• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Great Apostasy

dan

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
That the church will never fail is directly associated with who the Church says that Jesus is. Peter never said that Jesus is who Joseph Smith says Jesus is...

Matthew 16
13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Ah, so Catholic. The problem is that that interpertation ignores every logical application. The Greek here does not refer to the church. The gates of Hell will not prevail against what? The Greek is in the partitive genitive. That means that whatever it is referring to it is the rightful property of those gates. The church does not qualify. In layman's terms, "It" does not refer to the direct object (my church), but to something else alltogether. What is a gate for? To keep something in or out. In no place in the scriptures does a gate denote anything other than that. What belongs to the gates of Hell? The spirits in prison, of course. Christ has said in numerous places that he will preach the gospel to the dead and they will be let out of spirit prison. Despite all the conviction you may have, an understanding of the Greek language and the bIble as a whole render your interpretation completely and totally invalid. It is wrong, pure and simple. You can whine all you want, and I'm sure you will, but it simply cannot work given the original Greek. It is impossible.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
dan said:
So the very infallible leaders of your entire church can commit the most heinous acts to ever be recorded, but because the leaders of our faith are not perfect the playing field is even? You're not even listening to me. They ran your church into the ground, sdug it out of its grave, burnt it, and then ran it back into the ground. God has never let one of His ecclesiastical leaders mislead His church. That is fact. If you'd like to deny it then show me in the Bible where He has.

I'll take your exaggerations and misunderstandings and roll with them and still say YES. So once again, where in the bible does it say that shortcomings will void Truth or the Catholic Church for that matter?
 

dan

Well-Known Member
jeffrey said:
This is were most people that are not Mormon will site, that we believe, that Smith was not what you think he his. Dan, your saying alot of people changed the bible, which was wrong, and Smith changed it and it was right. It's cool to believe in what you believe, but to say that... Let me put it this way. Someone many years ago changes things in the bible to what they truely believe is what God wants. Hundreds upon hundreds of years later, someone else comes along and says God did not speak to them, basicly saying that they are, the ones that originally changed it, full of B.S., and God has spoke to him and changed things the way he, God, really meant it to say. That they are the only true Church, that the tribe of Jews caught a charter over here, became the indians, or more correctly, Native Americans, and if you just follow me, (Smith) you too, can be a God one day!
I'm not knocking what you believe, but there is more proof that Smith was incorrect in his thinking then correct. Prove what you are saying without quoting the founders. Quote tangable proof.

For the fourth time, I have said absolutely nothign about Joseph Smith or our doctrine, aside from mentioning that I am starting this thread in an effort to address an issue that comes up when discussin our doctrine. The question at hand is whether or not an apostasy occured in the early church. Joseph Smith has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Will everyone please keep their posts on subject? I have had posts of mine deleted before because I was accused of going off subject, and now mods are doing the same and ignoring my requests. Please stay on subject.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
I'll take your exaggerations and misunderstandings and roll with them and still say YES. So once again, where in the bible does it say that shortcomings will void Truth or the Catholic Church for that matter?

There is no place in the Bible where God allows an ecclesiastical leader to mislead the church and maintain his position. There are examples of His ecclesiastical leaders misleading the church and being immediately removed. The word of God, without exceptuion, testifies that God will not allow His church to be lead astray without direct and immediate consequences. The example of the Bible is binding, as it is considered the rule by which all truths must be measured. That is my proof. If you disagree please explain why instead of saying, "nu-uh!"

The facts I set forward about the Popes show that they maintained control of the church while committing the most abominable acts in recorded history. THis is in direct contradiction to the established method of church administration.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
The concept that Joseph Smith and company restored the true doctrine of the church is an essential part of the Mormon belief of the Great Apostacy, which you mentioned, and therefore relevant to the topic at hand.

You know absolutely nothing about any essential parts of any Mormon beliefs, so place don't speak on our behalf. The Restoratio nhas nothing to do with the apostate nature ofthe Catholic church. That it happened is a part of our belief, that is true, but the fact that it happened and the restoration are not connected. We are discussing, free of any sectarianism or doctrine of subsequent restoration, whether or not the Catholic church was ordained of God.


angellous_evangellous said:
I don't know if you can show that I have no respect for you but your rude behavior alomst caused another thread to be closed. Your disrespect for me and others, however, is quite blatant. Shall we expect the same behavior here?

From you apparently. Is this your justification for going off topic? That it's in retaliation to me telling you what I thought of your other arguments?
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
dan said:
Ah, so Catholic. The problem is that that interpertation ignores every logical application. The Greek here does not refer to the church. The gates of Hell will not prevail against what? The Greek is in the partitive genitive. That means that whatever it is referring to it is the rightful property of those gates. The church does not qualify. In layman's terms, "It" does not refer to the direct object (my church), but to something else alltogether. What is a gate for? To keep something in or out. In no place in the scriptures does a gate denote anything other than that. What belongs to the gates of Hell? The spirits in prison, of course. Christ has said in numerous places that he will preach the gospel to the dead and they will be let out of spirit prison. Despite all the conviction you may have, an understanding of the Greek language and the bIble as a whole render your interpretation completely and totally invalid. It is wrong, pure and simple. You can whine all you want, and I'm sure you will, but it simply cannot work given the original Greek. It is impossible.

AA, the catholic? :biglaugh:
Ok Greek professor:

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
And you don't think this is talking about the Church? Oh yeah, you can't possibly interpret it like that because of the pesky apostatization. It all makes sense now. Thank you.:)
 

dan

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
Then stop wasting my time with your unwarranted claims.

I'm baffled. You continue to speak of the personal sins of our leaders while I speak of the misleading of the church by your leaders. You demand proof ex post facto my long list of papal atrocties, and then you call my evidence "unwarrented claims".
 

dan

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
AA, the catholic? :biglaugh:
Ok Greek professor:

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
And you don't think this is talking about the Church? Oh yeah, you can't possibly interpret it like that because of the pesky apostatization. It all makes sense now. Thank you.:)

I'm just telling you what the Greek can and cannot mean. It cannot mean the church, period.

I am pursuing a doctorate in Ancient Languages, so your sarcastic little attack is not entirely untrue.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
dan said:
I'm baffled. You continue to speak of the personal sins of our leaders while I speak of the misleading of the church by your leaders. You demand proof ex post facto my long list of papal atrocties, and then you call my evidence "unwarrented claims".

I asked you to prove both and asked for the latter in my last question. You were unable to provide a single verse to show it.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
dan said:
I'm just telling you what the Greek can and cannot mean. It cannot mean the church, period.

I am pursuing a doctorate in Ancient Languages, so your sarcastic little attack is not entirely untrue.

I know what you meant. :)
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
dan said:
Ah, so Catholic. The problem is that that interpertation ignores every logical application. The Greek here does not refer to the church.
We won't worry then about the logic of a group preserving the New Testament who is actually hostile to its message.

The gates of Hell will not prevail against what?
The confession.
The Greek is in the partitive genitive. That means that whatever it is referring to it is the rightful property of those gates. The church does not qualify. In layman's terms, "It" does not refer to the direct object (my church), but to something else alltogether. What is a gate for? To keep something in or out. In no place in the scriptures does a gate denote anything other than that. What belongs to the gates of Hell? The spirits in prison, of course. Christ has said in numerous places that he will preach the gospel to the dead and they will be let out of spirit prison. Despite all the conviction you may have, an understanding of the Greek language and the bIble as a whole render your interpretation completely and totally invalid. It is wrong, pure and simple. You can whine all you want, and I'm sure you will, but it simply cannot work given the original Greek. It is impossible.
I know Greek. After reviewing your explanation, there are too many logical inconsistancies for me to responsibly address it.

You said "It" does not refer to the direct object (my church), but to something else alltogether. I see that "it" is in the genitive, and so is "hell." "Hell" makes perfect sense as a possessive genitive, "gates (pred nom) of hell." You're trying to say that "aute" cannot be in apposition to "ekklesian" which makes perfect sense to me, being that "ekklesian" is accusative. That leaves us questioning what is the antecedent or object of "aute" (it?). You didn't answer the very question that you started, but rushed into trying to answer the question of what the gates of hell are.

Which one is the partitive genitive (adou or aute), and which one has impact on the antecedent of aute? The gates of hell will not tower against or rundown something (to whatever "aute" is referring. It can be the confession in verse 16, Petros, petra, or even ekklesia, but it's not the gates or hell, that wouldn't make sense.

You didn't answer your own question.



The spirits in prison that you refer to isn't even in the text.:eek:
 

dan

Well-Known Member
I don't believe we're hostile to its message. You do, but that's a matter of interpretation, and is no way concrete.

I believe the text refers to the spirits because it's the only thing that the gates of Hell would be trying to keep in. It is consistent with a doctrine that I believe runs throughout the Bible. It's a confusing text at every angle, but one thing I'm sure of is that it cannot mean the church. I admit that my personal interpretation is not as concrete as I would like it to be, but it makes the most sense to me. I don't believe there's a text anywhere in the NT that promises the church will never fall away, and I find several scriptures saying it will.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
dan said:
I don't believe we're hostile to its message. You do, but that's a matter of interpretation, and is no way concrete.

I believe the text refers to the spirits because it's the only thing that the gates of Hell would be trying to keep in. It is consistent with a doctrine that I believe runs throughout the Bible. It's a confusing text at every angle, but one thing I'm sure of is that it cannot mean the church. I admit that my personal interpretation is not as concrete as I would like it to be, but it makes the most sense to me.

This explanation makes more sense than arbitrarily saying that there is a partitive genitive in the sentence and not explaining the antecedent for "aute." It is a difficult sentence, but the gates of hell is definately the subject of the verb "to prevail against" and "it" referes to something in the sentence.

It makes much more sense to interpret the "gates of hell" as an alternative confession of Christ. Jesus has just told Peter that his confession only comes by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Alternative confessions of Christ come from hell, and the gates of hell represent where the alternative confessions belong, from whence they came. The gates of hell will not prevail against the true confession of Christ.

I appreciate your honesty in the post above.

I don't believe there's a text anywhere in the NT that promises the church will never fall away, and I find several scriptures saying it will.

Please show...
 

dan

Well-Known Member
I have always felt that the "rock" upon which the church is built is the testimony of Christ, and not Peter.

Amos 8:11, 12 - 11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.


When was someone found saying "Thus sayeth the Lord" after the NT? Nowhere does it say that revelation was to be unceremoniously ended.


II Thessalonians 2:2,3 - 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The Greek translated here "falling away" is apostasia. Many translations in English and many other languages translate it directly as "apostasy". Christ would not come again until after an apostasy. That is doctrine.

Acts 20:29 - 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

These are the apostate doctrines propagandized near the end of the New Testament. My assertion is that Paul was correct - the flock was not spared.

There are many others, but to explain them would take a lot of time and there are many interpretations.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
dan said:
I have always felt that the "rock" upon which the church is built is the testimony of Christ, and not Peter.

Interesting.

I agree to some extent. The point is Jesus said that what Peter confessed was given to him (Peter) by God.

13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[b] I will build my church, and the gates of hell[c] shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[d] in heaven." 20Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Interesting that Jesus juxtaposes "flesh and blood" to the Father in heaven (who does not have flesh and blood, contrary to the LDS confessions).

The confession that Jesus is Christ, Son of the living God, is from the Father, not from hell, where alternative confessions come from. This is a theme throughout scripture.

1 Cor 12.3
1Now concerning[a] spiritual gifts,[b] brothers,[c] I do not want you to be uninformed. 2You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. 3Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit.

1 John 4
1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. 4Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
dan said:
When was someone found saying "Thus sayeth the Lord" after the NT? Nowhere does it say that revelation was to be unceremoniously ended.

I don't think that any of us on this thread have said that revelation has ended.

II Thessalonians 2:2,3 - 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The Greek translated here "falling away" is apostasia. Many translations in English and many other languages translate it directly as "apostasy". Christ would not come again until after an apostasy. That is doctrine.


No where in the NT does any writer suggest that the true confession of Jesus Christ will perish due to apostacy.

Acts 20:29 - 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

These are the apostate doctrines propagandized near the end of the New Testament. My assertion is that Paul was correct - the flock was not spared.

There are many others, but to explain them would take a lot of time and there are many interpretations.

I agree, there were some false teachers, but there is no indication whatsoever that all would be lost. There is apostacy, but not total, and in fact, there is promise of the true confession of Christ prevailing forever.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Interesting that Jesus juxtaposes "flesh and blood" to the Father in heaven (who does not have flesh and blood, contrary to the LDS confessions).

I'm afraid you're misinformed. We believe God has a body of flesh and bone. Go back and look through your Bible and you will find an interesting occurance. Not once is a mortal human referred to as having flesh and bone, and not once is an immortal being (Pre-fall Adam, resurrected Christ, etc.) referred to as having flesh and blood. Blood is what makes us mortal (its degeneration ages us and makes us mortal) and distinguishes us from the celestial bodies spoken of by Paul. Those bodies are quickened by the Spirit, not blood. That's why they are referred to as "spiritual". The common mistake is to believe that spiritual cannot mean flesh, but we know by Jesus' example that flesh and bone can inheret the kingdom of God, even if flesh and blood cannot. Many say that because God is "spirit" He can have no body, but Jesus tells Nicodemus that any and all people reborn of the Holy Ghost are spirit (John 3:6). There is absolutely no difference in the Greek between the two examples. The scriptures are perfectly clear: flesh and bone can inheret the kigdom of God, and "spirit" can have flesh. There is nothing in any place in the entire Bible that says otherwise.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
No where in the NT does any writer suggest that the true confession of Jesus Christ will perish due to apostacy.

I don't say that either. Inspiration has always occured among men, but the authority given of God to guide His church (Hebrew 5:1-6) and hold the office of porphet has not. This is my entire point.
 
Top