The great apostasy

[RevTestament]

This question is based upon scripture, so really must be answered with scripture. The scriptures are what tell us there would be an apostasy.

On 12/8/2017 at 2:57 PM, snowflake said:

So Christ created his church to last around 60 years, then canned the whole thing for 1800 years......till Joseph came along.......nonsense.

No, not quite 1800 years. Scriptures tell us it would be 1260 years. I will show this from Rev 12 and Daniel 7, but there are other supporting scriptures. 

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

This is reiterated in verse 14:

14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

The word "time" comes from Daniel 7. The Hebrew word being referenced is used to refer to one year. So at time, times and half, in Hebrew refers to a year, 2 years and a 1/2 year. The prophetic long count Hebrew calendar converts this to 42 months or 1260 days, which was used in verse 6. The 42 month version is used elsewhere in Revelation:

Revelation 11:2-3

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the ^aholy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Revelation 13:5

5 And there was given unto him a ^amouth speaking great things and ^bblasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

When did the Gentile nations stop treading on the holy city? Pretty recent wasn't it? Well the Jews regained some control just a few decades ago, but in the mean time you see that power was given to the false prophet for the same 42 month period. 

Using the day to year convention given by God for prophetic application, the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 become 490 days, or prophetic years until the Messiah was cutoff and the holy city destroyed by the desolator, and the Gentiles gained control of the city. So we see that the 1260 years had to begin after the destruction of Jerusalem. Now let's look at Daniel 7:

24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

There's that time, times and a half again.... Horns are ruling offices in the OT. So who is this ruling office prophesied to last 1260 years? And there you have your answer as to the apostate one who leads the world astray. It actually lasted from about 538 till about 1798, which is when Joseph's oldest brother Alvin was born. 

Acts 3:21

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of ^arestitution of all things, which God hath ^bspoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

This scripture shows that the heavens would receive Jesus until the restitution or restoration of all things. This foresaw the loss of things. Jesus said the night cometh in which no man could work....

Thank you for the opportunity to address this important topic Snowflake.

Edited December 10, 2017 by RevTestament

[Spammer]

7 hours ago, cdowis said:

Yep. 

The Council of Nicea simply  replaced one heresy for another.  And those who voted against the Creed faced the wrath of the guy running the show, the Emperor Constantine who then banished them. 

Another interesting aspect was that the representative of Rome had no special recognition from these church leaders -- he was just one of the guys.  Nothing special.

 

The lead representative of Rome (Hosius of Córdoba) presided at the council. The Pope did not attend, as you point out. Hosius was also Constantine's emissary prior to the council, delivering a letter to the priest Arius, the heretic who initiated the controversy with his teaching 'there was a time when the son was not', and to Arius' Catholic bishop. The letter encouraged reconciliation between them to heal the split that had riven the church of Alexandria, and soon thereafter the universal church, roiling Constantine's new Empire. The effort failed and the council was called. Most bishops in attendance were Catholic and their view prevailed. Constantine abided by the decision. As you point out, Constantine then banished the Arians. 

That didn't end the controversy, though, to Constantine's chagrine. Constantine switched sides soon after the council, unilaterally rehabilitating Arius and the Arian bishops, banishing the Catholic bishops. His Arian successors until Theodosious I (c 379) did the same. Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian. After Constantine's change of heart, the Empire was officially Arian for about 50 years. The Church of Rome remained Catholic, resisting the Arian emperors, and also a century later, the Arian Germanic barbarians, who sacked Rome and destroyed the Western Empire. Until the conversion of the Arian Franks following the baptism of Clovis, the popes of Rome were surrounded by an Arian sea. It's a miracle Nicene Orthodoxy survived in the West. Thank God for the popes. 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Spammer

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Spammer said:

The lead representative of Rome (Hosius of Córdoba) presided at the council. The Pope did not attend, as you point out. Hosius was also Constantine's emissary prior to the council, delivering a letter to the priest Arius, the heretic who initiated the controversy with his teaching 'there was a time when the son was not', and to Arius' Catholic bishop. The letter encouraged reconciliation between them to heal the split that had riven the church of Alexandria, and soon thereafter the universal church, roiling Constantine's new Empire. The effort failed and the council was called. Most bishops in attendance were Catholic and their view prevailed. Constantine abided by the decision. As you point out, Constantine then banished the Arians. 

That didn't end the controversy, though, to Constantine's chagrine. Constantine switched sides soon after the council, unilaterally rehabilitating Arius and the Arian bishops, banishing the Catholic bishops. His Arian successors until Theodosious I (c 379) did the same. Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian. After Constantine's change of heart, the Empire was officially Arian for about 50 years. The Church of Rome remained Catholic, resisting the Arian emperors, and also a century later, the Arian Germanic barbarians, who sacked Rome and destroyed the Western Empire. Until the conversion of the Arian Franks following the baptism of Clovis, the popes of Rome were surrounded by an Arian sea. It's a miracle Nicene Orthodoxy survived in the West. Thank God for the popes. 

What's so bad about believing the Bible that Christ was begotten? That is the problem with the Nicene Creed - it essentially ignored a vast portion of the Church at the time that believed Christ was begotten as the Son as the scriptures say, thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." All you're thanking the popes for is preserving a man-made tradition that Christ was begotten before all ages/time. Is that really thank worthy? I think not. I believe the scriptures instead - thank you very much.

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Spammer said:

The lead representative of Rome (Hosius of Córdoba)

"Constantine convened the First Council of Nicaea, probably in agreement with Pope Sylvester I, and perhaps on the advise of Hosius. Hosius presided, although it is unclear whether he did so in the name of the pope or was nominated by Constantine."  wiki

In any case, thank you for the correction.

Edited December 10, 2017 by cdowis

[Spammer]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

What's so bad about believing the Bible that Christ was begotten? That is the problem with the Nicene Creed - it essentially ignored a vast portion of the Church at the time that believed Christ was begotten as the Son as the scriptures say, thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." All you're thanking the popes for is preserving a man-made tradition that Christ was begotten before all ages/time. Is that really thank worthy? I think not. I believe the scriptures instead - thank you very much.

Whether the Bible teaches a Christ begotten in time or before all ages/time is a matter of interpretation. Catholics cite the very same verse you cited in support of Catholic teaching about Christ's eternal generation before all ages. 

What's bad about the former view is that it divides the divine being into two, erasing God's infinity and therefore his divinity. But I belong to the Catholic Tradition, the same tradition that originally compiled the New Testament, so naturally that's that's the interpretation I accept.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Spammer

[cdowis]

33 minutes ago, Spammer said:

Whether the Bible teaches a Christ begotten in time or before all ages/time is a matter of interpretation. Catholics cite the very same verse you cited in support of Catholic teaching about Christ's eternal generation before all ages. 

What's bad about the former view is that it divides the divine being into two, erasing God's infinity and therefore his divinity. But I belong to the Catholic Tradition, the same tradition that originally compiled the New Testament, so naturally that's that's the interpretation I accept.

And the LDS interpretation can be crudely summarized,  "Jesus and Satan are brothers".

Both Satan and Christ existed for eternity, were spiritually begotten with spirit bodies, and Christ was then begotten in the flesh.  So they are eternal, but spiritually begotten in time.

Satan, in the Great Council , rejected the Plan of Father while Christ agreed to be the Great Sacrifice, to atone  for the sins of man.  Each of us were in this Council, and Satan convinced a third of those spirit children to follow him in his rebellion.

You, me, Christ and Satan are all spirit children of Father, brothers and sisters.  This knowledge was restored when Christ called a living prophet in our day.  This knowledge was possessed by His disciples when they asked the question, "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"

[Spammer]

24 minutes ago, cdowis said:

And the LDS interpretation can be crudely summarized,  "Jesus and Satan are brothers".

Both Satan and Christ existed for eternity, were spiritually begotten with spirit bodies, and Christ was then begotten in the flesh.  So they are eternal, but spiritually begotten in time.

Satan, in the Great Council , rejected the Plan of Father while Christ agreed to be the Great Sacrifice, to atone  for the sins of man.  Each of us were in this Council, and Satan convinced a third of those spirit children to follow him in his rebellion.

You, me, Christ and Satan are all spirit children of Father, brothers and sisters.  This knowledge was restored when Christ called a living prophet in our day.  This knowledge was possessed by His disciples when they asked the question, "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"

Thank you for sharing that. Brings back some good memories discussing the preexistence.. I was raised LDS, fifth generation on both sides. Temple, mission, eternal marriage, etc. I crossed the Tiber nearly a decade ago. It'll be ten years next Easter Vigil. 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Spammer

[boblloyd91]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

Thank you for sharing that. Brings back some good memories discussing the preexistence.. I was raised LDS, fifth generation on both sides. Temple, mission, eternal marriage, etc. I crossed the Tiber nearly a decade ago. It'll be ten years next Easter Vigil. 

I thought it was the Bosporus you crossed?

[Spammer]

9 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

I thought it was the Bosporus you crossed?

First the Tiber, then the Bosporus five years later.

[boblloyd91]

8 minutes ago, Spammer said:

First the Tiber, then the Bosporus five years later.

Out of curiosity what made you go a bit further East?

[Gray]

The problem with the idea of a universal apostasy is there was never a single kind of Christianity before the apostasy. In fact you don't see something like an emergent orthodoxy until the ideas the LDS church generally considers to be "apostate" had cemented into the Christian liturgy.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

The problem with the idea of a universal apostasy is there was never a single kind of Christianity before the apostasy. In fact you don't see something like an emergent orthodoxy until the ideas the LDS church generally considers to be "apostate" had cemented into the Christian liturgy.

Which is why the Great Apostasy refers more to priesthood authority and ordinances than to theology and doctrine.

[pogi]

On 12/8/2017 at 12:15 PM, snowflake said:

Who were the men corrupting the principles? I am looking for evidence. 

Aren’t you evangelical?  You could start with Martin Luther’s 95 Theses.

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is why the Great Apostasy refers more to priesthood authority and ordinances than to theology and doctrine.

This is true, but when priesthood authority ends, so does revelatory guidance of the church through priesthood channels, and we begin to see corruption of theology and doctrine.  They go hand in hand.

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, Gray said:

The problem with the idea of a universal apostasy is there was never a single kind of Christianity before the apostasy. In fact you don't see something like an emergent orthodoxy until the ideas the LDS church generally considers to be "apostate" had cemented into the Christian liturgy.

There was during Christ’s lifetime when he defined it. After those three years all bets were off.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is true, but when priesthood authority ends, so does revelatory guidance of the church through priesthood channels, and we begin to see corruption of theology and doctrine.  They go hand in hand.

In the case of the early Christians- chicken and the egg.

[Spammer]

3 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

Out of curiosity what made you go a bit further East?

The beauty of the Byzantine liturgy, along with doubts about historic papal claims to absolute supremacy over the entire universal church. 

[Atheist Mormon]

On 12/8/2017 at 12:31 PM, snowflake said:

My question is when and where did the so called great apostasy happen?

Read some Bart Ehrman, educate yourself, before coming here. 

[Gray]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is why the Great Apostasy refers more to priesthood authority and ordinances than to theology and doctrine.

From my understanding of it it's both. And then that the priesthood authority disappeared because the doctrines started changing. It's part of that idea of there having been a primitive church. In reality there were many early Christianities, and the earliest versions weren't really recognizably Christian anyway.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There was during Christ’s lifetime when he defined it. After those three years all bets were off.

Jesus' religion was Judaism though, not Christianity.

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

Jesus' religion was Judaism though, not Christianity.

Kind of. If you believe the records are at all accurate in recording what he said it seems he was building a personal cult (in the anthropological sense). So many of his statements are about people following him personally.

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Read some Bart Ehrman, educate yourself, before coming here. 

Really? Nobody should post here without reading "some Bart Ehrman". How much? I have heard the name. I always hate whatever he is quoted as saying and yet if you look at my numbers since I came in Dec. 2004, as a non-LDS, a good number of folk have liked what I say here, without reading any Bart Ehrman. I would suggest that your criteria for how somebody needs to be educated before "coming here", is flawed.

Edited December 11, 2017 by 3DOP

[Atheist Mormon]

5 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Really? Nobody should post here without reading "some Bart Ehrman". How much? I have heard the name. I always hate whatever he is quoted as saying and yet if you look at my numbers, as a non-LDS, some folk like what I say here. I would suggest that your criteria for how somebody needs to be educated before "coming here", is faulty.

Yea, perhaps it was a little harsh but nevertheless Bart is right on the point, in his book "Lost Christianities" he explains the obvious. 

I stand by my criteria......

 

Edited December 11, 2017 by Atheist Mormon

[3DOP]

21 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yea, perhaps it was a little harsh but nevertheless Bart is right on the point, in his book "Lost Christianities" he explains the obvious. 

I stand by my criteria......

 

 

Okay. Fairly stated. I will be forthcoming with you. I haven''t read Ehrman myself and have no intention to do so. From what I have gathered, if he is correct, it isn't a question of reformation vs. restoration, but of God vs. no God. Some Mormons think Ehrman helps their cause. I dunno. I am Catholic. No apostasy. No reformation. No restoration. But I can't go atheist. I could lose my faith, but I would still need to be taught how to disbelieve in God. Anyway. thanks for you reply. I appreciate your restraint. I didn't hold much back myself.

Take care,

Rory

 

Edited December 11, 2017 by 3DOP

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Jesus' religion was Judaism though, not Christianity.

It wasn't the main types of Judaism of the era though (the two types of Phariseism, Essenes, Saduccees, platonist, etc.) It likely borrowed elements of each including probably some we don't have record of. So it was it's own thing that then itself both affected these other strains but evolved itself.

2 hours ago, Gray said:

From my understanding of it it's both. And then that the priesthood authority disappeared because the doctrines started changing. It's part of that idea of there having been a primitive church. In reality there were many early Christianities, and the earliest versions weren't really recognizably Christian anyway.

I'm not sure that's a problem there being many Christianities. After all truth be told is there just one Mormonism? Even acknowledging we share a view of authority there's a big difference from McConkie Mormons, FARMS like apologists who privilege science, liberal Mormons like BCC and so forth.