• 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!

Did the true church ever vanish or completely fall away?

The the CHristian church ever Fall away completely

  • Yes it fell away until the reformation

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
The falling away does not take place, until the Antichrist comes and then the Antichrist is revealed, Then once the man of sin is revealed, The son of perdition will be taken out of the way and then Satan is cast into the lake of fire.
I have found that there is no "the AntiChrist" (noun).. Translations have taken 1 Johns message of "the spirit of antichrist" which was already among them and turned it into a fictional character by adding the word "the" and capitalizing the A.

It's just a continued corruption of the Gospel message that started in Galatians 1 with "another gospel" Paul speaks of. Without spiritual knowledge the message has changed.

My view is that the church that told Constantine that he attained being a saint though he had amassed great wealth, could still murder his enemies, had the right to be the head of the RCC, and taught that waiting until his deathbed to be baptized would mean he would enter heaven sinless, is antichrist.

Your mileage may vary.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
There is only one True AntiChrist, Which is Satan himself. Satan has always been the adversary against Christ Jesus.

AntiChrist means, one who stands in the place of another.
And this is exactly what the AntiChrist,Satan is trying to do.

Is to stand in the place of Christ Jesus.

The falling away that disciple Paul written about, happens only when the AntiChrist,Satan, comes by deception to deceive to stand in the place of the real Christ Jesus.
And many people will believe he is the real Christ Jesus.
All because many people to day have no clue who comes first. Or how he will come.
1John.2[18] Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that anti-Christ is coming, so now many anti-Christs have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour...[22] Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the anti-Christ, he who denies the Father and the Son. [notice the plural stated in the first verse above and implied in the second]
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
1John.2[18] Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that anti-Christ is coming, so now many anti-Christs have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour...[22] Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the anti-Christ, he who denies the Father and the Son. [notice the plural stated in the first verse above and implied in the second]


Notice 1 John 2:18--"Little children, it is the last time ( hour ) and as you have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time ( hour )"

Notice John wrote ( it is the last hour )

The question is ? What is that last Hour?
That John wrote of?

Notice then John wrote ( that antichrist shall come)

Notice John signifying that a Certain antichrist is to come.

Then John wrote -- ( now ) meaning now, there are many antichrists.

If you look around, you will see there are many that stand against Christ, that they do not believe in Christ.

Atheist they stand against Christ, thereby being antichrists. Muslims stand against Christ, they do not believe Christ is the Son of God nor Christ is God Himself in the flesh body of Christ. These also antichrists

If there be anyone else who stands against Christ is an antichrist. This is all happening Now. More now than ever was and it's getting worse
Here Prophecy being fulfilled right before People's eyes and they don't even see it happening.

Therefore John speaking to God's Elect people.letting them know, that once they see many antichrists come then they will know that it is the last hour of this world.

Then God's Elect are to keep watch for Main Commander in Chief Antichrist to come, that will stand above all the other antichrists.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Seeing who have no idea who the Antichrist is.
The Antichrist is Satan, Satan is God's number one adversary, Enemy.

Antichrist means, one who stands in the place of another.
Therefore the Antichrist comes to stand in the place of Christ.
Thereby Satan comes by masquerading by deception to deceive people into believing that he is Christ. Being the Antichrist.

I believe Satan as the antichrist is not the same thing as Satan just as Jesus is not the same thing as God.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I started a thread like this with a poll and everything. I'm inclined to believe that all Catholic and Orthodox Bishops can trace themselves back to the 12 apostles and there is an unbreakable chain of popes that dates back to St Peter (the second pope was Saint Linus in 67 AD, so my inclination is to be that the Catholic church was founded by Christ.

That doesn't change the fact that its history is very corrupt, full of abuses, and rather heartbreaking and discouraging...yet its founder is Christ none the less.

I believe all the churches have Jesus as their origen but the fact is that the Roman church existed long before Peter arrived and even before Paul arrived.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
I believe Satan as the antichrist is not the same thing as Satan just as Jesus is not the same thing as God.


In my trying to explain how it's possible for Jesus to be God.

Let's take a mannequin for instance that you see in stores, it's nothing more than a lifeless body.
Let's for say, that you step inside of the mannequin body and it came live, all because your inside of it.

This what God did with the body of Jesus, the body of Jesus was lifeless. Until God step inside of the body of Jesus to bring life to the body.
This is how God is Jesus in the flesh body.

All God did was make himself a body and then step inside the body, to bring life to the body of Jesus.
Therefore you have Jesus is God in the flesh.
 
Last edited:

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Iti s the basis of many sects and cults that the Christian church fell into apostasy, and their founder/prophet/teacher was given special insight or revelation to restore it, could this be true?
Jesus said He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, so for me if what these great latter day prophets surmised to be true, Jesus must have been wrong. Charles Taze Russel, Ellen G White, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Bahá'u'lláh, all taught in one way or another that what Jesus started became corrupted and that the bible had also become corrupted or very badly translated or parts lost from it, so they came up with their correct words of God, koran,nwt,book of mormon, pearl of great price,the great controversy and Bahá'u'lláhs writings etc.

My position is there has always been a faithfull true remnant of Christians even through the so called dark ages who adhered to simple biblical faith. I know that many departed from the faith and that heresy and apostasy have been wide spread throughout christendom at times but my question is did it completely vanish?


There has always been a godly remnantt
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
There has always been a godly remnantt
But what's missing here is one very important fact, namely that "church" (ecclesia) means "community", and that community was headed by God, Jesus, the apostles, and the leaders that the apostles chose to succeed them. IOW, to use Paul's words, the church was "one body", not a "remnant". Even though there were many local churches over time, they were tied together with demands, first by the apostles themselves, and later by their appointees, that the church had to act as "one body".

This is why when you get into the 2nd century, the church leaders wrote, not just to their own congregations but to also to other congregations, with the Bishop of Rome being a "first amongst equals" in regards to other bishops. However, that bishop did not have any real binding power back then, and because "heretical" churches began to sprout up, including their use of other "scriptures", who does the average person believe with all these groups claiming that they're right and all others were bogus?

This mass of confusion led to the calling of "councils" to try and keep the church cohesive and on target as far as teachings go, including the eventual selection of the Christian canon starting in the second half of the 4th century and extending into the 5th. The Bible you use was selected by that church that could trace its leadership back to the apostles through what theologians call "apostolic succession". Without that being done, Christianity would have fragmented so bad that its survival might have been at stake.
 

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
Apostolic succession is a term invented by the catholics (seeing Peter as the main apostle through one verse of the gospels). The gospels show Peter as being mistake ridden. If he did dictate to Mark the gospel (60AD), those who followed John, the disciple Jesus loved, were correct in their thinking to bring the Acts of Christ (gospel John) some 35 years afterward, seeing the misunderstood paths the former gospels were leading men to believe.

Peter and Paul had their differences as well. The synoptics were written for the Jews, who had the hardest time converting from the old path to the new (spiritual) path. John explains the spiritual path in a much greater way, leaving out things like linage and other physical tenets that the Jews developed on this "wrong" path.

John and Paul were the Gospel Christ taught to all man, and not just the Jews.

The synoptics do not teach this:

John:
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

John:
All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

The Jews wanted their cake and eat it too. (John 8) The catholic ideology gave it to them.




 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
There has always been a godly remnantt
But what, specifically, does that mean? There have always been believers, people who are genuine in their devotion to Jesus Christ and who live as He instructed us to live? Or does it mean that there has always been an institutional church that has doctrines that would be fully recognizable by Jesus Christ as the same exact ones He taught?
 

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
But what, specifically, does that mean? There have always been believers, people who are genuine in their devotion to Jesus Christ and who live as He instructed us to live? Or does it mean that there has always been an institutional church that has doctrines that would be fully recognizable by Jesus Christ as the same exact ones He taught?
There is difference between devotion to Jesus Christ and devotion to the "church". Most orthodoxy follows the latter, thinking if they are devoted to the church, they are devoted to Christ. The Nicene Creed shares the words Holy Catholic Church and Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one and the same. I reject the creed as being a doctrine of men, just as I reject the Bible as the (only) word of God.

You should know, that as LDS, you are considered a heretic also. But heresy is nothing more than not following the catholic (or Catholic) ideology. Early Protestants were heretics (to the RCC) and were killed for being such. Just as Joseph Smith was.

Does it matter if one believes that Jesus appeared to the early Mormons? Not to me. I cannot question it's truth. And Christian gnosis teaches us that the Spirit Christ gave us, was not limited to the Jews anymore, but to the world.

I can see the same chasm formed between the old and new in the book of Mormon as I do in the Hebrew books and Greek and Coptic books of Christianity in the East.

In both cases, the church(es) have embraced a physical, fleshly delusion, over the spiritual knowledge Jesus came and died to illustrate.

I see so much movement in religious orders to move towards the spiritual path, but the church(es) just cannot let go of the material power that comes with the flesh followers. They keep returning to the OT to justify their ignorance and that is where Christ said that the liar and murderer worked, and to teach the Gospel, not the Bible.

Perspective comes by seeking the truth. Not by saying where to seek it, but learning how to seek it.

John:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Churches do not guide into "all truth". The Spirit does. If the church did, we would no long need the Spirit.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
No, if it did Jesus would have no more use for humanity and the world would end. I think anyone who says Jesus is the Son of God is the true church.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
There is difference between devotion to Jesus Christ and devotion to the "church". Most orthodoxy follows the latter, thinking if they are devoted to the church, they are devoted to Christ. The Nicene Creed shares the words Holy Catholic Church and Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one and the same. I reject the creed as being a doctrine of men, just as I reject the Bible as the (only) word of God.

You should know, that as LDS, you are considered a heretic also. But heresy is nothing more than not following the catholic (or Catholic) ideology. Early Protestants were heretics (to the RCC) and were killed for being such. Just as Joseph Smith was.

Does it matter if one believes that Jesus appeared to the early Mormons? Not to me. I cannot question it's truth. And Christian gnosis teaches us that the Spirit Christ gave us, was not limited to the Jews anymore, but to the world.

I can see the same chasm formed between the old and new in the book of Mormon as I do in the Hebrew books and Greek and Coptic books of Christianity in the East.

In both cases, the church(es) have embraced a physical, fleshly delusion, over the spiritual knowledge Jesus came and died to illustrate.

I see so much movement in religious orders to move towards the spiritual path, but the church(es) just cannot let go of the material power that comes with the flesh followers. They keep returning to the OT to justify their ignorance and that is where Christ said that the liar and murderer worked, and to teach the Gospel, not the Bible.

Perspective comes by seeking the truth. Not by saying where to seek it, but learning how to seek it.

John:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Churches do not guide into "all truth". The Spirit does. If the church did, we would no long need the Spirit.
Very interesting and informative post. I'd have to say that I agree with about 90% of what you have said.
 

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
No, if it did Jesus would have no more use for humanity and the world would end. I think anyone who says Jesus is the Son of God is the true church.

Then, you set yourself up to be deceived. It's not about what a church says.

Matthew:
"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me."

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Without the Spirit that guides man into "all truth", he follows doctrines of men with partial truth.

To follow what "men" say, is to deny the "Spiritual knowledge" that truly saves man.

"For so long as the root of wickedness is hidden, it is strong. But when it is recognized, it is dissolved. When it is revealed, it perishes. That is why the Word says, "Already the axe is laid at the root of the trees" (Mt 3:10). It will not merely cut - what is cut sprouts again - but the ax penetrates deeply, until it brings up the root. Jesus pulled out the root of the whole place, while others did it only partially. As for ourselves, let each one of us dig down after the root of evil which is within one, and let one pluck it out of one's heart from the root. It will be plucked out if we recognize it. But if we are ignorant of it, it takes root in us and produces its fruit in our heart. It masters us. We are its slaves. It takes us captive, to make us do what we do not want; and what we do want, we do not do. It is powerful because we have not recognized it. While it exists it is active. Ignorance is the mother of all evil. Ignorance will result in death, because those who come from ignorance neither were, nor are, nor shall be."- Gospel of Philip

To find an excuse to not read and understand gnosis such as Philip is explaining, is to follow partial truths. The Spirit reveals truth, not men.

Knowledge (gnosis) is the cure to ignorance.
 

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
Very interesting and informative post. I'd have to say that I agree with about 90% of what you have said.
I studied the LDS in 1974, living in Provo (Utah) for about 6 months. I also studied the First Mormon Church (Illinois) when I was seeking and studying the different Christian theologies. Through my own study, I found that Brigham Young was instrumental in creating a church marred with deceptive fleshly understanding, causing the same type chasm that snared Peter (as it did with the Incident at Antioch).

Brigham Young, as well as Peter, reinstated men as priests with celestial authority on Earth. Returning to the deception the Jews experienced with the Pharisee's and Sadducee's.

The veil was rend for a reason. Anyone who teaches that God is in a church, doesn't understand the word church.

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."- Gospel of Thomas
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
I studied the LDS in 1974, living in Provo (Utah) for about 6 months. I also studied the First Mormon Church (Illinois) when I was seeking and studying the different Christian theologies. Through my own study, I found that Brigham Young was instrumental in creating a church marred with deceptive fleshly understanding, causing the same type chasm that snared Peter (as it did with the Incident at Antioch).

Brigham Young, as well as Peter, reinstated men as priests with celestial authority on Earth. Returning to the deception the Jews experienced with the Pharisee's and Sadducee's.

The veil was rend for a reason. Anyone who teaches that God is in a church, doesn't understand the word church.

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."- Gospel of Thomas


Peter called the whole church 'a kingdom of priests' and so in a sense all believers are 'priests to God'
re-instating a priesthood of some special individuals seems problematic in that light
 

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
Peter called the whole church 'a kingdom of priests' and so in a sense all believers are 'priests to God'
re-instating a priesthood of some special individuals seems problematic in that light
Christ used the OT term "ye are gods". Paul called the believers "saints". The RCC has redefined saints as promoters of their own.

The word "priest" is an adversary in all Gospels and Pauls 10 letters. Only Hebrews, 2nd Peter and Timothy mentions them in positive light, and no one knows who wrote them. Many scholars agree it was probably written by emerging catholic sympathizers.

Norman Perrin writes on 2nd Peter and the Pastorals:
The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.

The book of Hebrews have no known author, and doesn't fit with the gospel narrative.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Christ used the OT term "ye are gods". Paul called the believers "saints". The RCC has redefined saints as promoters of their own.

The word "priest" is an adversary in all Gospels and Pauls 10 letters. Only Hebrews, 2nd Peter and Timothy mentions them in positive light, and no one knows who wrote them. Many scholars agree it was probably written by emerging catholic sympathizers.

Norman Perrin writes on 2nd Peter and the Pastorals:
The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.

The book of Hebrews have no known author, and doesn't fit with the gospel narrative.

ye are gods is taken from a Psalm where God is addressing wicked rulers who in their office were meant to be
God's instrument of justice but were corrupt.... it appears to be a poetic device

Saying there are 'other gods' is not really consistent with the NT or OT

now priest in Peter is a fulfillment of God's words in the Exodus that someday 'you shall be a kingdom of priests' and that is fulfilled in the priesthood of believers in the church which is a typical protestant view. It would be interesting to know how Catholics understand this.
 

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
The terms God and god are misunderstood. The Father is the term Jesus used to describe the creator of the ALL. Nothing exists, including God or god, without him. A god is anything above the abilities of man.
We cannot conceive the God (Father) that Jesus spoke of. We can conceive all Gods and gods below him. They all are named, and understood.

The Father has no name, nor is understood. If he were, Jesus would not have to come to name him (glorify him).

But truth brought names into existence in the world for our sakes, because it is not possible to learn it (truth) without these names. Truth is one single thing; it is many things and for our sakes to teach about this one thing in love through many things. The rulers (archons) wanted to deceive man, since they saw that he had a kinship with those that are truly good. They took the name of those that are good and gave it to those that are not good, so that through the names they might deceive him and bind them to those that are not good. And afterward, what a favor they do for them! They make them be removed from those that are not good and place them among those that are good. These things they knew, for they wanted to take the free man and make him a slave to them forever.- Gospel of Philip

Spiritual (kingdom of God) doesn't need nor use names. Gnosis and Sophia are names. Gnostic is a name. As well as saint and catholic. Jesus glorified the name of the Father, as the Father glorified his name. So what is their name? God?

Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect. So also with "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit" and "life" and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church (Ekklesia)" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect, unless they have come to know what is correct. The names which are heard are in the world [...] deceive. If they were in the Aeon (eternal realm), they would at no time be used as names in the world. Nor were they set among worldly things. They have an end in the Aeon.- Gospel of Philip

If your God has a name, or different names, he/she/it is a creation of another.
 
Top