• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

1 Timothy 3:15

Just a point of order: The Bible wouldn't reference itself because the books of the Bible were all written hundreds of years before the Bible was assembled.

The newest books of the Bible are Matthew and Second Peter which were written about 60-80 AD, the oldest known Bible, the Codex Sinaiticus, was compiled between 320 and 360 AD. Before its discovery the oldest known Bible was the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the scriptures ordered by the Catholic Church in 382 AD.

For the first 3 centuries of Christianity's existence there was no Bible.
 
I always found it peculiar how people could consider a living faith to be centered around dead wood.
 
This is demonstrably false. The apostles passed on their authority by the laying on of hands. This is how St. Timothy received his authority, as I showed previously. According to your theory, then, St. Paul was a liar about passing on authority to St. Timothy, and thus the Bible is errant. Is this the official position of the Mormon church?

In all actuality it was the Holy spirit that confirmed their authority. the apostles were simply there to recognized and give authority to the person to whom it was already given.
same as baptism is an outword public showing of accepting christ as your savior. baptism can't save you but it is symbolism of your acceptance of Christ.

The same applied in this situation. these men were called and the laying of hands was a confirmation of that authority in front of others.

It is the Holy Spirit that calls people to be apostles or teachers or evangalists.

Paul was reaffirming Timonthy's status and authority.
 
As a bonus, here is Ephesians 2:20:



Notice here a lack of emphasis on the Bible or scripture. The emphasis throughout the Bible is the Church, not itself! The Church is not built on the Bible, but rather built upon the the apostles (and Christ, of course, the most integral part). Truth is found from the Church, and the Church is built from the apostles, not the Bible. That is not to say that the Bible is unimportant; obviously it is. However, even the Bible attests to the fact that we hold to the Church, the Church built upon the apostles; that is where we find truth.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Scripture, the community of elders (the Church), one's own God given common sense and ability to reason, one's own relationship with God, and the history and traditions of the Church all form a basis for Christianity. Which is more important at any given time depends on circumstances. How scripture is interpreted depends a great deal on what we know to be true in general.

My understanding of Roman Catholics is that when they refer to the authority of the Church they are talking about the heirarchy of the Church.
 
In all actuality it was the Holy spirit that confirmed their authority. the apostles were simply there to recognized and give authority to the person to whom it was already given.
same as baptism is an outword public showing of accepting christ as your savior. baptism can't save you but it is symbolism of your acceptance of Christ.

The same applied in this situation. these men were called and the laying of hands was a confirmation of that authority in front of others.

It is the Holy Spirit that calls people to be apostles or teachers or evangalists.

Paul was reaffirming Timonthy's status and authority.

St. Paul states very differently:

"Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood." 1 Timothy 4:14

"Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." - Acts 8:15-16. Hmm, they were baptized but had not received the Holy Spirit. Interesting.

"Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Acts 8:17. Hmm, only after the laying on of hands did they receive the Holy Spirit. Interesting.
 
This is demonstrably false. The apostles passed on their authority by the laying on of hands. This is how St. Timothy received his authority, as I showed previously. According to your theory, then, St. Paul was a liar about passing on authority to St. Timothy, and thus the Bible is errant. Is this the official position of the Mormon church?

You still do not understand. While the New testament apostles were alive and Christ's authorized church was on the earth, the apostles granted authority within the church. All of the saints(the term referred to all members of the Church) would have to be baptized and given the Gift of the Holy Ghost by those who held priesthood authority. The worthy males of age would be given the priesthood by the laying of hands by those who already held the priesthood. Timothy, as a bishop, would have had all of this done. If an apostle was killed while the true Church was still on the earth, the prophet would replace him and give this new apostle authority by the laying of the hands.

In the first century while the Lord's authorized church was still on the earth, the New testament states many false Christian teachers arose from within the Church, convincing many of the members that the apostles were impostors, false prophets. The New Testament apostles were constantly fighting this. The true authorized servants whether the apostles, bishops, or faithful members by the end of the first century or a little later, are all killed. The world would not only reject Jesus and His apostles, but the true Church itself. To remain loyal to the true Church meant martyrdom. After the prince of this world has his way, what is left is a bunch of Christian sects under false teachers. The local bishops may claim authority but it was lost.
 
Scripture, the community of elders (the Church), one's own God given common sense and ability to reason, one's own relationship with God, and the history and traditions of the Church all form a basis for Christianity. Which is more important at any given time depends on circumstances. How scripture is interpreted depends a great deal on what we know to be true in general.

My understanding of Roman Catholics is that when they refer to the authority of the Church they are talking about the heirarchy of the Church.

Where does the Bible say that individual interpretation of the Bible is the basis of truth? I seem to find quite the opposite, that it is the Church which brings truth. St. Paul is quite direct and calls the Church the bulwark of truth. This does not mesh AT ALL with Protestants idea of sola scriptura and individual interpretation of the Bible.
 
You still do not understand. While the New testament apostles were alive and Christ's authorized church was on the earth, the apostles granted authority within the church. All of the saints(the term referred to all members of the Church) would have to be baptized and given the Gift of the Holy Ghost by those who held priesthood authority. The worthy males of age would be given the priesthood by the laying of hands by those who already held the priesthood. Timothy, as a bishop, would have had all of this done. If an apostle was killed while the true Church was still on the earth, the prophet would replace him by giving them this authority the laying of the hands.

In the first century while the Lord's authorized church was still on the earth, the New testament states many false Christian teachers arose from within the Church, convincing many of the members that the apostles were impostors, false prophets. The New Testament apostles were constantly fighting this. The true authorized servants whether the apostles, bishops, or faithful members by the end of the first century or a little later, are all killed. The world would not only reject Jesus and His apostles, but the true Church itself. To remain loyal to the true Church meant martyrdom. After the prince of this world has his way, what is left is a bunch of Christian sects under false teachers. The local bishops may claim authority but it was lost.

Baseless. This needs far more evidence. If you have no evidence for this then you have no reason to be a Mormon.
 
Whatever. I can't debate with you.

Show me the evidence that all who had authority conferred on them were killed. If you can't prove that then what basis is there for believing that the Church fell into apostasy?
 
St. Paul states very differently:

"Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood." 1 Timothy 4:14

"Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." - Acts 8:15-16. Hmm, they were baptized but had not received the Holy Spirit. Interesting.

"Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Acts 8:17. Hmm, only after the laying on of hands did they receive the Holy Spirit. Interesting.

The holy spirit comes at the call of the saved. the grace that is in them is the holy spirit and the salvation of God.
You receive the Holy spirit on salvation not during baptism. baptism is the outward expression and public acknowledgement of being saved.

Acts 8 Commentary - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

15, 16. prayed . . . they might receive the Holy Ghost. (For only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus)--As the baptism of adults presupposed "the renewing of the Holy Ghost" ( Titus 3:5-7 , 1 Corinthians 12:13 ), of which the profession of faith had to be taken for evidence, this communication of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the apostles' hands was clearly a superadded thing; and as it was only occasional, so it was invariably attended with miraculous manifestations (see Acts 10:44 , where it followed Peter's preaching; and Acts 19:1-7 , where, as here, it followed the laying on of hands). In the present case an important object was served by it--"the sudden appearance of a body of baptized disciples in Samaria, by the agency of one who was not an apostle, requiring the presence and power of apostles to perform their special part as the divinely appointed founders of the Church" [ALFORD]. Beautiful, too, was the spectacle exhibited of Jew and Samaritan, one in Christ.


They had been baptized but had not accept the Lord Christ as their savior. which is what Paul and John were doing in this verse.
Once saved you receive the Holy Spirit.
 
You still do not understand. While the New testament apostles were alive and Christ's authorized church was on the earth, the apostles granted authority within the church. All of the saints(the term referred to all members of the Church) would have to be baptized and given the Gift of the Holy Ghost by those who held priesthood authority. The worthy males of age would be given the priesthood by the laying of hands by those who already held the priesthood. Timothy, as a bishop, would have had all of this done. If an apostle was killed while the true Church was still on the earth, the prophet would replace him and give this new apostle authority by the laying of the hands.

The Church never left earth it remained. So this statement that the church just up and left is inherently false. The reason for the laying of hands was symbolic but it dealt with the issue that you mention below.

In the first century while the Lord's authorized church was still on the earth, the New testament states many false Christian teachers arose from within the Church, convincing many of the members that the apostles were impostors, false prophets. The New Testament apostles were constantly fighting this. The true authorized servants whether the apostles, bishops, or faithful members by the end of the first century or a little later, are all killed. The world would not only reject Jesus and His apostles, but the true Church itself. To remain loyal to the true Church meant martyrdom. After the prince of this world has his way, what is left is a bunch of Christian sects under false teachers. The local bishops may claim authority but it was lost.

Yep there were many heresey's during that time which is why they conviened the councils. So that they could estblish a cannon over a lot of the gnositic writings.
No they weren't all killed there were still a great many christians alive and well preaching and teaching the truth of Christ. This is the exact reason that they conviened the councils in order to separate the hersesy's and fasle teachings.

Umm Constantine ended the martyrdom and become a christian himself.

i think you have had your church history really distorted. The true Church are those that follow and have accepted Christ as their savior and recognize Him for who he is.
that he is Lord and ruler of All and that He is a part of God. That He paid the ultimate price for sin and saved man kind from it's fate.

That is the true Church.
 
Show me the evidence that all who had authority conferred on them were killed. If you can't prove that then what basis is there for believing that the Church fell into apostasy?

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.-Mathew 16:25

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ in the New testament could either save their mortal lives by rejecting the true Church but they would lose out on eternal life or remain faithful to the Church which meant eventual martyrdom but gaining eternal life.


Saints is a term used for the members of the New Testament Church. The apostle John in the Book of Revelations tells us that the Church would be "overcome" by the prince of this world:
7 "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations."-Revelation 13:7

Biblical scholar John Gill interprets the Greek word used for "overcome" in the above verse the following way:
"and to overcome them: not so as to submit to him, and to forsake the doctrines and ordinances of Christ, but by killing them; and who, by dying in the faith and cause of Christ, overcome Satan, get the victory over the world, and antichrist, and are more than conquerors through him that has loved them." http://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/13-7.htm




3 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come(the Second Coming), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"-2 Thessalonians 2:3

The Greek word that was translated to "falling away" in the verse above is "apostasia".

Strong's Concordance
apostasia: defection, revolt
Original Word: ἀποστασία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: apostasia
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-os-tas-ee'-ah)
Short Definition: defection, apostasy
Definition: defection, apostasy, revolt.





27 Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king;
28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;

(He goes on to describe king Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image whose head was of gold, breast and arms of silver, etc.)
The final interpretation:

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.


So Daniel states in the "latter days" God would set up His kingdom on the earth. Readers can look up my Hebrew Calendar thread that gives interesting evidence that ties The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as this latter day Kingdom of God. http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/189653-hebrew-calendar-testifies-prophet-joseph-smith.html




Mathew 24:

3 ¶And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.



The above verses fit the LDS view very nicely that the authorized apostles and faithful saints would be hated and killed while there would be many false "Christian" leaders that would deceive many. That the result would be a bunch of false Christian sects. And just prior to Christ's Second Coming, the Church of Jesus Christ would be restored, and missionaries sent out one last time to teach the gospel, and then Christ will return.
 
Last edited:
The Church never left earth it remained. So this statement that the church just up and left is inherently false. The reason for the laying of hands was symbolic but it dealt with the issue that you mention below.



Yep there were many heresey's during that time which is why they conviened the councils. So that they could estblish a cannon over a lot of the gnositic writings.
No they weren't all killed there were still a great many christians alive and well preaching and teaching the truth of Christ. This is the exact reason that they conviened the councils in order to separate the hersesy's and fasle teachings.

Umm Constantine ended the martyrdom and become a christian himself.

i think you have had your church history really distorted. The true Church are those that follow and have accepted Christ as their savior and recognize Him for who he is.
that he is Lord and ruler of All and that He is a part of God. That He paid the ultimate price for sin and saved man kind from it's fate.

That is the true Church.

Here is part of an article that explains the LDS view:
The Great Apostasy
While the Apostles and other missionaries were courageously working to establish the Lord’s kingdom on earth, the seeds of apostasy were already sprouting within the Church. Peter wrote that there were false teachers already among the people and that still others would come “who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1). Peter also predicted that “many shall follow their pernicious ways” (v. 2). Paul similarly testified that out of the congregation of believers would “men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:30).

But internal apostasy and disbelief were not the only challenges the early missionaries faced. While it was generally Roman policy to extend cultural and religious freedom to their subjects, there were intermittent periods when the Christians were severely persecuted, making it difficult for them to worship openly and proclaim the “good news” of the gospel. Naturally, at such times the Church leaders were especially targeted for imprisonment and death. The first notable Roman persecution occurred during the reign of Nero, who made the Christians the scapegoat for the burning of Rome in A.D. 64. Tradition says the Apostle Peter was crucified upside down and that later, in A.D. 67–68, the Apostle Paul was beheaded by the order of the emperor.

At first the Twelve perpetuated the apostolic office. For example, Matthias, who was not of the original Twelve, was called to be an Apostle. But through the spirit of prophecy, the leaders of the Church eventually recognized that an apostasy was not only inevitable but imminent. As the Apostles were killed, revelation to guide the Lord’s church ceased, along with authority to operate it.

The years after the Apostles died provided ample evidence of the predicted demise of Christ’s church. Principles of the gospel were corrupted by being mixed with prevailing pagan philosophies. Loss of the Holy Spirit was evidenced by a gradual disappearance of spiritual gifts. Changes were made in church organization and government, and essential ordinances of the gospel were modified.

According to President Joseph Fielding Smith, the results of the Apostasy were devastating: “Satan in his wrath drove the [Church] into the wilderness, or from the earth; the power of the Priesthood was taken from among men, and after the Church with its authority and gifts disappeared from the earth, then in his anger the serpent continued his war upon all who had faith and sought the testimony of Jesus, desiring to worship God according to the dictates of conscience. So successful did he become that his dominion extended over all the known world.”2

The Long, Dark Night
The change from truth to error in the Church did not take place in a day. The Apostasy, hastened by the death of the Apostles in the latter half of the first century, gradually deepened during the years that followed. By the fourth century there was hardly a trace of the Church of Jesus Christ that was recognizable, and the “long, dark night” was well underway. With the Apostles gone, local church officers gradually assumed more authority. Bishops determined policy and doctrine for their local areas, claiming to be the proper successors to the Apostles. Gradually, a few bishops in key cities, such as Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch gained supreme authority in their entire regions. A great diversity of practices and dogma came as church leaders relied upon logic and rhetoric rather than upon revelation. “The compromising of truth and error, the assimilation of the gospel of Christ with the philosophies of men produced a new religion. This new religion was an appealing composite of New Testament Christianity, Jewish traditions, Greek philosophy, Graeco-Roman paganism, and the mystery religions.”3
 
Where does the Bible say that individual interpretation of the Bible is the basis of truth? I seem to find quite the opposite, that it is the Church which brings truth. St. Paul is quite direct and calls the Church the bulwark of truth. This does not mesh AT ALL with Protestants idea of sola scriptura and individual interpretation of the Bible.

Well...

2 Timothy 3:16
and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Romans 15:4
For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

And many others besides.
 
Here is part of an article that explains the LDS view:
The Great Apostasy
While the Apostles and other missionaries were courageously working to establish the Lord’s kingdom on earth, the seeds of apostasy were already sprouting within the Church. Peter wrote that there were false teachers already among the people and that still others would come “who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1). Peter also predicted that “many shall follow their pernicious ways” (v. 2). Paul similarly testified that out of the congregation of believers would “men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:30).

yes there were false teachers and he was warning the churches to ignore the people that were teaching things that he had not left them with and that is why he had sent timothy and others had gone back. It is the reason that he wrote the letters that he did was to correct them and the things that they had questions on.

That did not change the fact that the church died or was removed. The church stayed exactly where it was at. It was due to Paul's writings that the councils were able to establish a lot of the cannon that they did and were able to eliminate from the bible.
that is why the books of Thomas, Judas etc ... were not included.

But internal apostasy and disbelief were not the only challenges the early missionaries faced. While it was generally Roman policy to extend cultural and religious freedom to their subjects, there were intermittent periods when the Christians were severely persecuted, making it difficult for them to worship openly and proclaim the “good news” of the gospel. Naturally, at such times the Church leaders were especially targeted for imprisonment and death. The first notable Roman persecution occurred during the reign of Nero, who made the Christians the scapegoat for the burning of Rome in A.D. 64. Tradition says the Apostle Peter was crucified upside down and that later, in A.D. 67–68, the Apostle Paul was beheaded by the order of the emperor.

All of the 12 disciples were killed in pretty grusome ways that didn't stop what they teached or preached nor did it remove the church from the earth.
that ended in 300bc with constantine who was converted and became a christian himself.

He even exiled many of the heresies that were being committed during that time frame.

At first the Twelve perpetuated the apostolic office. For example, Matthias, who was not of the original Twelve, was called to be an Apostle. But through the spirit of prophecy, the leaders of the Church eventually recognized that an apostasy was not only inevitable but imminent. As the Apostles were killed, revelation to guide the Lord’s church ceased, along with authority to operate it.

you are wrong.
the leaders of the church after Paul were
Clement of Rome was a disciple of both peter and paul
Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of Peter, paul john and other of the 12 that came to antioch
Polycarp of Smyrna was a disciple of John
Irenaeus of Lyons was a disciple of Polycarp

These men then left what they had learned and battled the heresies when they popped up and were the biggest leaders in the 1st and 2nd century church for setting the cannon.

The years after the Apostles died provided ample evidence of the predicted demise of Christ’s church. Principles of the gospel were corrupted by being mixed with prevailing pagan philosophies. Loss of the Holy Spirit was evidenced by a gradual disappearance of spiritual gifts. Changes were made in church organization and government, and essential ordinances of the gospel were modified.

Spiritual gifts still remain they have not disappeared there are no pagan philosophies mixed in Christianity. as i said the LDS is feeding you a lot of junk.
no the gospels were not modified.

According to President Joseph Fielding Smith, the results of the Apostasy were devastating: “Satan in his wrath drove the [Church] into the wilderness, or from the earth; the power of the Priesthood was taken from among men, and after the Church with its authority and gifts disappeared from the earth, then in his anger the serpent continued his war upon all who had faith and sought the testimony of Jesus, desiring to worship God according to the dictates of conscience. So successful did he become that his dominion extended over all the known world.”2

who cares what joseph smith says. joseph smith is not in the bible did not write the bible and did not set down any cannon about the bible.
he is lieing when he says those things because i know people with those gifts and they are very much alive and well.

The Long, Dark Night
The change from truth to error in the Church did not take place in a day. The Apostasy, hastened by the death of the Apostles in the latter half of the first century, gradually deepened during the years that followed. By the fourth century there was hardly a trace of the Church of Jesus Christ that was recognizable, and the “long, dark night” was well underway. With the Apostles gone, local church officers gradually assumed more authority. Bishops determined policy and doctrine for their local areas, claiming to be the proper successors to the Apostles. Gradually, a few bishops in key cities, such as Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch gained supreme authority in their entire regions. A great diversity of practices and dogma came as church leaders relied upon logic and rhetoric rather than upon revelation. “The compromising of truth and error, the assimilation of the gospel of Christ with the philosophies of men produced a new religion. This new religion was an appealing composite of New Testament Christianity, Jewish traditions, Greek philosophy, Graeco-Roman paganism, and the mystery religions.”3

umm you are completely wrong here. as i have showed you above. the LDS has corrupted early church teaching you should look at something out side fo the LDS but i doubt that is possible for you to do.
 
Ludin says the LDS is wrong :(

The emperor of Rome "exiled many of the heresies" out of the Church. This is just strong evidence the church lost the authority of God with revelation guiding it.
 
Last edited:
As a bonus, here is Ephesians 2:20:



Notice here a lack of emphasis on the Bible or scripture. The emphasis throughout the Bible is the Church, not itself! The Church is not built on the Bible, but rather built upon the the apostles (and Christ, of course, the most integral part). Truth is found from the Church, and the Church is built from the apostles, not the Bible. That is not to say that the Bible is unimportant; obviously it is. However, even the Bible attests to the fact that we hold to the Church, the Church built upon the apostles; that is where we find truth.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Did the Bible exist then?
 
The Bible is the inspired Word of God. Read II Timothy III. We are living in those days now.
 
The Bible is the inspired Word of God. Read II Timothy III. We are living in those days now.

Are the Epistles the Word of God? How so?
 
Ludin says the LDS is wrong :(

The emperor of Rome "exiled many of the heresies" out of the Church. This is just strong evidence the church lost the authority of God with revelation guiding it.

yep he did exile many of the heresies and sided with those that had knowledge of the aposteles and where the apostles disiples.
the arians were exiled along with many of the other heresies.

that was the whole point of the council which was to establish cannon in order to combat the heresies.

the church didn't lose authority these people setting the cannon gained the authority from the apostles themselves or did you ignore that section i posted.
if you did the questiont then has to become why did you ignore it?

the only reason i can say that you ignored it was because it goes against what the LDS teaches.

Clement of Rome was a disciple of both peter and paul
Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of Peter, paul john and other of the 12 that came to antioch
Polycarp of Smyrna was a disciple of John
Irenaeus of Lyons was a disciple of Polycarp

these men were the 1st century founders of the church and continued the fight that paul and the others did. in fact only 1 out of 4 of them didn't know the aposles.
these men were critical in the battle agains the heresies in the 1st and 2nd century. it was from them that the authority was given to others.
and it was them that was used to set down cannon.

it was a net positive that the emperor supported their efforts for what they were doing later on.

the councils of nicea relied heavily on those men's writings and words for separating out the truth from the false.
 
yep he did exile many of the heresies and sided with those that had knowledge of the aposteles and where the apostles disiples.
the arians were exiled along with many of the other heresies.

that was the whole point of the council which was to establish cannon in order to combat the heresies.

the church didn't lose authority these people setting the cannon gained the authority from the apostles themselves or did you ignore that section i posted.
if you did the questiont then has to become why did you ignore it?

the only reason i can say that you ignored it was because it goes against what the LDS teaches.

Clement of Rome was a disciple of both peter and paul
Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of Peter, paul john and other of the 12 that came to antioch
Polycarp of Smyrna was a disciple of John
Irenaeus of Lyons was a disciple of Polycarp

these men were the 1st century founders of the church and continued the fight that paul and the others did. in fact only 1 out of 4 of them didn't know the aposles.
these men were critical in the battle agains the heresies in the 1st and 2nd century. it was from them that the authority was given to others.
and it was them that was used to set down cannon.

it was a net positive that the emperor supported their efforts for what they were doing later on.

the councils of nicea relied heavily on those men's writings and words for separating out the truth from the false.

The fact that the emperor of Rome is guiding policy should hint to you that there is no priesthood authority. That there were heresies in the first place in the Church should hint to you that there was no real priesthood authority guiding it. The fact that the council had to rely on writings of others and debate and vote on what is doctrine should be a hint to you that there was no priesthood and direct revelation guiding the church. They are relying on their human reason and intellect and not God directly guiding it, a sure sign that God's authority is not there. The fact that the organization of the Catholic church is different than the NT church without 12 apostles, etc, should hint to you that this is not the same Church. The rule of terror for centuries by the Catholic church should hint to you that there is no real authority. You claim the keys of the priesthood were left by Peter but that is all it is, a claim by the Catholic church. There is no strong evidence besides their claims even if you try and act like you stating it is a fact. You ignore all the New Testament quotes I gave to Phatonez above about the apostasy.
 
Mathew 24:
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."


Mathew 7:

15 ¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


The Catholic Church and the Inquisition:
"Because they spanned the entire latter half of the Middle Ages, lasting into the 1800s, the Inquisitions themselves deserve their own entry. Their typically accepted dates are from the 1100s to 1808. The Inquisition still exists today, but torture and execution are no longer allowed. The word itself simply denotes an investigation into possible heresy.For those seven centuries or so, anyone who roused the anger or suspicion of the Roman Catholic Church was in very real danger of the arrival of Inquisitors, whose job was “to root out and purge the Christian civilized world of heresy and crimes against God.” Torture was not only defended as a means to gain a confession; the Church encouraged it.Aside from the specific cases mentioned in other entries, it must not be forgotten that the Catholic Church routinely arrested and tortured Jews, Muslims, Waldensianism (Christian), Hussitism (Christian) and numerous other religions and religious sects. These people were given prior warning to vacate the given area (a pogrom), after which anyone found in the area was arrested and given an ultimatum: convert to Christianity or be executed. Anyone who foolishly refused was tortured until he or she did convert, and the Inquisition allowed no exemptions for anyone, men, women, children, the elderly or the disabled. These tortures were lurid beyond belief, including branding, the rack, hanging by the toes or thumbs, toe crushing, bone breaking, simple beatings, foot roasting, and blinding by red-hot pokers. After such tortures, the condemned was almost always strangled, then burned at the stake. For seven centuries, the Catholic Church was all powerful, even terrifying monarchs, and the Inquisition held absolute sway by the most brutal methods imaginable."





"many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many." The Catholic Church claims they are Christ's true authorized church, and given there are something like 1.2 billion Catholics in the world today if they are not then it fits the warning of Jesus that there would be many after Him stating they are the way to Christ and "shall deceive many". If the Roman Catholic Church is one of the "many" that will come in His name, who are the others? The Protestant sects claim they are Christ, but they all came out of the Catholic church. If the Catholic Church never had God's authority, none of them have it, and if the Catholic Church is telling the truth the protestants are apostates. If God's true authorized kingdom is not on the earth, then no amount of reforming can bring it back, it must be restored by God. God raising up a prophet to restore the fullness of the gospel to mankind is consistent with the Bible where God raised up prophets such as Abraham, Moses, etc.
 
Last edited:
The fact that the emperor of Rome is guiding policy should hint to you that there is no priesthood authority.
way to ignore what i said and you complain of other people not reading. the emperor isn't guiding policy.

That there were heresies in the first place in the Church should hint to you that there was no real priesthood authority guiding it.
This is just plain false. why? because Peter and the disciples while they were alive were battling the same thing at the churches they had planted.
it is the very reason that wrote 2 letters to the church at corinth. he addressed the very things that you said shouldn't have happened.

so i guess paul was not given authority by the apostles even though he was.

The fact that the council had to rely on writings of others and debate and vote on what is doctrine should be a hint to you that there was no priesthood and direct revelation guiding the church.

What writings of others? they were relying on the letters and documents that paul had. they were relying on the people that the apostles had left in charge. again you have no clue of early church history the LDS has corrupted you that badly.

They are relying on their human reason and intellect and not God directly guiding it, a sure sign that God's authority is not there.
Umm you are talking about prophets and bishops that were appointed by the apostles. no they were not relying on men you have no clue about what you are talking about.

The fact that the organization of the Catholic church is different than the NT church without 12 apostles, etc, should hint to you that this is not the same Church.
What they formed into later doesn't change what they did and what they preserved it also doesn't change the fact of what they were setting.
again LDS lies. that also doesn't account for the reformation movement that occured.

The rule of terror for centuries by the Catholic church should hint to you that there is no real authority. You claim the keys of the priesthood were left by Peter but that is all it is, a claim by the Catholic church. There is no strong evidence besides their claims even if you try and act like you stating it is a fact. You ignore all the New Testament quotes I gave to Phatonez above about the apostasy.

Umm no that is not what is claimed by the catholic church. Umm there is plenty of historical evidence.

no i didn't ignore them at all. i ignore the fact that you are attempting to distort those verses into something else and if you want i have no problem listing the apostasies and the heretical teachings that were going on.

can you point to them do you know what they actually are?

PS who actually gave joseph smith authority on anything in the bible? no one from what i can tell.
 
Back
Top Bottom