The Great Apostasy

[Halcyon]

Jesus established a church? I thought that was Paul.

If Jesus did establish a church it would have been through his Jewish followers. Through his brother James, and is best mate Peter.

If you're looking for apostasy you might wanna start with Paul - he's the one that founded a Gentile church, not Jesus.

 

[Popeyesays]

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.

That is way out of context!. The Epistle in question does not make any provision to create or name a High Pries it says Jesus IN HEAVEN is the High Priest. To show the reference here are the last verses of Chapter FOUR of Hebrews:
"12God's word is living and full of power. It is more sharp than any sword that cuts on both sides. What God says cuts through and divides the mind and spirit. It cuts through and divides the place where the bones are joined, and the part inside the bone. What God says is able to judge the things people think and plan in their hearts.

13God is the one we must meet. Nothing can be hidden from him. Everything is open and he can see it.
14We have a great high priest who has gone into heaven. He is Jesus, the Son of God. Because we have such a great high priest, let us hold on to the things we believe.
15We have a high priest who can feel with us when we are weak. He has been tested in every way, just as we are. But he did not do anything wrong. 16So let us trust him when we come to worship God. He is so good. He will be kind to us and help us when we need it. "

Now to put it in context with you quote from chapter 5 and a few more verses to put it ALL in context:
"

1Every high priest is chosen from among men. His work is to stand before God for people. He brings gifts and makes sacrifices to God for the wrong things people have done.
2Such a high priest can be kind to people who do not know what is right and who do wrong. He knows how to share in the suffering of others because he himself is weak.
3Because he is weak himself, he must make sacrifices to God for the wrong things he has done, just as he does for the people.
4No one chooses himself to be high priest. But God calls him, just as he called Aaron.
5So Christ did not choose himself to be a high priest. But he was chosen by the One who said to him, `You are my Son, and I am your Father today.'
6In another place in the holy writings God said, `You are a priest for ever like Melchizedek.'
7When Jesus was a man, he talked to God who was able to save him from death. He called loudly to him with tears. God heard him because he honoured and respected God.
8Even though Jesus was his Son, he learned to obey God in the troubles he had.
9When he became perfect, he saved for ever all who obeyed him.
10God called him a high priest like Melchizedek was a priest.
11We have many things to say about him. But they are hard to explain to you. You are so slow to understand what we tell you.
12By this time you should be able to teach others. But you need someone to teach you God's word again from the very beginning. Like children, you need milk, not meat.
13Anyone who takes milk does not understand the message about which things are right. 14But meat is for people who are grown up. It is for people who have trained their minds to know the difference between what is good and what is bad. "

Once its all in context the irrelevance of what you are assigning to it becomes apparent.

Regards,
Scott

 

[dan]

I believe it compares High Priests among us to the Great High Priest Jesus. It says the high priest are chosen from among men, and that they're weak. That they cannot take the honor upon themselves, but must becalled of God, as was Aaron (appointed by revelation, set apart by the laying on of hands by someone in authority). That is in context with the rest of Holy Scripture.

 

[James the Persian]

Dan,

May I just ask why you seem to think that if the Roman Catholic Church is apostate (not a position I agree with, I hasten to add) that that is conclusive proof that the whole Church apsotasized? Even if you could prove that the RCC is apostate, you'd have to advance arguments against the Orthodox, the OOs and the Nestorians at the very least, but all your arguments seem to be aimed at the RCC and the papacy in particular. I'd agree with you completely if you were to say that the papacy is a distortion of ecclesiology not found in the early Church, but then I'm Orthodox. It wouldn't be even close to proving a Great Apostacy, though. Do you have any arguments that don't revolve around the state of the RCC at all? So far the only thing that you seem to have demonstrated to me is that you don't know much about Church history east of roughly Croatia.

James

 

[dan]

I've already shared my feelings about the Great Schism and the doctrinal and historical roots of the Orthodox church. Other obscure churches share the same blatant disregard for established Biblical administration. I'm well aware of church history and the half truths, traditions and shady records that enshroud most of it. I tilted my focus toward the Catholic church because I figured it would be the perspective from which most people here would argue. Only those who feel an unbroken line of authority has maintained the church from Revelation till now are that opposed to my argument, and the Catholic church is the one with the only real (real shaky) claim.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I've already shared my feelings about the Great Schism and the doctrinal and historical roots of the Orthodox church.

Dan, when you do this, can you provide a link? As a courtesy... you can find it much easier than any of us.

Other obscure churches share the same blatant disregard for established Biblical administration. I'm well aware of church history and the half truths, traditions and shady records that enshroud most of it. I tilted my focus toward the Catholic church because I figured it would be the perspective from which most people here would argue. Only those who feel an unbroken line of authority has maintained the church from Revelation till now are that opposed to my argument, and the Catholic church is the one with the only real (real shaky) claim.

Several churches do "feel an unbroken line of authority has maintained the church from Revelation till now " and are opposed to your claim. Catholic sins do not over-ride the fact that they can trace their authority back to Christ. They have authority, they have abused it, and they have repented. Have you ever heard of Vatican II?

 

[mormonman]

Dan,

May I just ask why you seem to think that if the Roman Catholic Church is apostate (not a position I agree with, I hasten to add) that that is conclusive proof that the whole Church apsotasized? Even if you could prove that the RCC is apostate, you'd have to advance arguments against the Orthodox, the OOs and the Nestorians at the very least, but all your arguments seem to be aimed at the RCC and the papacy in particular. I'd agree with you completely if you were to say that the papacy is a distortion of ecclesiology not found in the early Church, but then I'm Orthodox. It wouldn't be even close to proving a Great Apostacy, though. Do you have any arguments that don't revolve around the state of the RCC at all? So far the only thing that you seem to have demonstrated to me is that you don't know much about Church history east of roughly Croatia.

James

Like I said in another thread, good fruit can not come from a dead tree.

 

[mormonman]

Dan, when you do this, can you provide a link? As a courtesy... you can find it much easier than any of us.

Several churches do "feel an unbroken line of authority has maintained the church from Revelation till now " and are opposed to your claim. Catholic sins do not over-ride the fact that they can trace their authority back to Christ. They have authority, they have abused it, and they have repented. Have you ever heard of Vatican II?

I hope you're not talking about the Book of Revelation, because that wasn't the last book written. It was the one that was placed last when they compiled the Bible.

 

[Quiddity]

and the Catholic church is the one with the only real (real shaky) claim.

It's almost as if you didn't even bother reading what he said. If you question the RC for this, you also include EO's and OO's in this as well.

 

[nutshell]

I wish I could see a debate about the apostacy without any LDS or Orthodox/Catholic posters. Then we might get somewhere.

 

[Quiddity]

I wish I could see a debate about the apostacy without any LDS or Orthodox/Catholic posters. Then we might get somewhere.

Elaborate please?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I hope you're not talking about the Book of Revelation, because that wasn't the last book written. It was the one that was placed last when they compiled the Bible.

I was quoting someone when I referred to "Revelation."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I wish I could see a debate about the apostacy without any LDS or Orthodox/Catholic posters. Then we might get somewhere.

It's easy to debate topics without opponents. :biglaugh:

 

[Popeyesays]

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.

A quotation taken sadly out of context.

Regards,
Scott

 

[dan]

The Orthodox church split from what is now known as the Catholic church in the Great Schism of 1054. This was when Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael I excommunicated each other. Both groups bickered about who had authority over who for centuries. The Councils of Basel and Lyons, respectively, tried to bring the groups together again, but bickering won the day, as usual. Originally three bishops had dominion over the whole church: the bishop of Rome (the Pope), Alexandria and Antioch. From the Wikipidia:

"Disunion in the Roman Empire further contributed to disunion in the Church. Theodosius the Great, who died in 395, was the last Emperor to rule over a united Roman Empire; after his death, his territory was divided into western and eastern halves, each under its own Emperor. By the end of the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire had been destroyed by the barbarians, while the Eastern Roman Empire (known also as the Byzantine Empire) continued to thrive. Thus, the political unity of the Roman Empire was the first to fall."

Doctrine is what initially divided the two churches, which division testifies of the actuality of the Apostasy, given the examples I earlier pointed out. Had there been an actual inspired leader these differences would have been ironed out. You can see that no one was respected as having absolute authority.

This is what I wrote about the Orthodox church. Two your second point I revert back to the context in which into which I introduced the Catholic "sins." God has never let an ecclesiastical authority maintain a position of authority in HIS CHURCH. If it is indeed His church He will promptly remove any corrupt ecclesiastics. Not only did these Popes sin in the most egregious of manners, they maintained control of their administration for centuries. This shows, if the Bible is true, that the Papal authority is not of God. You will never find an example otherwise in the scriptures.

You say they can trace their authority back. I can trace mine back as well. I don't even have to look at anything. I was ordained to the priesthood, by the laying on of hands, by Dennis Pitt. He was ordained by his father Warren Pitt, who was ordained by Howard Hunter, who was ordained by David O. McKay, who was ordained by Joseph F. Smith, who was ordained by Brigham Young, who was ordained by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, who were ordained by Peter, James and John, who were ordained by Jesus Christ. What's the difference? 1) My ordination follows the pattern set by the entire Bible (yours does not), and 2) I believe it is true. You believe the authority you claim is true and you believe I'm full of crap. I believe the line you claim is purely traditional. The literature that you believe gives you that authority is just as apocryphal as any other deuterocanonical texts and I don't buy it. Were it legitimate your church would be unde rmuch better supervision. Both of us have to trust in our faith. That's too subjective to have part in a debate such as this, so please, if you're going to make a claim like that provide some evidence.

 

[dan]

A quotation taken sadly out of context.

Please explain.

It reads in my translation:

"For no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."

Aaron was called by revelation and set apart by the laying on of hands. Chapter 4 speaks of how Christ acts as our High Priest, and then chapter 5 speaks of how Christ fulfills the criteria just like all men should. It never says the office is done with.

 

[Popeyesays]

Please explain.

It reads in my translation:

"For no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."

Aaron was called by revelation and set apart by the laying on of hands. Chapter 4 speaks of how Christ acts as our High Priest, and then chapter 5 speaks of how Christ fulfills the criteria just like all men should. It never says the office is done with.

"Main Entry: con·text javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?contex01.wav=context')
Pronunciation: 'kän-"tekst
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, weaving together of words, from Latin contextus connection of words, coherence, from contexere to weave together, from com- + texere to weave
1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs

Hebrews is a single letter and taking snippets from it are more likely to lead to contextual errors than anything I can think of.
Here's Chapter FOUR in entirety and I put in a different version, just so another version can be put in context (Darby Translation well thought of for its literality):
Hebrews 4


1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any one of you might seem to have failed [of it].
2For indeed we have had glad tidings presented to us, even as they also; but the word of the report did not profit *them*, not being mixed with faith in those who heard.
3For we enter into the rest who have believed; as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, If they shall enter into my rest; although the works had been completed from [the] foundation of [the] world.
4For he has said somewhere of the seventh [day] thus, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works:
5and in this again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6Seeing therefore it remains that some enter into it, and those who first received the glad tidings did not enter in on account of not hearkening to the word,
7again he determines a certain day, saying, in David, 'To-day,' after so long a time; (according as it has been said before), To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
8For if Jesus had brought them into rest, he would not have spoken afterwards about another day.
9There remains then a sabbatism to the people of God.
10For he that has entered into his rest, he also has rested from his works, as God did from his own.
11Let us therefore use diligence to enter into that rest, that no one may fall after the same example of not hearkening to the word.
12For the word of God [is] living and operative, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and penetrating to [the] division of soul and spirit, both of joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of [the] heart.
13And there is not a creature unapparent before him; but all things [are] naked and laid bare to his eyes, with whom we have to do.
14Having therefore a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast the confession.
15For we have not a high priest not able to sympathise with our infirmities, but tempted in all things in like manner, sin apart. 16Let us approach therefore with boldness to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and find grace for seasonable help.

Chapter FIVE:

Hebrews 5


1For every high priest taken from amongst men is established for men in things relating to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins;
2being able to exercise forbearance towards the ignorant and erring, since he himself also is clothed with infirmity;
3and, on account of this [infirmity], he ought, even as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4And no one takes the honour to himself but [as] called by God, even as Aaron also.
5Thus the Christ also has not glorified himself to be made a high priest; but he who had said to him, *Thou* art my Son, *I* have to-day begotten thee.
6Even as also in another [place] he says, *Thou* [art] a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec.
7Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been heard because of his piety
8though he were Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered;
9and having been perfected, became to all them that obey him, author of eternal salvation;
10addressed by God [as] high priest according to the order of Melchisedec.
11Concerning whom we have much to say, and hard to be interpreted in speaking [of it], since ye are become dull in hearing.
12For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have again need that [one] should teach you what [are] the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk, [and] not of solid food.
13For every one that partakes of milk [is] unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe; 14but solid food belongs to full-grown men, who, on account of habit, have their senses exercised for distinguishing both good and evil.

Nowhere in this is the subject of appointing apriesthood of Christ talked about. It is ALL in context of establishing the continuity of the Sabbath from Judaism to Christianity and has no concern whatsoever about appointing men to be priests, high or low.

Regards,
Scott

 

[James the Persian]

Like I said in another thread, good fruit can not come from a dead tree.

What is the dead tree you refer to? The RCC? If so, then I guess you need to brush up on your Church history. Neither we nor the OOs nor the Nestorians (only the latter of which could even feasibly be described as obscure Dan, all the rest of us are way bigger than your church) came out of the RCC. If you could prove a Great Apostacy early in the Church then you'd have a point in that we do all come from the early Church, but as my point was that the attempts at proof here all revolve around the errors of the RCC you haven't even come close to such a position yet.

As for Apostolic Succession, we and the OOs have evry bit as good a claim to it as the RCC, Dan, so why on earth do you believe that they are the only ones with a claim? I'd argue, in fact, that we have a better case and that our ecclesiology still corresponds to that of the early Church whereas the RCC's does not. If you can't show that the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox and the Nestorians as well as the Roman Catholics have all apostacised then you cannot prove your Great Apostacy. So far, your apparent ignorance of eastern Christianity suggests that you will not be able to provide any such arguments but I'm looking forward to seeing what you can come up with.

James

Edit:

Dan,

I answered before I saw your post on the Great Schism. Unfortunately you show your ignorance of the issues by what you have written. Firstly, on the anathemas, the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch did not excommunicate each other. One Roman Cardinal unilaterally excommunicated the EP and he in turn was excommunicated by him. The eventual separation took an awful lot longer to fully develop and wasn't really complete until the Council of Florence. There was no history of bickering over whether the EP or the Pope had power over the other. It was precisely the Pope's new claim to jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs (all of whom sided with the EP) that caused the issue. No other Patriarch ever claimed such power. It is also not correct to talk of us separating from the Roman Catholic Church. That is every bit as much a product of the Schism as is the Orthodox Catholic Church. There was a split, but we were never under the Pope of Rome's jurisdiction. The Church was governed by the Pentarchy (five Patriarchs) one of whom went his own way and called his See the Roman Catholic Church the other four of whom remained in communion and became known as the Orthodox Catholic Church. I'm now even more intrigued to see what arguments you can dredge up as your understanding of our Church appears so poor.

 

[nutshell]

"Main Entry: con·text
Pronunciation: 'kän-"tekst
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, weaving together of words, from Latin contextus connection of words, coherence, from contexere to weave together, from com- + texere to weave
1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs

Hebrews is a single letter and taking snippets from it are more likely to lead to contextual errors than anything I can think of.
Here's Chapter FOUR in entirety and I put in a different version, just so another version can be put in context (Darby Translation well thought of for its literality):
Hebrews 4


1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any one of you might seem to have failed [of it].
2For indeed we have had glad tidings presented to us, even as they also; but the word of the report did not profit *them*, not being mixed with faith in those who heard.
3For we enter into the rest who have believed; as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, If they shall enter into my rest; although the works had been completed from [the] foundation of [the] world.
4For he has said somewhere of the seventh [day] thus, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works:
5and in this again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6Seeing therefore it remains that some enter into it, and those who first received the glad tidings did not enter in on account of not hearkening to the word,
7again he determines a certain day, saying, in David, 'To-day,' after so long a time; (according as it has been said before), To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
8For if Jesus had brought them into rest, he would not have spoken afterwards about another day.
9There remains then a sabbatism to the people of God.
10For he that has entered into his rest, he also has rested from his works, as God did from his own.
11Let us therefore use diligence to enter into that rest, that no one may fall after the same example of not hearkening to the word.
12For the word of God [is] living and operative, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and penetrating to [the] division of soul and spirit, both of joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of [the] heart.
13And there is not a creature unapparent before him; but all things [are] naked and laid bare to his eyes, with whom we have to do.
14Having therefore a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast the confession.
15For we have not a high priest not able to sympathise with our infirmities, but tempted in all things in like manner, sin apart. 16Let us approach therefore with boldness to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and find grace for seasonable help.

Chapter FIVE:

Hebrews 5


1For every high priest taken from amongst men is established for men in things relating to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins;
2being able to exercise forbearance towards the ignorant and erring, since he himself also is clothed with infirmity;
3and, on account of this [infirmity], he ought, even as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4And no one takes the honour to himself but [as] called by God, even as Aaron also.
5Thus the Christ also has not glorified himself to be made a high priest; but he who had said to him, *Thou* art my Son, *I* have to-day begotten thee.
6Even as also in another [place] he says, *Thou* [art] a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec.
7Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been heard because of his piety
8though he were Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered;
9and having been perfected, became to all them that obey him, author of eternal salvation;
10addressed by God [as] high priest according to the order of Melchisedec.
11Concerning whom we have much to say, and hard to be interpreted in speaking [of it], since ye are become dull in hearing.
12For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have again need that [one] should teach you what [are] the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk, [and] not of solid food.
13For every one that partakes of milk [is] unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe; 14but solid food belongs to full-grown men, who, on account of habit, have their senses exercised for distinguishing both good and evil.

Nowhere in this is the subject of appointing apriesthood of Christ talked about. It is ALL in context of establishing the continuity of the Sabbath from Judaism to Christianity and has no concern whatsoever about appointing men to be priests, high or low.

Regards,
Scott

Well, Scott, we certainly have different interpretations. Chapter 4 seems to be comparing our labor and eventual rest with the Lord to God resting on the seventh day. Chapter 5 takes the topic chapter 4 ended with (Jesus as High Priest) and mentions that men must be called of God to be in this same position. The chapter ends with more about Jesus' role.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is what I wrote about the Orthodox church. Two your second point I revert back to the context in which into which I introduced the Catholic "sins." God has never let an ecclesiastical authority maintain a position of authority in HIS CHURCH. If it is indeed His church He will promptly remove any corrupt ecclesiastics. Not only did these Popes sin in the most egregious of manners, they maintained control of their administration for centuries. This shows, if the Bible is true, that the Papal authority is not of God. You will never find an example otherwise in the scriptures.

I will not debate papal authority.

You say they can trace their authority back. I can trace mine back as well. I don't even have to look at anything. I was ordained to the priesthood, by the laying on of hands, by Dennis Pitt. He was ordained by his father Warren Pitt, who was ordained by Howard Hunter, who was ordained by David O. McKay, who was ordained by Joseph F. Smith, who was ordained by Brigham Young, who was ordained by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, who were ordained by Peter, James and John, who were ordained by Jesus Christ.

There is an 1800 year gap between Peter, James, John, and Jesus Christ that needs to be filled here.

What's the difference? 1) My ordination follows the pattern set by the entire Bible (yours does not), and 2) I believe it is true.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever on what "my" ordination is?

You believe the authority you claim is true and you believe I'm full of crap.

I never said nor implied anything to that end.

I believe the line you claim is purely traditional. The literature that you believe gives you that authority is just as apocryphal as any other deuterocanonical texts and I don't buy it. Were it legitimate your church would be unde rmuch better supervision. Both of us have to trust in our faith. That's too subjective to have part in a debate such as this, so please, if you're going to make a claim like that provide some evidence.

First, your claim to authority is traditional, too. It is the tradition handed down from Joseph Smith, who has no theological or historical connection to Jesus Christ. He wasn't alive during the time of Peter, John, and James, or Jesus; and he was not part of any Christian tradition that can be historically traced back to this time period. I agree, the only connection that Smith or any LDS have with these people is by faith - that is, the historical connection must be fabricated because it does not exist in any historical writings - including the NT.

The BoM and all Mormon literature is well beyond any deuterocanonical or apocryphal writings - being produced in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. The writings that legitimate the Catholic and EO churches originate as contemporary with the NT, and this fact can be historically proven.

EDIT: I want to emphatically agree that we both depend on faith. However, the Catholic, EO, and other churches can trace their lineage back to Jesus whereas the LDS cannot. That is a quantitative difference. At the same time, however, none of us can demonstrate that God actually ordained us. That is sealed outside of debate. Who can know the wonderful works of Almighty God? Yes, it is by faith.