. This first council declared that baptism is the new covenant, and that circumcision is not required.

Over the centuries, other questions arise. What is the nature of Jesus Christ? Man, God, Spirit, Prophet only, etc? What constitutes the written canon of the Church? These and many other questions and issues have been addressed. These councils are comprised of the bishops who are charged with leading their respective flocks, which comprise the whole Church. Their decisions were, and are, guided by the Holy Spirit.

What proof I am asking for, is that these councils erred. Not individuals people, as I don't believe there is a person who does not sin and screw up. (Why else do we need the mercy and forgiveness of God?) Proof. Not opinion, or conjecture, or guessing, or leaps that have no basis in fact...proof.

I can clearly see the proof that an apostasy never occurred. Sacramentally, I can read of the exact same Sacraments 2000 years ago that exist today. Liturgically, I can read of the same liturgy being practiced today. Institutionally, I can read of a Church that exists the same as it does today. Doctrinally, I can read doctrines that have existed for 2000 years.

I haven't seen any proof from an LDS person, ever, that an apostasy occurred. What you give is your disagreements with catholic doctrines. And a reading of scriptures outside of Sacred Tradition, which is the same in essence as the practices of Protestant sola scriptura. All of this is nothing new under the sun. I can see a Church that for 2000 years has clarified these sort of disagreements, always with one purpose, to keep the Gospel of Jesus Christ intact and free of error.

I don't see that you are providing proof, I see that you are providing error.