If the Trinity is a theological fact & represents the truth from God, surely Jesus would have introduced it to his audience. He had ample opportunity.
He would have said something like “Hear O Israel! The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, but they are not three Gods but one God”. Did he? NO!
Instead he reasserted the absolute & indivisible unity of God who is One & Only (Mark 12:29 c.f. Deut 6:4). What does that tell you?
The fact that Christ PRAYED to a higher being (Matt 26:39, Luke 6:12) is sufficient proof that he is NOT God as God doesn’t indulge in doing prayers.
Jesus is NOT the only son of God as God has sons by the tons (Gen 6:2, 4; Exodus 4:22; Jeremiah 31:9; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7).
And being son of God DOESN’T make Jesus part of the Godhead but merely as God’s righteous servant (Abdullah in Arabic) as attested in Mark 15:39 c.f. Luke 23:47 as well as Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30.
When listening to this video by Jeffery Holland, near the end he quoted the New Testament, the words from Jesus Christ himself. In accordance to the incomprehensible Trinity doctrine that says it is one God as three, what confusion it makes the words of Christ, which is God's word, of who was Christ addressing? Was he addressing himself, asking himself for grace? How foolish the Trinity doctrine has made the scriptures, confusing, contradictory and useless.
"God must be beyond our comprehension". A statement from Michael Pea right after he claimed he cannot accept a believable explanation of God. His claim flies in the face of God's power, all knowing, infinite intelligence & ability to be able to explain himself in an understandable way. They made God impossible to relate to, distant, uninvolved & adorned mortal private interpretations (2 Pet. 1:20). Hence the doctrines of men, false & of the devil for he wants us to remain "confused".
A video I watched made by Michael Pea, where he attempted to explain the Trinity doctrine to an ex-Mormon. The video title was "Please explain the Trinity? Bible Questions with Michael Pea". He started to claim God is incomprehensible. Then shortly after that (about 4.00 marker on the video), it became clear as to why he was confusing and could not explain the Trinity. This one statement he made, clearly shows the basic tenet other Christians follow. (continued-Pea)
(continued-Pea) Pea said, & I quote, "I wouldn't believe an explanation of God that was believable". In other words, he accepted the premise of incomprehensibility & confusion, including a doctrine that is, itself, incomprehensible. They claim that is God's doctrine. God -never an author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). Are we to learn about God and his Kingdom in a confusing way? Trinity doctrine & this man, Michael Pea, as good hearted he may seem, are not of God. Amen
My Heavenly Father gave me a revelation about the meaning of 666, the number of the beast. It was yesterday close to 6:00 PM. I was thinking about the mark of the beast and suddenly, the Light came in! It's glorious and it's for this time. Most of the serious Bible scholars know that the words “…in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one”, are in fact an apocryphal addition to the original text, that can be traced back as far as the 16th Century.
The added words "these three are one" MATCH PERFECTLY Revelation 13:16 "Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man: and his number is Six hundred and sixty and six. (American Standard Version) The Trinity Doctrine is the name of the beast. That meaning can be understood more likely in all the languages of the world, even chinese, korean, japanese, that could not understant the earlier explanations with the Latin Language.
I think it is rather ironic that an LDS leader should criticise a mainstream Christian doctrine for being "unbiblical" because all of the characteristically Mormon teachings are unbiblical. Where is eternal marriage enunciated in scripture? Where is blood atonement taught in scripture? Etcetera ad infinitum. Jesus taught that in Heaven there is no marriage nor giving in marriage, so Mormons take J Smith over Jesus in the Gospels.
@bayreuth79 : Want to understand? Then take the time to learn it what we teach. Go to >>lds.org/scriptures/tg/marriage-celestial?lang=eng / read references and God speaks in spiritual terms not temporal. (see John 6:63). Bible passage re: "no marriage in heaven" = a level that has no marriage. God speaks of "heirs" -man and woman as a couple, refers to celestial marriage, level far above "no marriage" level, the place of angels. See DC 132:16, also Matt 22, Mark 12, Luke 20.
@viewer087 I was raised in the LDS Church, so I know what Mormons teach. I have met Elder Faust and Thomas S Monson. My father has been a Bishop and Stake President. You have been deceived I'm afraid. There is lots of evidence that Joseph Smith was a liar. The problem is that Mormons are presented with a "white-washed" version of J Smith by the leadership. If you are interested in the truth read an honest book about J Smith. Mormonism is impossible without Restorationism, Masonism, etc
@bayreuth79 : Being raised in the Church does not promise you will receive a proper testimony of witness from the Holy Ghost. From what you said, you have not received such a confirmation from God and you got misled by the world and falsehoods. No person is free from personal issues and limitations, not even born into the Church. My entrance into the Church was by the Spirit, confirmed many times by the Spirit and I remain a member, despite the human element that Joseph and others had to suffer.
@viewer087 I have heard this many times! When I was a teenager I prayed for years and years without receiving a witness from the Holy Spirit, so I suppose you will say that it was my fault (?). Mormons believe that there is a plurality of "gods", that Father, Son and HS are three distinct divine persons; and this is not Old Testament monotheism. No, its idolatry.
J Smith created LDS from Restorationism, Methodism, Masonism, and so many other ideas that were circulating in his day.
@bayreuth79 : All this stuff you said depicts someone who knows nothing of scriptures & everything about personal gripes. OT & NT shows doctrine of 3 Gods as one. Bible shows the Father was once a man like us & progressed to become God. Jesus himself showed that pattern in the Bible. That took me many years to finally see & was "by revelation". I was not born into the Church. What you show in yur heart, answer is Yes, lack of spirit lies 1st with you, not with God. I learned that by experience.
@viewer087 "Bible shows that Father was once a man like us & progressed to become God". I have studied the OT and NT at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Cambridge University and I can assure you that the Bible shows no such thing! In fact, you might be surprised to learn that even Pres Hinckley and Robert Millet (amongst many others) are uncomfortable with that teaching as it is not scriptural. I know of no scholars who believe it- either jew or christian. So prove it.
@bayreuth79 : Note: the Bible article on God was once a man, did not render properly in this comment forum. Here is the URL in parts, just put them together, which seems to work by blocking the URL with the cursor and paste it into the URL address field.
@viewer087 As with most Mormons you possess blind faith. I ask you to do some serious research into J Smith and the development of LDS teachings. I am convinced that any reasonable person, once they have looked at the evidence, will leave the Mormon Church or become a "liberal" Mormon (that is, someone who doesn't really believe that Mormonism is true). Look at the similarities between Restorationism, which preceded J Smith, and Mormonism; S Rigdon was a Restorationist & passed it on to J Smith.
@bayreuth79 : I researched, I received confirmations by the HG, Joseph did not lie. Your claim I have blind faith is a blind opinion, with no disrespect to you. In all scriptures, "convincing" truth is by spiritual testimony, a witness by the Holy Ghost. Every word you said is based on worldly opinions & personal ones. My stance-spiritual, just as Paul's of NT. You do not have spiritual witness, you know not truth - read 1 Cor 2:12-15. World cannot know God's truth, it knows only own ideas. nite
@viewer087 The problem is that you rely too much on subjective experience. If I were to ask Christians of other denominations whether the HG has confirmed their own religious faith many of them will say, "yes, of course". Evangelical and Pentocostal Christians in particular all believe that they have had confirmations of their beliefs by the HG. If you are intellectually honest this should give you pause for thought; I hope you will reconsider.
@bayreuth79 : the problem with what you believe is that you cannot tell the difference between inspiration (personal revelation from God) and your own self-created feelings. As to other Christians claiming the HG confirmed their faith, then ask them for a true testimony of how the HG did so, then by true spiritual discernment, the truth of their testimony is revealed as false. By all means, provide a link to at least one of those testimonies and I will tell you why it was false.
@viewer087 I wonder if you have ever considered that if any of the arguments for the existence of God are true it follows that Mormonism is false? God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought"; but the Mormon "god" was once a man who progressed to become a "god", so he cannot by definition be what we describe as God. If the Mormon "god" progressed to be "god" then he must have had a "god" and if he had a "god" then this "god" must have progressed, and so on to infinity. Its nonsense.
@bayreuth79 : Do you believe in God? I mean truly believe and abide in him? If you disbelieve or have any doubt, then your words are moot because you are trying to get me to deny Christ and Heavenly Father which I will not do. All what you then say about Joseph Smith is merely the attempt to prove to me that God does not exist and the nit picking of my faith will fail you and your life instead. So do you believe in God, if so we can talk, but if you do not, then this battle of words is useless.
@viewer087 I remind you that feelings are and have always been unreliable sources for truth. Faith and reason have to go together, so if you cannot defend your religious opinions then there is something wrong. You believe in polygamy, blood atonement, eternal marriage, that "god" required his "son" to die on a cross in order to cancel our debt of sin (that is not very forgiving nor very just and why didn't the father go instead of the son?!) and you need to defend all these.
@bayreuth79 : learn-discern betwn personally generated feelings to those given by the Spirit. No other way a person receives a true witness from the Holy Ghost without "feeling" the inspiration. It's the basis to confirm it is from God. Feeling of stability, sureness, direction, & feeling "love", all good things of God. Read the Bible, are "ye past feeling" warns Apostle Paul & warns Nephi. Preaching doubt are you Bayreuth? - trying to sway me, who experienced God and his Spirit many times.
@bayreuth79 : I will respond to your other comments soon, until then, I want to further address your claim of blind faith. First, I am not a fool, especially to be intimidated (which you are trying to do) into believing something or to take a course that is detrimental to faith in God. Just because you destroyed your faith & chose to contradict God's teachings for personal ideas, never assume others will do the same. Here is my further response to blind faith that I follow myself - (Cont>>)
(Cont >>) Brigham Young Quote - “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders,... (Cont >>2)
(Cont >>2) "...did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not”
-Young, Brigham and John A. Widtsoe, Discourses of Brigham Young, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1941, page 135
@magnus56j : false doctrine. the body alone is dead, must have the Spirit for the body to live. Christ is not with the Othodox body, and the body does not make scripture, Spirit does. No Spirit in yout church
4th word into the bible and the doctrine of the Trinity is in your face, Gen 1v1 In the begining God...The word for God is Elohim meaning 3 or more. Look it up."Its meaning the Angels" you say. Well how come God claims creation as done by him ALONE??. No Angels involed in creation!.
Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.
So, nothing what Holland has stated refutes the Trinity, but in fact, a lot of what he said supports the Trinity, especially in his quotation of John 5:19. So, the Trinity unbiblical? Unbiblical my ass! The Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible, so no, we won't accept Mormons as Christians. The Orthodox Church is the only Church today who has living apostles (bishops) who have never changed the faith. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ (Orthodox) is one true Church.
@magnus56j : I will reply to your posts, but first I have a couple of questions. (1) Do you believe that God continues revelation today? (2) Where does the Bible say that Bishops are the same office as Apostles?
(1) That depends on what type of revelation you are talking about. Personal revelation, yes, I believe continues. As for public revelation, that ended after the death of the Apostle John (100 A.D.). Jesus fulfilled all prophecy. See Hebrews 1:1-2, Gal. 4:4, Jude 3, 2 Tim 2:2, and Matthew 28:18-20.
(2) The original twelve Apostles were bishops, and they passed on their authority to other men who became bishops. Apostle means teacher. Bishops are the highest teachers.
@magnus56j : (1) Revelation is the same, the only difference is what authority under which the revelation is received. Inspiration is another name for revelation. When Jesus finally left the earth, he left his "Apostles" in charge of his Church. Paul, being an Apostle, received revelation and he stated this very clearly in Gal 1:12, and the rest of Galatians 1. So now the Question: "Why did revelation stop with John?" (>> show scriptures). (2) Question: "Where does it say Apostles are Bishops?"
@viewer087 (1) Um, the scriptures I already showed you are enough to explain that, but I'll explain further. Jude 3: In this passage, Jude indicates that the full Apostolic teaching has already been delivered to the saints. Gal 4:4: Here, God sent His Son at the "fullness of time," indicating that Jesus will communicate the fullness of God's Revelation. 2 Tim 2:2: This verse clearly suggests a completed deposit of faith which Timothy is to safeguard and transmit to successors.
@viewer087 Continuing on (1)....Matthew 28:18-20: Here, our Lord is telling the Apostles that the revelation He gave them during His earthly ministry, and which the Holy Spirit would clarify and complete (see John 14:26; John 16:12-13), was the FULLNESS of God's Revelation that they were to teach all men until the end of time. Hebrews 1:1-2: This passage tells us that the inspired prophets of the OT, who communicated God's revelation in an incomplete form, have now given way....
@viewer087 (cont (1))....to the Son of God who has given us the full and perfect Revelation of God. Jesus is the fulfillment of all prophecy.
(2) The word Bishop, in Greek, "episkopos" literally means "overseer." You stated that the Apostles were in charge of the Church. In other words, they "oversee" the Church. This is something I agree with, so therefore, that means the original twelve Apostles were bishops, according to the meaning of the Greek word for bishop.
@magnus56j : There is one epistle from Paul, which you missed, that confirms a Bishop is not an Apostle. This is 1 Cor. 12 (read the whole chapter). In that epistle, Paul specifies and clarifies that there is a Church government (v.8) with are "differences of administrations" (v.5). Each have their gifts or helps from God (v. 9-10). In any such "government" there is no sameness of authority and responsibility. We cannot say a Deacon is a Bishop because he is not (...continued)
The "sameness" is the unity in operation & interaction, which is explained by Paul as "body is one, and hath many members" (v.12), saying a body has many parts, each to it's purpose, but the body and parts work as one whole unit, but an arm is not a leg and either is NOT a head. Paul confirms this by saying "diversities of operations" (v.6) and diversity is "differences" which clarifies not the same purpose or duty and not the same authority when speaking in terms of Church government. (cont..)
(v.11) also specifies the Holy Spirit gives different helps, guidance, etc, "dividing to every man severally as he will". So, what God has set in his Church as to the duties, position in the Government and applicable authority, we do NOT change the setup of that organization. Now, in Luke 1:8, it speaks of the Office of the priest, which is a designation of position and authority under God. The word "order" is what God is, he sets things in certain order which we abide in and work. (cont..)
1 Cor. 11:34 speaks of setting things in order. The entire epistle speaks in that manner of operating in an orderly manner. This is the characteristic & manner of God & being godly. Titus 1:5, "shouldest set in order" again the principle of orderly manner, things in "order". As Christ is the owner/head of the Church, an Apostle is the head manager (explained in simplest terms). Apostle cannot take the place of Christ any more than a Bishop replace an Apostle. That order was never given. (cont)
1 Cor. 14:33 - God is not the author of confusion. Then, (v. 40), "let all things be done decently and in order." All of what I said proves the Bishop is not an Apostle, this is contrary to the order of the Church of Jesus Christ. Unity does not perform disorderly. Jesus made it clear Heavenly Father has authority over him (John 5:30) and as such it was against God's order of government, against his authority to set a Bishop as an apostle. Now, in accordance to actual history (cont..)
The history shows that the Apostles were not replaced once they were killed or removed by currents of apostasy, John was the last one and he went to an island in his last days. This left the Bishops to each of their assigned branches. Another proof Bishops are not Apostles. There were many Bishops but none had authority to run the church as a whole, only power to run their own branch. Plus history proved that the Bishops were not unified, not as "one" and many political battles ensued =apostasy.
A Bishop cannot be an Apostle, that power & authority was not given and to allow a Bishop to run the whole Church is against God's true orderly government. Revelation was never given to a Bishop for the whole Church, only the Apostles had that authority, again a manner of orderly government. Not once in the NT is a Bishop directing the Church, only the Apostles directed the Church and did so by "Revelation" as Paul clearly proved.
So I am sorry Magnus, the scriptures you quoted do not show a Bishop is an Apostle and never could be. They say other things, but not anywhere show an Apostle is replaced by a Bishop.
@viewer087 Jesus is called high priest on several occasions. And according to your hierarchy, a high priest is not an apostle or a prophet, and has lower authority than your so-called apostles and prophets. So, according to your theory, that must mean the 12 Apostles had more authority than Jesus, since Jesus was apparently only a high priest. Plus, you never answered me when I proved to you that the Trinity is true. So I'm sorry viewer087, but your points are contradictory.
@viewer087 And you say your "church" has authority? You are expecting me to believe your super rich, multimillionaire leaders have authority? They are not men of prayer, they don't spend years in monasteries, they don't take on the burden of the poor, they don't bury the dead, the don't stay with the sick, suffering, and dying, and they don't council people their whole lives. The 12 Apostles of the New Testament were poor, not rich businessmen who wore suits.
@viewer087 Go look up LDS doctrine. You guys don't even believe John the Beloved died a physical death. This totally contradicts your idea of "total apostasy" because he would still be able to lead the Church. Although there is historical evidence that he died. But, according to your theology that he is still, alive, and there was still apostasy, must mean that John the Beloved became an evil apostate according to you.
@magnus56j : whenever John the Beloved died, it was far before the onset of the Catholic Church and far before the first meeting at Nicaea. Throughout the NT, the Apostles fought against apostate beliefs and ideas, mostly from Greek philosophies. The part of John Beloved being alive has to do with being made immortal as the 3 Nephites, but this state does not signify the continuance of the early Church of Christ. The apostasy refers to the membership of the Church, so...(cont)
...as far as the Apostles are concerned, the ones who administered the whole Church of Christ, all died except one, John, but John was removed from leading the Church because of the conditions of that time, that it was impossible to continue. Hence throughout the centuries, God prepared the way for a restoration to we all enjoy religious freedom and in that environment came his restored Church to survive to the end time. (cont)
Jesus was called the Highest priest and Apostle, he was above all in the Church. As to the hierarchy, yes an Apostle of the Church is a "high priest". Even in the OT, God ordained "high priests" of his Church. Even a Bishop is a high priest, but being a high priest does not make a person an Apostle. "Office" of Bishop is only a Bishop, office of Apostle is an Apostle, the two offices do not interchange, meaning the authority to each office is different and specific to that mantle & duty. (cont)
Now think about what you say for the moment. Claiming the LDS church with millionaire leaders etc etc. In the OT, the Church of God was wealthy and well to do. Read the scriptures. God prospered them as long as they remained faithful. Do not think for one moment that God does not bless his Church with prosperity. Next, living poor or in rags, is symbolic of humbleness. Prosperity does not discount a state of humbleness & this is where you have erred. (cont)
Your current view of the LDS Church is false magnus. I have seen Catholic churches filled with gold ornaments, trim, expensive paintings and so forth. In terms of land ownership, Catholic church exceeds the LDS church. Do not think with all the wealth of the Catholic church that you can claim the LDS is not God's true Church. Also, monasteries with monks, who did not marry, is against God's will. Marriage, family etc is God's ordained order. A church denying marriage is not God's true Church.
@viewer087 Excuse me, but I am not a Catholic, I am an Orthodox Christian. Why does it seem like no one knows we exist? We are the second largest Christian community with 300 million members. Our priests can marry, but many choose to be monastics. Jesus wasn't married, and nor was Paul. In fact, Paul encouraged celibacy. The Orthodox does not deny marriage. Marriage is a beautiful vocation. Most Orthodox priests take a vow of poverty to devote themselves to Christ without distraction of money.
@magnus56j - When you speak of a Bishop being an Apostle, that is from the Catholic church and any church from history that was formed after the fall of the NT Church into apostasy. The first church that formed after the NT Church fall was the Early Catholic church. In time, many spilt from the Catholic church and started their own denomination or creed. Yours is no different. You adhere to many of the dogma's of the Catholic church. As far as choosing to be monastic, that is not of God. (cont)
...the choice to be celibate is not a godly manner, it is of the world and not of God. To end up single because of earthly circumstances and not able to marry, that is one of the circumstances of being mortal. The celibate condition was actually derived from personal chastity and devotion to God. It was taken out of spiritual context and application. Chastity refers to being chaste, clean and not of the world. Marriage is part of chastity which the person is single to spouse and God.
unfortunately, many nonspiritual practices developed after the early NT Church fell into apostasy, because Apostles were not around and hence, no revelation was given to any church thereafter. If the Apostles continued on, leading the true Church, all these false doctrines and practices would not have developed under Christ. The same problem of heretical practices occurred in the early NT Church and the Apostles had quite a time dealing with them. (I.e. circumcision, baptism of children, etc)
@viewer087 What about these hundreds of Mormon sects that started up? Some from very early on, like the Community of Christ. According to your theory, if your "apostles" are true, then all these false doctrines wouldn't have developed in the Mormon "church." That must mean that Mormonism has become 100% apostate according to your theory.
@magnus56j : the doctrines in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not corrupt. I said that if the True Church continued from the NT times, then yes, the false doctrines would not have occurred for the community of Christ that existed in the True Church. As it occurred, the NT Church of Christ got corrupted because the Apostles were removed. When that leadership is lost, so is revelation to the Church and hence the true Church falls into apostasy. (cont)
It was corruption in the true Church I spoke about not happening if the Apostles remained and if they did remain, we would still have the True Church continue through the centuries. There were still other religions, which were corrupt, even in the NT times, so other sects or break-aways are not representatives of Christ. When the NT Church fell into Apostasy, any Church that was not started by God himself, is not a true Church. - Sorry. (cont)
IN all cases, God's true Church started by God's hand and a prophet. IN the OT, all the times God restored his Church, was by a Prophet and revelation. In the NT, God restored his Church personally (Jesus) and the prophet after his leaving were the Apostles. IN the 1800's, God started his Church again (restored as in the past) by God himself & the prophet was Joseph Smith. The pattern is the same. The problem that blinded all the people were false doctrines, like "revelation is no more" (cont)
@viewer087 The name of Christ's Holy Church is: THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST founded by Jesus, who is God, at Pentacost in 33 A.D. Christ's Church has never fallen into apostasy as Christ promised (Mat 16:18-19). His Holy Church has never changed the faith or added doctrines. To say that Christ's Church was lost is to deny that Christ dwells within His Church. There could never be a total apostasy of Christ's Church. Your "church" is a myth founded by a con-man.
@viewer087 I also thought I should clear up Mormon confusion of the Trinity. Mormons think it is confusing. I think it makes perfect sense. Since Mormons are incapable of thinking outside the box, I thought I could use a real life example. Water (H2O) is a good example. Water can exist in solid, liquid, and gas. Ice is not liquid water, nor a gas, nor is liquid water a gas or ice. However, the three distinct phases are one substance: H2O. See, it's not confusing.
@viewer087 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, but they make up one substance, one reality: God. See, the Trinity is not impossible, as Mormons like to think it is. Three persons in one substance is not a contradiction, and therefore, it is not confusing. The way Mormons see the Godhead is like having: milk, steak, and broccoli. They are three distinct substances but have the same purpose--to nourish you. Christians view God more like water, distinct, but still one substance.
@viewer087 What are you talking about? There was no "restoration" of the Church, because dwells in His Church. If there was no Church on earth, there would be no God. There was no total apostasy in the OT Church. The Gospel is everlasting and eternal (see Rev 14:6). An everlasting Gospel cannot be lost. It is everlasting. There could never be lost, since it is eternal.
@viewer087 First of all, it was the Roman Catholic Church who broke away from the Orthodox. The Church of Rome invented some doctrines that were never believed in the early Church. Orthodox Christianity adheres to the same teachings that Christ taught. Orthodox is the original Christian community Christ founded. As for celibacy, Jesus was never married and nor was Paul, so are you condemning them as being ungodly. Shame on you. Orthodox never invented doctrines or changed the faith.
@magnus56j The early Christian Church did not put Bishops as Apostles and did not give them the same authority. What you say about Orthodox being the original Christian Community is not possible with doctrines that contradict the scriptures and early Church practice. As for Jesus not being married, maybe he was not, but there is no scripture to prove he was not. Marriage is ordained of God and required, yet as I said, some never make it to marriage, so God will judge that fairly.
@viewer087 That is totally false. Marriage was never required in the Bible for salvation. Is that really a doctrine of yours? Are you seriously telling me that one who is not married will not inherit the Kingdom fo God? Such blasphemy!! History proves Jesus was not married. History and the Bible prove that Paul was not married. Paul STRONGLY recommends celibacy for those who would devote themselves entirely for the ministry (1 Cor 7:32-35). It sounds like you "church" is the ungodly one.
@magnus56j Marriage was ordained by God from Adam & Eve on. In order for Eve to be saved in childbearing, there must be marriage between Adam and Eve for that union to occur. God also gave a commandment -be fruitful and multiply, again refers to families and only by marriage can families occur. Further; [Matt.8:14 > Peter has a wife] [Matt.19:4-9 / Mark 10:2-9 > God made male & female, joined as one=Marriage] [1 Tim. 3:2,12 > Bishop must be married to one wife, deacons same] .. (cont)
...[1 Tim. 4:1-3 > latter days = false doctrines and evil seducing spirits "fobidding to marry" = false doctrines to deny marriage] [ Titus 1:5-7 > confirms Paul's words in 1 Tim 3] [ Heb. 13:4 > marriage is honourable in all ]. Thus the Bible shows marriage is part of God's plan and God does not do things that are not applicable to our salvation as God does not waste his efforts neither his commandments and teachings in the gospel. As I said before, God is a God of order & marriage is a part
@viewer087 What's the point of showing me 1 Tim. 4:1-3? The Orthodox Church does not forbid marriage. I agree that marriage is a part of God's plan and it is a Holy Mystery. It's a beautiful mystery. The Orthodox Church has nothing against marriage or celibacy, so what's your point here? There have been heretical groups in the past completely banning marriage. Celibacy is not a doctrine in the Orthodox Church (nor Catholic Church as many mistakenly think), but it is a spiritual discipline.
Apostasy are false doctrines, made by men, enticed by Satan. Corrupted doctrines of God, another sign of apostasy. You claim revelation ended with John, then all doctrines declared thereafter are not of God because doctrines are by revelation. Paul clearly said he learned via revelation of Jesus Christ, not by men. All Apostles gave God's doctrines by the Spirit, that's revelation. No person can give doctrines & claim to be of God after revelation ended. No private interpretations 2 Pet.1:20
@viewer087 Yes, public revelation did end with John, and that means there can be no new doctrines. The Orthodox Church has never invented any new doctrines. We hold to the same doctrines that Jesus and the Apostles taught, never adding doctrines, subtracting doctrines, or changing doctrines. No new doctrines were invented by the Orthodox Church after the death of John, so, once again, what's your point here? Read the Didache and writings of early Church Fathers. They taught Orthodoxy!!
@magnus56j: Revelation confirms marriage is required: D&C 49:15 / D&C 131:2 / D&C 132:15 > which confirms marriage is required for the highest salvation, which is the 3rd level of the Celestial Kingdom with God. The lower kingdoms do not require marriage to be assigned there, yet other form of marriage is required for Celestial level 1, 2, that being a marriage to Christ. Lower levels in Terrestrial and Telestial marriage is not required at all, which is where members of other churches go.
@margnus56j: I have not addressed the trinity yet because other points of doctrine needed clarification with you. Depending on your response, the answer to the Trinity should be next.
@viewer087 Yeah, um Joseph Smith was a lying con-man. He wasn't a prophet. I could care less what the D&C says. It's not true revelation. There is no mention of celestial, terrestial, or telestial kingdoms anywhere in the Bible.
@viewer087 I would also like to add that it was Orthodox bishops who compiled the Bible and determined the official canon of the Bible at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD. How could an apostate Church produce and uncorrupted canon? The LDS accept the New Testament canon exactly as the Orthodox Church defined it in 393. It is contradictory that you accept the authority of Orthodox Church when it comes to the canon of the New Testament, but reject the authority in most other cases.
@magnus56j : as to the "uncorrupted canon", this is not so. The Bible has been altered and changed many times over the centuries and even the original pages of the Bible when it was first formed is not the same as it is now, for then, pages or books were removed and replaced. All this without any revelation from God, just the views and judgments of men. So claims that it was uncorrupted is false, suffice to say, "as long as the Bible is correctly translated, it is the word of God" (A of F 8)
@viewer087 I wasn't talking about translation, I was talking about canon (list of inspired books). You accept, as a matter of faith, all the Books of the NT exactly as the Orthodox Church defined it. Tell me, if you think the canon is corrupt, which books of the New Testamest are false and uninspired by gone. You accept all the books of the NT as inspired and therefore, the canon the Orthodox Church defined is not corrupt. I am talking canon, not translation. You interpreted me wrong.
@magnus56j: When you speak about scriptural meanings, what Apostles of the NT mean, you are talking translation. The Canon of the Bible is accepted so long as it is correctly translated, which also means "interpreted". The LDS Church makes KJV as the acceptable English translation. It has also been determined the Bible does not contain all necessary scripture for Salvation, where even the Bible itself refers to "canon" books or scripture that are lost to us. Example -- (cont...)
(1 - cont): Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13) / Book of Samuel the Seer (1 Chr. 29:29) / Book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29 ) - to name a few mentioned in OT, then... epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9) / an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16) / some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14) / Matthew’s reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (2:23) when our present O.T. has no statement as such etc. (cont)
(2 - cont) the Bible in its present form does not have the complete word from the Lord. Somewhere, somehow these scripture have gone missing and since God is rather good on preserving his word when he has a hand in it, goes to question the legitimacy of your word and knowledge where you claim the Bible is complete. This goes to say that men of past ages have corrupted the scriptures by removing precious scripture and this is caused by apostate spirits - thinking, etc. (cont...)
(3 - cont): so what occurs when these scriptures were removed? Apostasy, God withdraws himself and his Spirit because of iniquity which is apostasy, when people (not God) fail in their faith. This is what occurred in the NT as it has occurred throughout the Bible. Prophets are rejected, people fall into false doctrines, beliefs & practices and this leads to corruption. Read the Bible & see the pattern of apostasy that repeated itself from the OT to the NT. To ignore that is being deluded.(cont)
(4 -cont) as to why we are continually speaking about this, is because I addressed your statements which you made about Paul, among other things and when I said your interpretation is not correct about Paul, it went from there to now. So, since I proved to you that even the Bible itself admits it's own lacks, goes to say that without revelation, apostasy is a sure thing & no church that came after the Apostles in the NT was without apostate dealings and practices - none!
@viewer087 I don't deny that apostasy broke out early on. What I deny is a total apostasy, where the Church was 100% lost. That I completely deny. Arianism, for example was a HUGE heresy that arose that deceived many. So there was widespread apostasy early on, but there was NEVER a total apostasy. The Orthodox is the community that never fell into heresy. It is the very same community Christ founded.
@magnus56j : You misunderstand what apostasy is about >it occurs when God's people fall from grace, from his Spirit, taking on false doctrines & beliefs&philosophies. There is personal apostasy >falling from faith & God's true doctrines, there is group apostasy>falling from faith & practice of God. Since God cannot condone even a little sin, says when his true Church, as in the NT, fell from faith took hold of false doctrines and practices, even promoted them, apostasy exists...(cont)
(..Cont): One of the keys to push back apostasy of the Church was the position and authority of the "Apostles". The Church of God cannot continue in any way, no matter how many "good" things still exist, without the authority and position of the 12 apostles. Since they were gone, and all churches since then had NO apostles and God did NOT assign any, all churches without God's clear designation as apostate churches. To ward off apostasy requires "REVELATION", and this...(Cont)
(...Cont) pattern of revelation was prevalent with the Apostles in the NT Church. Look & see that pattern. How Paul had to address so many false doctrines & practices that the membership fell to & he did so by..."revelation". It was NOT the bishops who kept the Church spiritually above the apostasy, it was the Apostles. The bishops power by only by extension from the Apostles, but once they were gone, Bishops power came from keys held by Apostles & when they left, so did the power.
@viewer087 The Orthodox Church defined the canon of the Bible. The LDS accept the New Testament EXACTLY as the Orthodox Christian Church defined it. There is one major inconsistancy in LDS beliefs and the Great Apostasy. The inconsistancy is that Mormons believe John the Apostle never died and he remains on earth today. For Mormon doctrine to be consistent, they would have to believe that John the Beloved became apostate. If John was alive, there would be no reason for God to take away the keys.
@magnus56j : Unfortunately, history begs to differ with you. The date of the Bible as per the Orthodox Church, as I can find it, was around 1545-1563 at the Council of Trent; where long before that, St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, made the first canon of the New Testament in 367 AD. The Orthodox church did not really come into being until around 1054 AD as a result of the East-West Schism. I realize that you claim the Orthodox is the original church carried thru, but that is not true.
@viewer087 Um the Council of Trent was Roman Catholic council, not an Orthodox one. The Roman Catholic Church was started in 1054 by Pope Leo when he decided to start his own church and invent his own doctrines. It was Rome who broke away from the Orthodox. The Orthodox Christian Church is the original Christian Church and was founded by Jesus Christ Himself at Pentecost in 33 A.D. So your history is all messed up. The canon of the NT as it is today was determined at the Council of Carthage 397.
@magnus56j : So what we have here are various sources of the Bible, not one. At various times, men of the world from various denominations, who have broken off from one another, all claiming what you claim. It is not my history that is screwed up, it is what happened after John the revelator left. Factions, fighting, disputes, all divided the church completely and this is why we have the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, etc etc. That is where the mess occurred because each one is claiming dominance.
The Nicene Creed was started by Emperor Constantine, a pagan and as such was based in political power and direction. None were inspired, because God does not work through a pagan and not through politics. That is what history shows. So whether your Orthodox was before or after the Roman Catholic, that is a moot point since neither are of God. >> Show me in the scriptures that the Orthodox was the true Church of God .
@viewer087 (1) The Orthodox Church is not a denomination, it is PRE-DENOMINATIONAL. (2) Constantine did not write the Nicene Creed. What Constantine did was legalize Christianity by issuing the Edict of Milan in 315 AD because pagans were slaughtering Christians. He called the Council of Nicea because there were disputes between the Christians and Arians and it was Constantine's job to keep peace in the Empire. He had nothing to do with Church doctrine. cont...
@magnus56j : I never said Constantine wrote the Nicene Creed, his political influence had a big impact. History records it, I would not say that unless I read it. It was Constantine who called the council. He wanted something done; the Bishops, according to history, made a decision, BUT they returned to the same bickering, disagreements & their own teachings after that. Proving the first meeting provided a political response, NOT revelation, NOT God's instruction, NOT scriptural based. (cont..)
(cont..) this also proves that the Church of Jesus Christ fell, was no longer in operation because of the fact that the Bishops operated on their own accord, contrary to each other, to their own beliefs and teachings, making the Church divided, in discord and hence this means "apostasy" / example: read >>
columbia(dot)edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea(dot)htm // especially where it said Contantine played an important role.
@viewer087 What I mean it having to be consistant is that LDS have the doctrine of "total apostasy." The whole foundation of Mormonism collapses without the "total apostasy." For a "total apostasy" to occur, everyone living on earth would have to fall into apostasy and since Mormons believe that John the Beloved was always alive on earth, and still is today, he too would have had to become apostate in order for there to be a "total apostasy" of Christ's Church.
@magnus56j : The whole foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ is revelation and the Apostles as it was in the NT. The fact that apostasy existed collapsing the NT Church, the Church of God does not depend on apostasy existing, it is the contrary, apostasy failed the Church. This is where you have sorely erred. It was apostasy that led to the need for a restoration NOT a reformation as many middle-age churches profess. To claim that John the beloved had to become apostate to be a total (cont..)
(cont..) is a fallacy. Such thinking would have to claim that the early Apostles would also have to become apostate, as would John the Revelator, for the Church of God to be apostate. This is false thinking. >> Apostasy was of the membership, not the Apostles. It is the same as the membership kicking out the original apostles and taking over the Church, that would be an example of total apostasy. Whether the apostles were kicked out or removed by persecution (death, banishment etc), the...(cont)
(cont) apostasy occurred by the membership. This led to divisions, false doctrines & practices, bad / evil influences as pagan's, Greek philosophies, Roman control, etc. John the Revelator was the last, when he left, the True Church was vacant of proper and required leadership and hence God removed his Holy Ghost. That was the mark of complete apostasy, which was due to the absence of the apostles. -- On yes the corner stone of the True Church is Jesus Christ and the Church MUST have his name.
@viewer087 (3) The Church that Christ speaks of and that is mentioned in the Bible is the Orthodox Christian Church. The first Ecumenical Council was the Council of Jerusalem as mentioned in Acts. (4) The formal name of the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, so we do have Christ's name in our Church. (5) There is no need for a "earthly" head of the Church because Christ is ALWAYS present in His Church. Christ alone is the head of His Church. cont...
@viewer087 (6) The bishops of the Orthodox Church are the living apostles and at least we can trace our line of bishops in an unbroken line of succession to the Apostles themselves, something the LDS "priesthood" cannot do since you have absolutely no connection to the ancient Church. You can just as much claim a connection to the ancient Church as a brooke trout in a lake in a forest can claim a connection to a Humback whale in the South Atlantic. cont...
@magnus56j : No where in the Bible does it say the office of the Bishops are the Apostles, none. A Bishop is a Bishop, nothing more. It does not matter if the line of Bishops are traced back to the NT Bishops, because the "keys" of authority, right & power were not held by the Bishops, they were held by Apostles. Bishops shared in the keys as "extended" to them by Apostles. Once the Apostles are gone, so are the keys. The Bishops were on their own. (cont)
(cont) The scripture proves Jesus worked his NT Church via "keys" > Matthew 16:19. He gave keys to the apostles and the keys given to Peter says he was the head apostle. Even the previous scriptures to Matt 16:19, as many claim that Peter is the rock of the Church. Well, Peter was an apostle and only on the foundation of the Apostles can the true Church of Christ sit and be built. Again, no church that claims succession has the keys and has no apostles as the foundation. (cont)
(cont) only one Church can claim it is the True Church of Christ, that is the Church that truly has Christ as it's corner stone, Apostles as it's foundation, organized the same way as the NT Church, has the "keys" or rights, power and authority, governs as per the NT Church, and most of all --- has "revelation" as did the NT Church. NO earthly church, no matter the claims of succession, has those characteristics. - none.
@viewer087 (7) If the Orthodox Church is so "ungodly" as you say, then why do you accept the "ungodly" Bible we compiled for you as the inspired Word of God? (8) Since Christ is ALWAYS present in His Church, it could never fall into apostasy. If it did, then Satan defeated Christ and that's the plain truth. Mormons therefore believe Satan is stronger than Christ. (9) If Christ did leave His Church and it was defeated by Satan once, it then could be defeated again, so LDS could become apostate.
@magnus56j : false, Magnus. First there is no connection from the Orthodox or Roman Catholic to the NT Church, none. Even for the LDS, making claim we are, but only "saying" it is the same as the Church in the NT is insufficient. This alone does NOT make it the true Church of Christ. It is clear there is no connection between any other church, yours or any denomination, to the NT Church. Second, when you say there is no need for an earthly head, is also false & contary to the scriptures (cont).
(cont) As per the scriptures, Ephesians 2:19-20, the Church of Christ is built on the foundation of Apostles. Peter was the head apostle on the earth, Jesus the chief apostle above them, Hebrews 3:1. For any person or church to claim there is was no need for an earthly head, is a sign of apostasy, the pulling away from the very government God set up for his true Church, especially finding any excuse to contravene the scriptures. (cont)
(cont) What I found was when any person or church makes excuse to avert or deny a scripture to justify themselves, is a person or church that is false & follows false doctrines. Since your church cannot exercise the proper Church government as set up by Christ himself, that says your church is not the original NT Church, but simply a man-made facsimile. - Third, neither your church or any denomination similar to you have NO powers to receive revelation, a crucial characteristic of the NT Church.
@magnus56j : the Bible is accepted as God's word, so long as it is correctly translated because...it was by revelation, a confirmation from Christ himself. D&Covenants 42:12 and read here: lds(dot)org/scriptures/bd/bible(dot)p17?lang=eng&letter=b / remember, that a fair portion of God's word survived the apostasy and dark ages, so to some degree you and 32000+ "other" christian denominations carry God's word, but none of them are God's true Church.
@viewer087 (10) Why would Christ abandon His people and His Church and let hundreds of millions Orthodox Christians die for a lie? Over 100 million Orthodox Christians were slaughtered in the 20th century alone. Historically, we are the most persecuted Christian community out there. How many died in the name of Mormonism, like 20? I think Mormon priests and bishops slaughtered more people in the Mountian Meadows Massacre than Mormons being killed for the faith in all history of Mormonism. cont..
@magnus56j : reconsider what you said and read the Bible better. God leaving his people is not a surprise since God did it several times in the OT and he did it because of one reason "APOSTASY". Several times God had to "restore" his gospel when the people were ready to reorganize under him in proper faith. This does not discount the many who died during the apostasy (OT or NT) who had "true faith", those are counted as true faithful.(cont - faith)
(cont - faith) Whether they were in Orthodox or Roman Catholic, etc, God bases his salvation on faith first, then deals with each accordingly to his wisdom and righteousness, as per the gospel. (D&C 137:9 / 1 John 3:20 / Matthew 5:8)
(cont) consider, what of thousands who died in OT times, Christ had not yet arrived to atone for their sins? Did they also die in vain? Does God discount them because they were born & died before Christ died for everyone's sins? Learn God's wisdom, then you can see what I say is true. God provides for all true faithful, even those in the OT who will also benefit from the atonement and be saved into his Kingdom, all in accordance to his wisdom, righteousness (law) & power. You'd be surprised.
@viewer087 And btw our clergy doesn't get paid for following their vocation. All of our bishops and many of our priests are monks and take a vow of poverty. Our diocesan priests get paid for taking care of the externals of the Church like keeping track of funds to keep the church running so it doesn't go bankrupt, but they don't get paid for celebrating Divine Liturgy on Sunday since that is their vocation and way of life.
@viewer087 (11) You claim to have living apostles and prophets but talk is cheap. You have no proof that they are true prophets. You just ask us to pray about it. Why isn't Monson displaying miracles like the prophet Moses did like separate great sea? cont...
@magnus56j : proof is by revelation Magnus, (Moroni 10:4) not by private interpretation, (2 Peter 1:20). Even a testimony that Christ is the Lord is "only" by revelation, not by belief. (Ephesians 1:17 / 2 Corinthians 12:1 and...1 Corinthians 12:3). All who are under God, faithful and in his Church can perform miracles, BUT only by the will of God.
@viewer087 (12) You expect me to believe that your multimillion dollar rich businessmen who wear suits are apostles? They don't take on the burden of the poor, they don't spend years in monasteries. They are just a bunch of rich and fat (especially fatty Jeffrey R. Holland) businessmen engorging themselves on the finest foods that money can buy. Why don't your "apostles" give up their millions to the poor and stop engorging themselves on the finest of finest of foods?
@magnus56j : Ok Magnus, this display of anti-rich and anti that is of the devil and clearly not of God and not of a true disciple of God. You have some serious personal issues that has no justification in God's gospel and God's church. Take this as a warning, clear the mote in thine own eye, before you speak against any mote in thy brother's eye. - Luke 6:42. / Failure to clean thyself within, will surely lead thee to hell (Matthew 23:25-26).(cont - end)
(cont - end) Enough now Magnus, I leave this conversation because all you want is to fuel your personal issues and differences. A very unfaithful state of heart and mind. Go to God and ask for forgiveness, repent and seek correction from him. bye
@viewer087 (1) I suppose that because you believe that God will always leave His Church in some point of time, that he will also leave the LDS church at some point (although LDS is NOT and NEVER was Christ's Church.) (2) You believe John the Beloved NEVER died, so according to you there was ALWAYS an original Apostle on Earth. (3) If you knew Greek, you would notice that saying an apostle is a rank in the Church is nonsense. (4) I find it funny that you use our Bible to try and defend yourself.
@viewer087 1) I suppose that because you believe that God will always leave His Church in some point of time, that he will also leave the LDS church at some point (although LDS is NOT and NEVER was Christ's Church.) (2) You believe John the Beloved NEVER died, so according to you there was ALWAYS an original Apostle on Earth. (3) If you knew Greek, you would notice that saying an apostle is a rank in the Church is nonsense. (4) I find it funny that you use our Bible to try and defend yourself.
@viewer087 (cont...) It is a historical fact that the Bible is an Orthodox Christian library of books written for Orthodox Christians by Orthodox Christians. It is a book of the Orthodox Church (Christ's Church), not Joseph Smith's church. The Bible is our book. It is a book of the Orthodox Church. The Bible is a part of Orthodox Christian tradition. If it wasn't for us, you wouldn't have a Bible. So stop being silly by using our book.
@viewer087 The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ (The Orthodox Church) IS the ONE TRUE CHURCH. It alone is the Church, NOT a denomination. Joseph Smith's 19th century church is a brand new form of religion, like Islam, because they don't worship the same Jesus that the earliest Christians worshipped. The earliest Christians (Orthodox) believed Jesus to be THE God, NOT a god. Jesus REVEALED to us that He is THE God, not a god. Mormonism is an invention of Joseph Smith.
@magnus56j : you have no clue as to what makes the True Church of God, in the same manner you speak like the Pharisee's who John the Baptist spoke against their claim of lineage, that even they were of the line of Abraham, it mattered not and gave no special preference (see Matthew 39; Luke 3:8 / KJV). That despite their lineage or historic connection to Abraham, Christ made a Church separate from them as he did again through Joseph Smith because the Creeds are an abomination to him. (cont)
(Cont) thus lineage offers no special promise. Unless Christ himself makes the Church, via revelation-prophecy, secured in a true spiritual manner, it is NONE of his. IN the same way Jesus clearly said " 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? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." & so will he say it to you - Amen.
@viewer087 Of course once again you are using our book (the Bible). Anyway I admit I was was harsh about the Mormon leaders and there being so rich and I apologize for that. I don't like Jeffrey R Holland in particular and I especially did not like Gordon B Hinckley because he would fake cry. I don't really understand why Mormons follow the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar and celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December. Christmas for me isn't until January 7th.
@magnus56j : You, the Orthodox, Catholics, Fundementalists, etc, do NOT own the Bible or the word of God, not even LDS. It belongs to God and it is he who decides what stays, goes, added or removed and to whom he entrusts his word and care of it. So please get off this attitude that your church "owns" anything, because in the last days you and your church loose everything as the Lord will take full possession and control. Humble thyself to his will and end your own will in this.
@viewer087 Actually the Church is the Body of Christ. The Church and Christ are one in the same. The Bible was written by the Church for the Church so it does belong to the Church and it is still God's inspired word. The Bible is God's inspired word a part of the Tradition of the Church. (II Thessalonians, 2:15) In fact, it was the Orthodox Christian Church which gave us the Bible as we know it today! (You didn't think it just fell from heaven as we have it, did you?)
@magnus56j : your doctrine, as you present it, makes the body as the source of all scripture and incorruptible = false doctrine. // James 2:26 > body without the spirit is dead. Romans 8:10 > Spirit gives life because of righteousness; James 1:15 > death is because of sin. Thus apostasy, the pulling away from the Spirit = sin = death, body is therefore dead. // On all passages that spoke of the body of Christ, was combined with the involvement of the Spirit. (cont...)
(cont...) inspired word is from & by the Spirit to the body, not from the Body alone. It is the Spirit which gives it life,the body does not give life. Since the word is spiritual & is life (John 6:63). Body must walk by the Spirit to gain life & the inspired word (Galatians 5; Romans 8:1-4). (cont...)
(cont...) Since Orthodox church & all oth Christian denominations denounce continued revelation from God, then all of them, as you, are dead, because your church bodies denies the Spirit to enter into them, because of false doctrines and false rituals & practices. Thus, your church body has no spirit of God within & does not abide / walk in Spirit that gives life. Hence, you do not own the scriptures, ye are dead. This, not even speaking about authority which your church has none.
@viewer087 The Orthodox is not a denomination once again and where is it evident in history of Christains betraying the faith? They were being slaughtered by evil pagans in order to stay faithful to Christ. They refused to offer a pinch of incense at a pagan altar. Where is it evident that ancient Christians believed in Mormon doctrines like 5 different places in the afterlife, necessity of marriage for salvation, people becoming almighty gods, that God the Father had a creator, etc.?
(note) , the word of God, the gospel came from heaven, the Bible put together by several men - not all were from the Orthodox church. King James Version was supported & authorized by King James thru church of England, not Orthodox church. Another author to the template of the modern day Bible was William Tyndale, who was not Orthodox, he was Protestant. I realize you reject some of the other books of the current day Bible, but there is no revelation to support your church & false doctrines. end
@viewer087 But you accept all the books that the Orthodox Church defined as inspired. How do you know that all the books of the New Testament are inspired, when it was the Orthodox Church who defined it? You made the point that you think it isn't complete, but you still accept the books as inspired by God. Do you know what I mean when I say canon?
@magnus56j : about the books defined by the Orthodox church. - I am not sure what all these books are that were approved by that church, but I will say that the KJV Bible is the word of God so long as it is correctly translated. / one of the big problems with Christianity, is they have failed to recognize what is truly inspired and what is not. They failed to see the pattern of God in how he gives his inspired word and as a result, created so many false doctrines as the Trinity.
@viewer087 Paul STRONGLY recommends celibacy for those who would devote themselves entirely for the ministry (1 Cor 7:32-35). Do you believe Paul is an evil heretic from strongly recommending celibacy? 1 Timothy 3 doesn't say a bishop must be a husband. It's saying that a bishop can only be married once. The LDS past, with polygamy in practice is totally contrary to 1 Timothy 3, because the LDS "bishops" had many wives. It's the LDS that is apostate!!
@magnus56j: Paul does NOT recommend celibacy for the priesthood. First off, 1 Cor 7 is not revelation from God, it is Paul's personal view (v.6). Second, this chapter is referenced from a previous letter Paul wrote, but that letter is missing, according to scholars. We all know the Bible is not a complete set of writings and certainly not from the original authors and some books were written long after the death of the attributed author. Who wrote what for many entries are still disputed. (cont)
(cont) - this raises a concern as to missing text or context that would clarify what Paul said and meant. Normally this would be resolved by revelation, but because the early Catholic church and all the bishops had no authority to receive revelation to clarify & resolve doctrinal matters, since God is the final say on these things. Hence the battles and disagreements, disputes and large amount of philosophies would muddle the matter on Paul's alleged words on celibacy. Thus... (cont)
(cont) from the standpoint of an Orthodox Christian, Catholic or otherwise, the matter remains disputed. Historical scholars disputed the words of Paul, so your position is unsettled. A cleric and scholar Frederick W. Farrar (1831-1903), stated "The tendency to disparage the wedded state and to exalt celibacy into a counsel of perfection - is not only discouraged in scripture but had its roots in dangerous heresies and runs counter to the express and repeated teachings of the Holy Writ"...(cont)
(cont) - Newsweek said it this way, "Historically, there was no lack of precedent. Priests were married for Christianity's first 1000 years. Jesus' Apostles had wives and families.... The forces that pushed the church toward its 12th century stand on celibacy were political as well as spiritual, including the worry that sons of clergy would inherit church titles and property...so the Clergy became celibate". A view that Paul advocated celibacy was clearly a worldly man's view of the Bible (cont)
(cont) revelation is therefore imperative to resolve the issue. Hence the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of 1 Cor 7. The missing information is that Paul was addressing missionary work - " v29: 29 But I speak unto you who are called unto the ministry. For this I say, brethren, the time that remaineth is but short, that ye shall be sent forth unto the ministry. Even they who have wives, shall be as though they had none; for ye are called and chosen to do the Lord's work." (cont)
(cont) then the next verse "v32 - But I would, brethren, that ye magnify your calling. I would have you without carefulness. For he who is unmarried, careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord; therefore he prevaileth. (note v29:29 is a mistype, it is just v29). Placing Paul's words into the context of missionary work says, when on a calling, you are celibate. A single man called to missionary work is to remain celibate, not to marry during his calling. (cont)
(cont) thus when the calling ends, marriage is proper. Paul was advocating a single eye to the Lord when doing God's work. This is especially obvious in Paul's words in verse 30. So in context, Paul is saying that those who are married and do God's work, be as if unmarried and there is the celibacy he implied. // So here we have historic information that disputes yours and in addition, evidence that celibacy was sought by the early Catholic church to avoid loss of wealth. (cont)
(cont) how does your issues about church wealth and political control now fair against the actual history of religious corruption? Do you really think that during the dark ages that even your Christian Orthodoxy denomination was righteous, that they had no such corruption? If you think so, you are living an illusion. For wealth and political control/power was a huge factor in all churches of those early days (after Christ Church fell). You would be a hypocrite to deny it.
@viewer087 Orthodoxy has NEVER added, subtracted, or changed doctrines of the faith. They are the same doctrines Jesus taught to the original 12 Apostles.
@viewer087 You are wasting your time with this whole celibacy thing. I already told you it's not a doctrine of the Orthodox Church, and yet you keep on bringing it up. Marriage is not forbidden in Orthodoxy. Look up the heretics named the Encratites from the 2nd century who forbade marriage for everyone, and they also forbade eating means and drinking wine. This is probably what 1 Tim 4:1-3 is talking about. Oh and guess what, you guys forbid drinking wine. HERETIC ALERT!!!!!!!
@magnus56j : Forbidding wine. do you really believe that wine is imperative? Read D&C 27:1–4, God confirms wine is not imperative. Makes real common sense. Water instead of wine, the best thing, i.e: many Saints may have allergies against wine, or those of weaker faith caught in alcoholism etc. This change from wine to water goes with the "Word of Wisdom" which is a main reason to change and I agree with that change. God considers our health and temporal difficulties. He's wise, your not.
@viewer087 Obviously I am not wiser than God, that is why I see God as Mystery and unknowable. Mormons claim to know God absolutely perfectly and, well, I find that arrogant. Why sould we need to adequately understand the Creator? What a ridiculous demand that the creature, adequately understand the Creator.
@viewer087 "this raises concern as to missing text or context that would clarify what Paul said and meant." Oh yeah, like I am going to believe that poor argument. Where's your proof that there is missing text and context? Celibacy is not even a doctrine in the Orthodox Church, so I don't see why you are making a big deal about this when it is not even a doctrine of the Orthodox Church. You make it a doctrine in yours to get married. Now this is something I don't agree with.
This has been flagged as spam show
If the Trinity is a theological fact & represents the truth from God, surely Jesus would have introduced it to his audience. He had ample opportunity.
He would have said something like “Hear O Israel! The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, but they are not three Gods but one God”. Did he? NO!
Instead he reasserted the absolute & indivisible unity of God who is One & Only (Mark 12:29 c.f. Deut 6:4). What does that tell you?
He was a Muslim who worshiped the One True God.
zorin85 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fact that Christ PRAYED to a higher being (Matt 26:39, Luke 6:12) is sufficient proof that he is NOT God as God doesn’t indulge in doing prayers.
Jesus is NOT the only son of God as God has sons by the tons (Gen 6:2, 4; Exodus 4:22; Jeremiah 31:9; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7).
And being son of God DOESN’T make Jesus part of the Godhead but merely as God’s righteous servant (Abdullah in Arabic) as attested in Mark 15:39 c.f. Luke 23:47 as well as Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30.
Hence, Jesus is NOT God!
zorin85 1 month ago
When listening to this video by Jeffery Holland, near the end he quoted the New Testament, the words from Jesus Christ himself. In accordance to the incomprehensible Trinity doctrine that says it is one God as three, what confusion it makes the words of Christ, which is God's word, of who was Christ addressing? Was he addressing himself, asking himself for grace? How foolish the Trinity doctrine has made the scriptures, confusing, contradictory and useless.
viewer087 1 month ago
"God must be beyond our comprehension". A statement from Michael Pea right after he claimed he cannot accept a believable explanation of God. His claim flies in the face of God's power, all knowing, infinite intelligence & ability to be able to explain himself in an understandable way. They made God impossible to relate to, distant, uninvolved & adorned mortal private interpretations (2 Pet. 1:20). Hence the doctrines of men, false & of the devil for he wants us to remain "confused".
viewer087 1 month ago
A video I watched made by Michael Pea, where he attempted to explain the Trinity doctrine to an ex-Mormon. The video title was "Please explain the Trinity? Bible Questions with Michael Pea". He started to claim God is incomprehensible. Then shortly after that (about 4.00 marker on the video), it became clear as to why he was confusing and could not explain the Trinity. This one statement he made, clearly shows the basic tenet other Christians follow. (continued-Pea)
viewer087 1 month ago
(continued-Pea) Pea said, & I quote, "I wouldn't believe an explanation of God that was believable". In other words, he accepted the premise of incomprehensibility & confusion, including a doctrine that is, itself, incomprehensible. They claim that is God's doctrine. God -never an author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). Are we to learn about God and his Kingdom in a confusing way? Trinity doctrine & this man, Michael Pea, as good hearted he may seem, are not of God. Amen
viewer087 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My Heavenly Father gave me a revelation about the meaning of 666, the number of the beast. It was yesterday close to 6:00 PM. I was thinking about the mark of the beast and suddenly, the Light came in! It's glorious and it's for this time. Most of the serious Bible scholars know that the words “…in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one”, are in fact an apocryphal addition to the original text, that can be traced back as far as the 16th Century.
michaeldayofthelord 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The added words "these three are one" MATCH PERFECTLY Revelation 13:16 "Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man: and his number is Six hundred and sixty and six. (American Standard Version) The Trinity Doctrine is the name of the beast. That meaning can be understood more likely in all the languages of the world, even chinese, korean, japanese, that could not understant the earlier explanations with the Latin Language.
michaeldayofthelord 1 month ago
I think it is rather ironic that an LDS leader should criticise a mainstream Christian doctrine for being "unbiblical" because all of the characteristically Mormon teachings are unbiblical. Where is eternal marriage enunciated in scripture? Where is blood atonement taught in scripture? Etcetera ad infinitum. Jesus taught that in Heaven there is no marriage nor giving in marriage, so Mormons take J Smith over Jesus in the Gospels.
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 : Want to understand? Then take the time to learn it what we teach. Go to >>lds.org/scriptures/tg/marriage-celestial?lang=eng / read references and God speaks in spiritual terms not temporal. (see John 6:63). Bible passage re: "no marriage in heaven" = a level that has no marriage. God speaks of "heirs" -man and woman as a couple, refers to celestial marriage, level far above "no marriage" level, the place of angels. See DC 132:16, also Matt 22, Mark 12, Luke 20.
viewer087 1 month ago
@viewer087 I was raised in the LDS Church, so I know what Mormons teach. I have met Elder Faust and Thomas S Monson. My father has been a Bishop and Stake President. You have been deceived I'm afraid. There is lots of evidence that Joseph Smith was a liar. The problem is that Mormons are presented with a "white-washed" version of J Smith by the leadership. If you are interested in the truth read an honest book about J Smith. Mormonism is impossible without Restorationism, Masonism, etc
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 : Being raised in the Church does not promise you will receive a proper testimony of witness from the Holy Ghost. From what you said, you have not received such a confirmation from God and you got misled by the world and falsehoods. No person is free from personal issues and limitations, not even born into the Church. My entrance into the Church was by the Spirit, confirmed many times by the Spirit and I remain a member, despite the human element that Joseph and others had to suffer.
viewer087 1 month ago
@viewer087 I have heard this many times! When I was a teenager I prayed for years and years without receiving a witness from the Holy Spirit, so I suppose you will say that it was my fault (?). Mormons believe that there is a plurality of "gods", that Father, Son and HS are three distinct divine persons; and this is not Old Testament monotheism. No, its idolatry.
J Smith created LDS from Restorationism, Methodism, Masonism, and so many other ideas that were circulating in his day.
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 : All this stuff you said depicts someone who knows nothing of scriptures & everything about personal gripes. OT & NT shows doctrine of 3 Gods as one. Bible shows the Father was once a man like us & progressed to become God. Jesus himself showed that pattern in the Bible. That took me many years to finally see & was "by revelation". I was not born into the Church. What you show in yur heart, answer is Yes, lack of spirit lies 1st with you, not with God. I learned that by experience.
viewer087 1 month ago
@viewer087 "Bible shows that Father was once a man like us & progressed to become God". I have studied the OT and NT at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels at Cambridge University and I can assure you that the Bible shows no such thing! In fact, you might be surprised to learn that even Pres Hinckley and Robert Millet (amongst many others) are uncomfortable with that teaching as it is not scriptural. I know of no scholars who believe it- either jew or christian. So prove it.
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 : Note: the Bible article on God was once a man, did not render properly in this comment forum. Here is the URL in parts, just put them together, which seems to work by blocking the URL with the cursor and paste it into the URL address field.
(URL below)
christian-truth
.blogspot
.com
/2012/01/
god-was-once-man-like-us
.html
viewer087 1 month ago
@viewer087 As with most Mormons you possess blind faith. I ask you to do some serious research into J Smith and the development of LDS teachings. I am convinced that any reasonable person, once they have looked at the evidence, will leave the Mormon Church or become a "liberal" Mormon (that is, someone who doesn't really believe that Mormonism is true). Look at the similarities between Restorationism, which preceded J Smith, and Mormonism; S Rigdon was a Restorationist & passed it on to J Smith.
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 : I researched, I received confirmations by the HG, Joseph did not lie. Your claim I have blind faith is a blind opinion, with no disrespect to you. In all scriptures, "convincing" truth is by spiritual testimony, a witness by the Holy Ghost. Every word you said is based on worldly opinions & personal ones. My stance-spiritual, just as Paul's of NT. You do not have spiritual witness, you know not truth - read 1 Cor 2:12-15. World cannot know God's truth, it knows only own ideas. nite
viewer087 1 month ago
@viewer087 The problem is that you rely too much on subjective experience. If I were to ask Christians of other denominations whether the HG has confirmed their own religious faith many of them will say, "yes, of course". Evangelical and Pentocostal Christians in particular all believe that they have had confirmations of their beliefs by the HG. If you are intellectually honest this should give you pause for thought; I hope you will reconsider.
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 : the problem with what you believe is that you cannot tell the difference between inspiration (personal revelation from God) and your own self-created feelings. As to other Christians claiming the HG confirmed their faith, then ask them for a true testimony of how the HG did so, then by true spiritual discernment, the truth of their testimony is revealed as false. By all means, provide a link to at least one of those testimonies and I will tell you why it was false.
viewer087 1 month ago
@viewer087 I wonder if you have ever considered that if any of the arguments for the existence of God are true it follows that Mormonism is false? God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought"; but the Mormon "god" was once a man who progressed to become a "god", so he cannot by definition be what we describe as God. If the Mormon "god" progressed to be "god" then he must have had a "god" and if he had a "god" then this "god" must have progressed, and so on to infinity. Its nonsense.
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 : Do you believe in God? I mean truly believe and abide in him? If you disbelieve or have any doubt, then your words are moot because you are trying to get me to deny Christ and Heavenly Father which I will not do. All what you then say about Joseph Smith is merely the attempt to prove to me that God does not exist and the nit picking of my faith will fail you and your life instead. So do you believe in God, if so we can talk, but if you do not, then this battle of words is useless.
viewer087 1 month ago
@viewer087 I remind you that feelings are and have always been unreliable sources for truth. Faith and reason have to go together, so if you cannot defend your religious opinions then there is something wrong. You believe in polygamy, blood atonement, eternal marriage, that "god" required his "son" to die on a cross in order to cancel our debt of sin (that is not very forgiving nor very just and why didn't the father go instead of the son?!) and you need to defend all these.
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 : learn-discern betwn personally generated feelings to those given by the Spirit. No other way a person receives a true witness from the Holy Ghost without "feeling" the inspiration. It's the basis to confirm it is from God. Feeling of stability, sureness, direction, & feeling "love", all good things of God. Read the Bible, are "ye past feeling" warns Apostle Paul & warns Nephi. Preaching doubt are you Bayreuth? - trying to sway me, who experienced God and his Spirit many times.
viewer087 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 : I will respond to your other comments soon, until then, I want to further address your claim of blind faith. First, I am not a fool, especially to be intimidated (which you are trying to do) into believing something or to take a course that is detrimental to faith in God. Just because you destroyed your faith & chose to contradict God's teachings for personal ideas, never assume others will do the same. Here is my further response to blind faith that I follow myself - (Cont>>)
viewer087 1 month ago
(Cont >>) Brigham Young Quote - “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders,... (Cont >>2)
viewer087 1 month ago
(Cont >>2) "...did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not”
-Young, Brigham and John A. Widtsoe, Discourses of Brigham Young, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1941, page 135
Amen.
viewer087 1 month ago
@magnus56j : false doctrine. the body alone is dead, must have the Spirit for the body to live. Christ is not with the Othodox body, and the body does not make scripture, Spirit does. No Spirit in yout church
viewer087 2 months ago
@magnus56j - Question, "Who is at the head of your Orthodox church?" This means what position is the person who leads your church on the earth?
viewer087 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4th word into the bible and the doctrine of the Trinity is in your face, Gen 1v1 In the begining God...The word for God is Elohim meaning 3 or more. Look it up."Its meaning the Angels" you say. Well how come God claims creation as done by him ALONE??. No Angels involed in creation!.
Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.
(Job 9:8) and Isa 37:16 and Nehimiah9:6
These verses all claim resonsibility of creation to God alone yet he is (Elohim)
wallymano 3 months ago
So, nothing what Holland has stated refutes the Trinity, but in fact, a lot of what he said supports the Trinity, especially in his quotation of John 5:19. So, the Trinity unbiblical? Unbiblical my ass! The Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible, so no, we won't accept Mormons as Christians. The Orthodox Church is the only Church today who has living apostles (bishops) who have never changed the faith. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ (Orthodox) is one true Church.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@magnus56j : I will reply to your posts, but first I have a couple of questions. (1) Do you believe that God continues revelation today? (2) Where does the Bible say that Bishops are the same office as Apostles?
viewer087 4 months ago
@viewer087
(1) That depends on what type of revelation you are talking about. Personal revelation, yes, I believe continues. As for public revelation, that ended after the death of the Apostle John (100 A.D.). Jesus fulfilled all prophecy. See Hebrews 1:1-2, Gal. 4:4, Jude 3, 2 Tim 2:2, and Matthew 28:18-20.
(2) The original twelve Apostles were bishops, and they passed on their authority to other men who became bishops. Apostle means teacher. Bishops are the highest teachers.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@magnus56j : (1) Revelation is the same, the only difference is what authority under which the revelation is received. Inspiration is another name for revelation. When Jesus finally left the earth, he left his "Apostles" in charge of his Church. Paul, being an Apostle, received revelation and he stated this very clearly in Gal 1:12, and the rest of Galatians 1. So now the Question: "Why did revelation stop with John?" (>> show scriptures). (2) Question: "Where does it say Apostles are Bishops?"
viewer087 4 months ago
@viewer087 (1) Um, the scriptures I already showed you are enough to explain that, but I'll explain further. Jude 3: In this passage, Jude indicates that the full Apostolic teaching has already been delivered to the saints. Gal 4:4: Here, God sent His Son at the "fullness of time," indicating that Jesus will communicate the fullness of God's Revelation. 2 Tim 2:2: This verse clearly suggests a completed deposit of faith which Timothy is to safeguard and transmit to successors.
cont....
magnus56j 4 months ago
@viewer087 Continuing on (1)....Matthew 28:18-20: Here, our Lord is telling the Apostles that the revelation He gave them during His earthly ministry, and which the Holy Spirit would clarify and complete (see John 14:26; John 16:12-13), was the FULLNESS of God's Revelation that they were to teach all men until the end of time. Hebrews 1:1-2: This passage tells us that the inspired prophets of the OT, who communicated God's revelation in an incomplete form, have now given way....
cont....
magnus56j 4 months ago
@viewer087 (cont (1))....to the Son of God who has given us the full and perfect Revelation of God. Jesus is the fulfillment of all prophecy.
(2) The word Bishop, in Greek, "episkopos" literally means "overseer." You stated that the Apostles were in charge of the Church. In other words, they "oversee" the Church. This is something I agree with, so therefore, that means the original twelve Apostles were bishops, according to the meaning of the Greek word for bishop.
cont....
magnus56j 4 months ago
@magnus56j : There is one epistle from Paul, which you missed, that confirms a Bishop is not an Apostle. This is 1 Cor. 12 (read the whole chapter). In that epistle, Paul specifies and clarifies that there is a Church government (v.8) with are "differences of administrations" (v.5). Each have their gifts or helps from God (v. 9-10). In any such "government" there is no sameness of authority and responsibility. We cannot say a Deacon is a Bishop because he is not (...continued)
viewer087 4 months ago
The "sameness" is the unity in operation & interaction, which is explained by Paul as "body is one, and hath many members" (v.12), saying a body has many parts, each to it's purpose, but the body and parts work as one whole unit, but an arm is not a leg and either is NOT a head. Paul confirms this by saying "diversities of operations" (v.6) and diversity is "differences" which clarifies not the same purpose or duty and not the same authority when speaking in terms of Church government. (cont..)
viewer087 4 months ago
(v.11) also specifies the Holy Spirit gives different helps, guidance, etc, "dividing to every man severally as he will". So, what God has set in his Church as to the duties, position in the Government and applicable authority, we do NOT change the setup of that organization. Now, in Luke 1:8, it speaks of the Office of the priest, which is a designation of position and authority under God. The word "order" is what God is, he sets things in certain order which we abide in and work. (cont..)
viewer087 4 months ago
1 Cor. 11:34 speaks of setting things in order. The entire epistle speaks in that manner of operating in an orderly manner. This is the characteristic & manner of God & being godly. Titus 1:5, "shouldest set in order" again the principle of orderly manner, things in "order". As Christ is the owner/head of the Church, an Apostle is the head manager (explained in simplest terms). Apostle cannot take the place of Christ any more than a Bishop replace an Apostle. That order was never given. (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
1 Cor. 14:33 - God is not the author of confusion. Then, (v. 40), "let all things be done decently and in order." All of what I said proves the Bishop is not an Apostle, this is contrary to the order of the Church of Jesus Christ. Unity does not perform disorderly. Jesus made it clear Heavenly Father has authority over him (John 5:30) and as such it was against God's order of government, against his authority to set a Bishop as an apostle. Now, in accordance to actual history (cont..)
viewer087 4 months ago
The history shows that the Apostles were not replaced once they were killed or removed by currents of apostasy, John was the last one and he went to an island in his last days. This left the Bishops to each of their assigned branches. Another proof Bishops are not Apostles. There were many Bishops but none had authority to run the church as a whole, only power to run their own branch. Plus history proved that the Bishops were not unified, not as "one" and many political battles ensued =apostasy.
viewer087 4 months ago
A Bishop cannot be an Apostle, that power & authority was not given and to allow a Bishop to run the whole Church is against God's true orderly government. Revelation was never given to a Bishop for the whole Church, only the Apostles had that authority, again a manner of orderly government. Not once in the NT is a Bishop directing the Church, only the Apostles directed the Church and did so by "Revelation" as Paul clearly proved.
viewer087 4 months ago
So I am sorry Magnus, the scriptures you quoted do not show a Bishop is an Apostle and never could be. They say other things, but not anywhere show an Apostle is replaced by a Bishop.
viewer087 4 months ago
@viewer087 Jesus is called high priest on several occasions. And according to your hierarchy, a high priest is not an apostle or a prophet, and has lower authority than your so-called apostles and prophets. So, according to your theory, that must mean the 12 Apostles had more authority than Jesus, since Jesus was apparently only a high priest. Plus, you never answered me when I proved to you that the Trinity is true. So I'm sorry viewer087, but your points are contradictory.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@viewer087 And you say your "church" has authority? You are expecting me to believe your super rich, multimillionaire leaders have authority? They are not men of prayer, they don't spend years in monasteries, they don't take on the burden of the poor, they don't bury the dead, the don't stay with the sick, suffering, and dying, and they don't council people their whole lives. The 12 Apostles of the New Testament were poor, not rich businessmen who wore suits.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@viewer087 Go look up LDS doctrine. You guys don't even believe John the Beloved died a physical death. This totally contradicts your idea of "total apostasy" because he would still be able to lead the Church. Although there is historical evidence that he died. But, according to your theology that he is still, alive, and there was still apostasy, must mean that John the Beloved became an evil apostate according to you.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@magnus56j : whenever John the Beloved died, it was far before the onset of the Catholic Church and far before the first meeting at Nicaea. Throughout the NT, the Apostles fought against apostate beliefs and ideas, mostly from Greek philosophies. The part of John Beloved being alive has to do with being made immortal as the 3 Nephites, but this state does not signify the continuance of the early Church of Christ. The apostasy refers to the membership of the Church, so...(cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
...as far as the Apostles are concerned, the ones who administered the whole Church of Christ, all died except one, John, but John was removed from leading the Church because of the conditions of that time, that it was impossible to continue. Hence throughout the centuries, God prepared the way for a restoration to we all enjoy religious freedom and in that environment came his restored Church to survive to the end time. (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
Jesus was called the Highest priest and Apostle, he was above all in the Church. As to the hierarchy, yes an Apostle of the Church is a "high priest". Even in the OT, God ordained "high priests" of his Church. Even a Bishop is a high priest, but being a high priest does not make a person an Apostle. "Office" of Bishop is only a Bishop, office of Apostle is an Apostle, the two offices do not interchange, meaning the authority to each office is different and specific to that mantle & duty. (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
Now think about what you say for the moment. Claiming the LDS church with millionaire leaders etc etc. In the OT, the Church of God was wealthy and well to do. Read the scriptures. God prospered them as long as they remained faithful. Do not think for one moment that God does not bless his Church with prosperity. Next, living poor or in rags, is symbolic of humbleness. Prosperity does not discount a state of humbleness & this is where you have erred. (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
Your current view of the LDS Church is false magnus. I have seen Catholic churches filled with gold ornaments, trim, expensive paintings and so forth. In terms of land ownership, Catholic church exceeds the LDS church. Do not think with all the wealth of the Catholic church that you can claim the LDS is not God's true Church. Also, monasteries with monks, who did not marry, is against God's will. Marriage, family etc is God's ordained order. A church denying marriage is not God's true Church.
viewer087 4 months ago
@viewer087 Excuse me, but I am not a Catholic, I am an Orthodox Christian. Why does it seem like no one knows we exist? We are the second largest Christian community with 300 million members. Our priests can marry, but many choose to be monastics. Jesus wasn't married, and nor was Paul. In fact, Paul encouraged celibacy. The Orthodox does not deny marriage. Marriage is a beautiful vocation. Most Orthodox priests take a vow of poverty to devote themselves to Christ without distraction of money.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@magnus56j - When you speak of a Bishop being an Apostle, that is from the Catholic church and any church from history that was formed after the fall of the NT Church into apostasy. The first church that formed after the NT Church fall was the Early Catholic church. In time, many spilt from the Catholic church and started their own denomination or creed. Yours is no different. You adhere to many of the dogma's of the Catholic church. As far as choosing to be monastic, that is not of God. (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
...the choice to be celibate is not a godly manner, it is of the world and not of God. To end up single because of earthly circumstances and not able to marry, that is one of the circumstances of being mortal. The celibate condition was actually derived from personal chastity and devotion to God. It was taken out of spiritual context and application. Chastity refers to being chaste, clean and not of the world. Marriage is part of chastity which the person is single to spouse and God.
viewer087 4 months ago
unfortunately, many nonspiritual practices developed after the early NT Church fell into apostasy, because Apostles were not around and hence, no revelation was given to any church thereafter. If the Apostles continued on, leading the true Church, all these false doctrines and practices would not have developed under Christ. The same problem of heretical practices occurred in the early NT Church and the Apostles had quite a time dealing with them. (I.e. circumcision, baptism of children, etc)
viewer087 4 months ago
@viewer087 What about these hundreds of Mormon sects that started up? Some from very early on, like the Community of Christ. According to your theory, if your "apostles" are true, then all these false doctrines wouldn't have developed in the Mormon "church." That must mean that Mormonism has become 100% apostate according to your theory.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@magnus56j : the doctrines in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not corrupt. I said that if the True Church continued from the NT times, then yes, the false doctrines would not have occurred for the community of Christ that existed in the True Church. As it occurred, the NT Church of Christ got corrupted because the Apostles were removed. When that leadership is lost, so is revelation to the Church and hence the true Church falls into apostasy. (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
It was corruption in the true Church I spoke about not happening if the Apostles remained and if they did remain, we would still have the True Church continue through the centuries. There were still other religions, which were corrupt, even in the NT times, so other sects or break-aways are not representatives of Christ. When the NT Church fell into Apostasy, any Church that was not started by God himself, is not a true Church. - Sorry. (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
IN all cases, God's true Church started by God's hand and a prophet. IN the OT, all the times God restored his Church, was by a Prophet and revelation. In the NT, God restored his Church personally (Jesus) and the prophet after his leaving were the Apostles. IN the 1800's, God started his Church again (restored as in the past) by God himself & the prophet was Joseph Smith. The pattern is the same. The problem that blinded all the people were false doctrines, like "revelation is no more" (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
What is the name of your church?
viewer087 4 months ago
@viewer087 The name of Christ's Holy Church is: THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST founded by Jesus, who is God, at Pentacost in 33 A.D. Christ's Church has never fallen into apostasy as Christ promised (Mat 16:18-19). His Holy Church has never changed the faith or added doctrines. To say that Christ's Church was lost is to deny that Christ dwells within His Church. There could never be a total apostasy of Christ's Church. Your "church" is a myth founded by a con-man.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@viewer087 You still never answered me after I proved to you the Trinity is true and Biblical.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@viewer087 I also thought I should clear up Mormon confusion of the Trinity. Mormons think it is confusing. I think it makes perfect sense. Since Mormons are incapable of thinking outside the box, I thought I could use a real life example. Water (H2O) is a good example. Water can exist in solid, liquid, and gas. Ice is not liquid water, nor a gas, nor is liquid water a gas or ice. However, the three distinct phases are one substance: H2O. See, it's not confusing.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@viewer087 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, but they make up one substance, one reality: God. See, the Trinity is not impossible, as Mormons like to think it is. Three persons in one substance is not a contradiction, and therefore, it is not confusing. The way Mormons see the Godhead is like having: milk, steak, and broccoli. They are three distinct substances but have the same purpose--to nourish you. Christians view God more like water, distinct, but still one substance.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@viewer087 What are you talking about? There was no "restoration" of the Church, because dwells in His Church. If there was no Church on earth, there would be no God. There was no total apostasy in the OT Church. The Gospel is everlasting and eternal (see Rev 14:6). An everlasting Gospel cannot be lost. It is everlasting. There could never be lost, since it is eternal.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@viewer087 First of all, it was the Roman Catholic Church who broke away from the Orthodox. The Church of Rome invented some doctrines that were never believed in the early Church. Orthodox Christianity adheres to the same teachings that Christ taught. Orthodox is the original Christian community Christ founded. As for celibacy, Jesus was never married and nor was Paul, so are you condemning them as being ungodly. Shame on you. Orthodox never invented doctrines or changed the faith.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@magnus56j The early Christian Church did not put Bishops as Apostles and did not give them the same authority. What you say about Orthodox being the original Christian Community is not possible with doctrines that contradict the scriptures and early Church practice. As for Jesus not being married, maybe he was not, but there is no scripture to prove he was not. Marriage is ordained of God and required, yet as I said, some never make it to marriage, so God will judge that fairly.
viewer087 4 months ago
@viewer087 That is totally false. Marriage was never required in the Bible for salvation. Is that really a doctrine of yours? Are you seriously telling me that one who is not married will not inherit the Kingdom fo God? Such blasphemy!! History proves Jesus was not married. History and the Bible prove that Paul was not married. Paul STRONGLY recommends celibacy for those who would devote themselves entirely for the ministry (1 Cor 7:32-35). It sounds like you "church" is the ungodly one.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@magnus56j Marriage was ordained by God from Adam & Eve on. In order for Eve to be saved in childbearing, there must be marriage between Adam and Eve for that union to occur. God also gave a commandment -be fruitful and multiply, again refers to families and only by marriage can families occur. Further; [Matt.8:14 > Peter has a wife] [Matt.19:4-9 / Mark 10:2-9 > God made male & female, joined as one=Marriage] [1 Tim. 3:2,12 > Bishop must be married to one wife, deacons same] .. (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
...[1 Tim. 4:1-3 > latter days = false doctrines and evil seducing spirits "fobidding to marry" = false doctrines to deny marriage] [ Titus 1:5-7 > confirms Paul's words in 1 Tim 3] [ Heb. 13:4 > marriage is honourable in all ]. Thus the Bible shows marriage is part of God's plan and God does not do things that are not applicable to our salvation as God does not waste his efforts neither his commandments and teachings in the gospel. As I said before, God is a God of order & marriage is a part
viewer087 4 months ago
@viewer087 What's the point of showing me 1 Tim. 4:1-3? The Orthodox Church does not forbid marriage. I agree that marriage is a part of God's plan and it is a Holy Mystery. It's a beautiful mystery. The Orthodox Church has nothing against marriage or celibacy, so what's your point here? There have been heretical groups in the past completely banning marriage. Celibacy is not a doctrine in the Orthodox Church (nor Catholic Church as many mistakenly think), but it is a spiritual discipline.
magnus56j 4 months ago
Apostasy are false doctrines, made by men, enticed by Satan. Corrupted doctrines of God, another sign of apostasy. You claim revelation ended with John, then all doctrines declared thereafter are not of God because doctrines are by revelation. Paul clearly said he learned via revelation of Jesus Christ, not by men. All Apostles gave God's doctrines by the Spirit, that's revelation. No person can give doctrines & claim to be of God after revelation ended. No private interpretations 2 Pet.1:20
viewer087 4 months ago
@viewer087 Yes, public revelation did end with John, and that means there can be no new doctrines. The Orthodox Church has never invented any new doctrines. We hold to the same doctrines that Jesus and the Apostles taught, never adding doctrines, subtracting doctrines, or changing doctrines. No new doctrines were invented by the Orthodox Church after the death of John, so, once again, what's your point here? Read the Didache and writings of early Church Fathers. They taught Orthodoxy!!
magnus56j 4 months ago
@magnus56j: Revelation confirms marriage is required: D&C 49:15 / D&C 131:2 / D&C 132:15 > which confirms marriage is required for the highest salvation, which is the 3rd level of the Celestial Kingdom with God. The lower kingdoms do not require marriage to be assigned there, yet other form of marriage is required for Celestial level 1, 2, that being a marriage to Christ. Lower levels in Terrestrial and Telestial marriage is not required at all, which is where members of other churches go.
viewer087 4 months ago
@margnus56j: I have not addressed the trinity yet because other points of doctrine needed clarification with you. Depending on your response, the answer to the Trinity should be next.
viewer087 4 months ago
@viewer087 Yeah, um Joseph Smith was a lying con-man. He wasn't a prophet. I could care less what the D&C says. It's not true revelation. There is no mention of celestial, terrestial, or telestial kingdoms anywhere in the Bible.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@viewer087 I would also like to add that it was Orthodox bishops who compiled the Bible and determined the official canon of the Bible at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD. How could an apostate Church produce and uncorrupted canon? The LDS accept the New Testament canon exactly as the Orthodox Church defined it in 393. It is contradictory that you accept the authority of Orthodox Church when it comes to the canon of the New Testament, but reject the authority in most other cases.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@magnus56j : as to the "uncorrupted canon", this is not so. The Bible has been altered and changed many times over the centuries and even the original pages of the Bible when it was first formed is not the same as it is now, for then, pages or books were removed and replaced. All this without any revelation from God, just the views and judgments of men. So claims that it was uncorrupted is false, suffice to say, "as long as the Bible is correctly translated, it is the word of God" (A of F 8)
viewer087 4 months ago
@viewer087 I wasn't talking about translation, I was talking about canon (list of inspired books). You accept, as a matter of faith, all the Books of the NT exactly as the Orthodox Church defined it. Tell me, if you think the canon is corrupt, which books of the New Testamest are false and uninspired by gone. You accept all the books of the NT as inspired and therefore, the canon the Orthodox Church defined is not corrupt. I am talking canon, not translation. You interpreted me wrong.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@magnus56j: When you speak about scriptural meanings, what Apostles of the NT mean, you are talking translation. The Canon of the Bible is accepted so long as it is correctly translated, which also means "interpreted". The LDS Church makes KJV as the acceptable English translation. It has also been determined the Bible does not contain all necessary scripture for Salvation, where even the Bible itself refers to "canon" books or scripture that are lost to us. Example -- (cont...)
viewer087 4 months ago
(1 - cont): Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13) / Book of Samuel the Seer (1 Chr. 29:29) / Book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29 ) - to name a few mentioned in OT, then... epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9) / an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16) / some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14) / Matthew’s reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (2:23) when our present O.T. has no statement as such etc. (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
(2 - cont) the Bible in its present form does not have the complete word from the Lord. Somewhere, somehow these scripture have gone missing and since God is rather good on preserving his word when he has a hand in it, goes to question the legitimacy of your word and knowledge where you claim the Bible is complete. This goes to say that men of past ages have corrupted the scriptures by removing precious scripture and this is caused by apostate spirits - thinking, etc. (cont...)
viewer087 4 months ago
(3 - cont): so what occurs when these scriptures were removed? Apostasy, God withdraws himself and his Spirit because of iniquity which is apostasy, when people (not God) fail in their faith. This is what occurred in the NT as it has occurred throughout the Bible. Prophets are rejected, people fall into false doctrines, beliefs & practices and this leads to corruption. Read the Bible & see the pattern of apostasy that repeated itself from the OT to the NT. To ignore that is being deluded.(cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
(4 -cont) as to why we are continually speaking about this, is because I addressed your statements which you made about Paul, among other things and when I said your interpretation is not correct about Paul, it went from there to now. So, since I proved to you that even the Bible itself admits it's own lacks, goes to say that without revelation, apostasy is a sure thing & no church that came after the Apostles in the NT was without apostate dealings and practices - none!
viewer087 4 months ago
@viewer087 I don't deny that apostasy broke out early on. What I deny is a total apostasy, where the Church was 100% lost. That I completely deny. Arianism, for example was a HUGE heresy that arose that deceived many. So there was widespread apostasy early on, but there was NEVER a total apostasy. The Orthodox is the community that never fell into heresy. It is the very same community Christ founded.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@magnus56j : You misunderstand what apostasy is about >it occurs when God's people fall from grace, from his Spirit, taking on false doctrines & beliefs&philosophies. There is personal apostasy >falling from faith & God's true doctrines, there is group apostasy>falling from faith & practice of God. Since God cannot condone even a little sin, says when his true Church, as in the NT, fell from faith took hold of false doctrines and practices, even promoted them, apostasy exists...(cont)
viewer087 2 months ago
(..Cont): One of the keys to push back apostasy of the Church was the position and authority of the "Apostles". The Church of God cannot continue in any way, no matter how many "good" things still exist, without the authority and position of the 12 apostles. Since they were gone, and all churches since then had NO apostles and God did NOT assign any, all churches without God's clear designation as apostate churches. To ward off apostasy requires "REVELATION", and this...(Cont)
viewer087 2 months ago
(...Cont) pattern of revelation was prevalent with the Apostles in the NT Church. Look & see that pattern. How Paul had to address so many false doctrines & practices that the membership fell to & he did so by..."revelation". It was NOT the bishops who kept the Church spiritually above the apostasy, it was the Apostles. The bishops power by only by extension from the Apostles, but once they were gone, Bishops power came from keys held by Apostles & when they left, so did the power.
viewer087 2 months ago
@viewer087 The Orthodox Church defined the canon of the Bible. The LDS accept the New Testament EXACTLY as the Orthodox Christian Church defined it. There is one major inconsistancy in LDS beliefs and the Great Apostasy. The inconsistancy is that Mormons believe John the Apostle never died and he remains on earth today. For Mormon doctrine to be consistent, they would have to believe that John the Beloved became apostate. If John was alive, there would be no reason for God to take away the keys.
magnus56j 2 months ago
@magnus56j : Unfortunately, history begs to differ with you. The date of the Bible as per the Orthodox Church, as I can find it, was around 1545-1563 at the Council of Trent; where long before that, St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, made the first canon of the New Testament in 367 AD. The Orthodox church did not really come into being until around 1054 AD as a result of the East-West Schism. I realize that you claim the Orthodox is the original church carried thru, but that is not true.
viewer087 2 months ago
@viewer087 Um the Council of Trent was Roman Catholic council, not an Orthodox one. The Roman Catholic Church was started in 1054 by Pope Leo when he decided to start his own church and invent his own doctrines. It was Rome who broke away from the Orthodox. The Orthodox Christian Church is the original Christian Church and was founded by Jesus Christ Himself at Pentecost in 33 A.D. So your history is all messed up. The canon of the NT as it is today was determined at the Council of Carthage 397.
magnus56j 2 months ago
@magnus56j : So what we have here are various sources of the Bible, not one. At various times, men of the world from various denominations, who have broken off from one another, all claiming what you claim. It is not my history that is screwed up, it is what happened after John the revelator left. Factions, fighting, disputes, all divided the church completely and this is why we have the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, etc etc. That is where the mess occurred because each one is claiming dominance.
viewer087 2 months ago
The Nicene Creed was started by Emperor Constantine, a pagan and as such was based in political power and direction. None were inspired, because God does not work through a pagan and not through politics. That is what history shows. So whether your Orthodox was before or after the Roman Catholic, that is a moot point since neither are of God. >> Show me in the scriptures that the Orthodox was the true Church of God .
viewer087 2 months ago
@viewer087 (1) The Orthodox Church is not a denomination, it is PRE-DENOMINATIONAL. (2) Constantine did not write the Nicene Creed. What Constantine did was legalize Christianity by issuing the Edict of Milan in 315 AD because pagans were slaughtering Christians. He called the Council of Nicea because there were disputes between the Christians and Arians and it was Constantine's job to keep peace in the Empire. He had nothing to do with Church doctrine. cont...
magnus56j 2 months ago
@magnus56j : I never said Constantine wrote the Nicene Creed, his political influence had a big impact. History records it, I would not say that unless I read it. It was Constantine who called the council. He wanted something done; the Bishops, according to history, made a decision, BUT they returned to the same bickering, disagreements & their own teachings after that. Proving the first meeting provided a political response, NOT revelation, NOT God's instruction, NOT scriptural based. (cont..)
viewer087 2 months ago
(cont..) this also proves that the Church of Jesus Christ fell, was no longer in operation because of the fact that the Bishops operated on their own accord, contrary to each other, to their own beliefs and teachings, making the Church divided, in discord and hence this means "apostasy" / example: read >>
columbia(dot)edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea(dot)htm // especially where it said Contantine played an important role.
viewer087 2 months ago
@magnus56j : what do you mean "Mormon doctrine to be consistent, would have to believe John the Beloved became apostate". Please explain this.
viewer087 2 months ago
@viewer087 What I mean it having to be consistant is that LDS have the doctrine of "total apostasy." The whole foundation of Mormonism collapses without the "total apostasy." For a "total apostasy" to occur, everyone living on earth would have to fall into apostasy and since Mormons believe that John the Beloved was always alive on earth, and still is today, he too would have had to become apostate in order for there to be a "total apostasy" of Christ's Church.
magnus56j 2 months ago
@magnus56j : The whole foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ is revelation and the Apostles as it was in the NT. The fact that apostasy existed collapsing the NT Church, the Church of God does not depend on apostasy existing, it is the contrary, apostasy failed the Church. This is where you have sorely erred. It was apostasy that led to the need for a restoration NOT a reformation as many middle-age churches profess. To claim that John the beloved had to become apostate to be a total (cont..)
viewer087 2 months ago
(cont..) is a fallacy. Such thinking would have to claim that the early Apostles would also have to become apostate, as would John the Revelator, for the Church of God to be apostate. This is false thinking. >> Apostasy was of the membership, not the Apostles. It is the same as the membership kicking out the original apostles and taking over the Church, that would be an example of total apostasy. Whether the apostles were kicked out or removed by persecution (death, banishment etc), the...(cont)
viewer087 2 months ago
(cont) apostasy occurred by the membership. This led to divisions, false doctrines & practices, bad / evil influences as pagan's, Greek philosophies, Roman control, etc. John the Revelator was the last, when he left, the True Church was vacant of proper and required leadership and hence God removed his Holy Ghost. That was the mark of complete apostasy, which was due to the absence of the apostles. -- On yes the corner stone of the True Church is Jesus Christ and the Church MUST have his name.
viewer087 2 months ago
@viewer087 (3) The Church that Christ speaks of and that is mentioned in the Bible is the Orthodox Christian Church. The first Ecumenical Council was the Council of Jerusalem as mentioned in Acts. (4) The formal name of the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, so we do have Christ's name in our Church. (5) There is no need for a "earthly" head of the Church because Christ is ALWAYS present in His Church. Christ alone is the head of His Church. cont...
magnus56j 2 months ago
@viewer087 (6) The bishops of the Orthodox Church are the living apostles and at least we can trace our line of bishops in an unbroken line of succession to the Apostles themselves, something the LDS "priesthood" cannot do since you have absolutely no connection to the ancient Church. You can just as much claim a connection to the ancient Church as a brooke trout in a lake in a forest can claim a connection to a Humback whale in the South Atlantic. cont...
magnus56j 2 months ago
@magnus56j : No where in the Bible does it say the office of the Bishops are the Apostles, none. A Bishop is a Bishop, nothing more. It does not matter if the line of Bishops are traced back to the NT Bishops, because the "keys" of authority, right & power were not held by the Bishops, they were held by Apostles. Bishops shared in the keys as "extended" to them by Apostles. Once the Apostles are gone, so are the keys. The Bishops were on their own. (cont)
viewer087 2 months ago
(cont) The scripture proves Jesus worked his NT Church via "keys" > Matthew 16:19. He gave keys to the apostles and the keys given to Peter says he was the head apostle. Even the previous scriptures to Matt 16:19, as many claim that Peter is the rock of the Church. Well, Peter was an apostle and only on the foundation of the Apostles can the true Church of Christ sit and be built. Again, no church that claims succession has the keys and has no apostles as the foundation. (cont)
viewer087 2 months ago
(cont) only one Church can claim it is the True Church of Christ, that is the Church that truly has Christ as it's corner stone, Apostles as it's foundation, organized the same way as the NT Church, has the "keys" or rights, power and authority, governs as per the NT Church, and most of all --- has "revelation" as did the NT Church. NO earthly church, no matter the claims of succession, has those characteristics. - none.
viewer087 2 months ago
@viewer087 (7) If the Orthodox Church is so "ungodly" as you say, then why do you accept the "ungodly" Bible we compiled for you as the inspired Word of God? (8) Since Christ is ALWAYS present in His Church, it could never fall into apostasy. If it did, then Satan defeated Christ and that's the plain truth. Mormons therefore believe Satan is stronger than Christ. (9) If Christ did leave His Church and it was defeated by Satan once, it then could be defeated again, so LDS could become apostate.
magnus56j 2 months ago
@magnus56j : false, Magnus. First there is no connection from the Orthodox or Roman Catholic to the NT Church, none. Even for the LDS, making claim we are, but only "saying" it is the same as the Church in the NT is insufficient. This alone does NOT make it the true Church of Christ. It is clear there is no connection between any other church, yours or any denomination, to the NT Church. Second, when you say there is no need for an earthly head, is also false & contary to the scriptures (cont).
viewer087 2 months ago
(cont) As per the scriptures, Ephesians 2:19-20, the Church of Christ is built on the foundation of Apostles. Peter was the head apostle on the earth, Jesus the chief apostle above them, Hebrews 3:1. For any person or church to claim there is was no need for an earthly head, is a sign of apostasy, the pulling away from the very government God set up for his true Church, especially finding any excuse to contravene the scriptures. (cont)
viewer087 2 months ago
(cont) What I found was when any person or church makes excuse to avert or deny a scripture to justify themselves, is a person or church that is false & follows false doctrines. Since your church cannot exercise the proper Church government as set up by Christ himself, that says your church is not the original NT Church, but simply a man-made facsimile. - Third, neither your church or any denomination similar to you have NO powers to receive revelation, a crucial characteristic of the NT Church.
viewer087 2 months ago
@magnus56j : the Bible is accepted as God's word, so long as it is correctly translated because...it was by revelation, a confirmation from Christ himself. D&Covenants 42:12 and read here: lds(dot)org/scriptures/bd/bible(dot)p17?lang=eng&letter=b / remember, that a fair portion of God's word survived the apostasy and dark ages, so to some degree you and 32000+ "other" christian denominations carry God's word, but none of them are God's true Church.
viewer087 2 months ago
@viewer087 (10) Why would Christ abandon His people and His Church and let hundreds of millions Orthodox Christians die for a lie? Over 100 million Orthodox Christians were slaughtered in the 20th century alone. Historically, we are the most persecuted Christian community out there. How many died in the name of Mormonism, like 20? I think Mormon priests and bishops slaughtered more people in the Mountian Meadows Massacre than Mormons being killed for the faith in all history of Mormonism. cont..
magnus56j 2 months ago
@magnus56j : reconsider what you said and read the Bible better. God leaving his people is not a surprise since God did it several times in the OT and he did it because of one reason "APOSTASY". Several times God had to "restore" his gospel when the people were ready to reorganize under him in proper faith. This does not discount the many who died during the apostasy (OT or NT) who had "true faith", those are counted as true faithful.(cont - faith)
viewer087 2 months ago
(cont - faith) Whether they were in Orthodox or Roman Catholic, etc, God bases his salvation on faith first, then deals with each accordingly to his wisdom and righteousness, as per the gospel. (D&C 137:9 / 1 John 3:20 / Matthew 5:8)
viewer087 2 months ago
(cont) consider, what of thousands who died in OT times, Christ had not yet arrived to atone for their sins? Did they also die in vain? Does God discount them because they were born & died before Christ died for everyone's sins? Learn God's wisdom, then you can see what I say is true. God provides for all true faithful, even those in the OT who will also benefit from the atonement and be saved into his Kingdom, all in accordance to his wisdom, righteousness (law) & power. You'd be surprised.
viewer087 2 months ago
@viewer087 And btw our clergy doesn't get paid for following their vocation. All of our bishops and many of our priests are monks and take a vow of poverty. Our diocesan priests get paid for taking care of the externals of the Church like keeping track of funds to keep the church running so it doesn't go bankrupt, but they don't get paid for celebrating Divine Liturgy on Sunday since that is their vocation and way of life.
magnus56j 2 months ago
@viewer087 (11) You claim to have living apostles and prophets but talk is cheap. You have no proof that they are true prophets. You just ask us to pray about it. Why isn't Monson displaying miracles like the prophet Moses did like separate great sea? cont...
magnus56j 2 months ago
@magnus56j : proof is by revelation Magnus, (Moroni 10:4) not by private interpretation, (2 Peter 1:20). Even a testimony that Christ is the Lord is "only" by revelation, not by belief. (Ephesians 1:17 / 2 Corinthians 12:1 and...1 Corinthians 12:3). All who are under God, faithful and in his Church can perform miracles, BUT only by the will of God.
viewer087 2 months ago
@viewer087 (12) You expect me to believe that your multimillion dollar rich businessmen who wear suits are apostles? They don't take on the burden of the poor, they don't spend years in monasteries. They are just a bunch of rich and fat (especially fatty Jeffrey R. Holland) businessmen engorging themselves on the finest foods that money can buy. Why don't your "apostles" give up their millions to the poor and stop engorging themselves on the finest of finest of foods?
magnus56j 2 months ago
@magnus56j : Ok Magnus, this display of anti-rich and anti that is of the devil and clearly not of God and not of a true disciple of God. You have some serious personal issues that has no justification in God's gospel and God's church. Take this as a warning, clear the mote in thine own eye, before you speak against any mote in thy brother's eye. - Luke 6:42. / Failure to clean thyself within, will surely lead thee to hell (Matthew 23:25-26).(cont - end)
viewer087 2 months ago
(cont - end) Enough now Magnus, I leave this conversation because all you want is to fuel your personal issues and differences. A very unfaithful state of heart and mind. Go to God and ask for forgiveness, repent and seek correction from him. bye
viewer087 2 months ago
@viewer087 (1) I suppose that because you believe that God will always leave His Church in some point of time, that he will also leave the LDS church at some point (although LDS is NOT and NEVER was Christ's Church.) (2) You believe John the Beloved NEVER died, so according to you there was ALWAYS an original Apostle on Earth. (3) If you knew Greek, you would notice that saying an apostle is a rank in the Church is nonsense. (4) I find it funny that you use our Bible to try and defend yourself.
magnus56j 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@viewer087 1) I suppose that because you believe that God will always leave His Church in some point of time, that he will also leave the LDS church at some point (although LDS is NOT and NEVER was Christ's Church.) (2) You believe John the Beloved NEVER died, so according to you there was ALWAYS an original Apostle on Earth. (3) If you knew Greek, you would notice that saying an apostle is a rank in the Church is nonsense. (4) I find it funny that you use our Bible to try and defend yourself.
magnus56j 2 months ago
@viewer087 (cont...) It is a historical fact that the Bible is an Orthodox Christian library of books written for Orthodox Christians by Orthodox Christians. It is a book of the Orthodox Church (Christ's Church), not Joseph Smith's church. The Bible is our book. It is a book of the Orthodox Church. The Bible is a part of Orthodox Christian tradition. If it wasn't for us, you wouldn't have a Bible. So stop being silly by using our book.
magnus56j 2 months ago
@viewer087 The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ (The Orthodox Church) IS the ONE TRUE CHURCH. It alone is the Church, NOT a denomination. Joseph Smith's 19th century church is a brand new form of religion, like Islam, because they don't worship the same Jesus that the earliest Christians worshipped. The earliest Christians (Orthodox) believed Jesus to be THE God, NOT a god. Jesus REVEALED to us that He is THE God, not a god. Mormonism is an invention of Joseph Smith.
magnus56j 2 months ago
@magnus56j : you have no clue as to what makes the True Church of God, in the same manner you speak like the Pharisee's who John the Baptist spoke against their claim of lineage, that even they were of the line of Abraham, it mattered not and gave no special preference (see Matthew 39; Luke 3:8 / KJV). That despite their lineage or historic connection to Abraham, Christ made a Church separate from them as he did again through Joseph Smith because the Creeds are an abomination to him. (cont)
viewer087 2 months ago
(Cont) thus lineage offers no special promise. Unless Christ himself makes the Church, via revelation-prophecy, secured in a true spiritual manner, it is NONE of his. IN the same way Jesus clearly said " 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? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." & so will he say it to you - Amen.
viewer087 2 months ago
@viewer087 Of course once again you are using our book (the Bible). Anyway I admit I was was harsh about the Mormon leaders and there being so rich and I apologize for that. I don't like Jeffrey R Holland in particular and I especially did not like Gordon B Hinckley because he would fake cry. I don't really understand why Mormons follow the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar and celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December. Christmas for me isn't until January 7th.
magnus56j 2 months ago
@magnus56j : You, the Orthodox, Catholics, Fundementalists, etc, do NOT own the Bible or the word of God, not even LDS. It belongs to God and it is he who decides what stays, goes, added or removed and to whom he entrusts his word and care of it. So please get off this attitude that your church "owns" anything, because in the last days you and your church loose everything as the Lord will take full possession and control. Humble thyself to his will and end your own will in this.
viewer087 2 months ago
@viewer087 Actually the Church is the Body of Christ. The Church and Christ are one in the same. The Bible was written by the Church for the Church so it does belong to the Church and it is still God's inspired word. The Bible is God's inspired word a part of the Tradition of the Church. (II Thessalonians, 2:15) In fact, it was the Orthodox Christian Church which gave us the Bible as we know it today! (You didn't think it just fell from heaven as we have it, did you?)
magnus56j 2 months ago
@magnus56j : your doctrine, as you present it, makes the body as the source of all scripture and incorruptible = false doctrine. // James 2:26 > body without the spirit is dead. Romans 8:10 > Spirit gives life because of righteousness; James 1:15 > death is because of sin. Thus apostasy, the pulling away from the Spirit = sin = death, body is therefore dead. // On all passages that spoke of the body of Christ, was combined with the involvement of the Spirit. (cont...)
viewer087 2 months ago
(cont...) inspired word is from & by the Spirit to the body, not from the Body alone. It is the Spirit which gives it life,the body does not give life. Since the word is spiritual & is life (John 6:63). Body must walk by the Spirit to gain life & the inspired word (Galatians 5; Romans 8:1-4). (cont...)
viewer087 2 months ago
(cont...) Since Orthodox church & all oth Christian denominations denounce continued revelation from God, then all of them, as you, are dead, because your church bodies denies the Spirit to enter into them, because of false doctrines and false rituals & practices. Thus, your church body has no spirit of God within & does not abide / walk in Spirit that gives life. Hence, you do not own the scriptures, ye are dead. This, not even speaking about authority which your church has none.
viewer087 2 months ago
@viewer087 The Orthodox is not a denomination once again and where is it evident in history of Christains betraying the faith? They were being slaughtered by evil pagans in order to stay faithful to Christ. They refused to offer a pinch of incense at a pagan altar. Where is it evident that ancient Christians believed in Mormon doctrines like 5 different places in the afterlife, necessity of marriage for salvation, people becoming almighty gods, that God the Father had a creator, etc.?
magnus56j 2 months ago
(note) , the word of God, the gospel came from heaven, the Bible put together by several men - not all were from the Orthodox church. King James Version was supported & authorized by King James thru church of England, not Orthodox church. Another author to the template of the modern day Bible was William Tyndale, who was not Orthodox, he was Protestant. I realize you reject some of the other books of the current day Bible, but there is no revelation to support your church & false doctrines. end
viewer087 2 months ago
@viewer087 But you accept all the books that the Orthodox Church defined as inspired. How do you know that all the books of the New Testament are inspired, when it was the Orthodox Church who defined it? You made the point that you think it isn't complete, but you still accept the books as inspired by God. Do you know what I mean when I say canon?
magnus56j 4 months ago
@magnus56j : about the books defined by the Orthodox church. - I am not sure what all these books are that were approved by that church, but I will say that the KJV Bible is the word of God so long as it is correctly translated. / one of the big problems with Christianity, is they have failed to recognize what is truly inspired and what is not. They failed to see the pattern of God in how he gives his inspired word and as a result, created so many false doctrines as the Trinity.
viewer087 2 months ago
@viewer087 Paul STRONGLY recommends celibacy for those who would devote themselves entirely for the ministry (1 Cor 7:32-35). Do you believe Paul is an evil heretic from strongly recommending celibacy? 1 Timothy 3 doesn't say a bishop must be a husband. It's saying that a bishop can only be married once. The LDS past, with polygamy in practice is totally contrary to 1 Timothy 3, because the LDS "bishops" had many wives. It's the LDS that is apostate!!
magnus56j 4 months ago
@magnus56j: Paul does NOT recommend celibacy for the priesthood. First off, 1 Cor 7 is not revelation from God, it is Paul's personal view (v.6). Second, this chapter is referenced from a previous letter Paul wrote, but that letter is missing, according to scholars. We all know the Bible is not a complete set of writings and certainly not from the original authors and some books were written long after the death of the attributed author. Who wrote what for many entries are still disputed. (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
(cont) - this raises a concern as to missing text or context that would clarify what Paul said and meant. Normally this would be resolved by revelation, but because the early Catholic church and all the bishops had no authority to receive revelation to clarify & resolve doctrinal matters, since God is the final say on these things. Hence the battles and disagreements, disputes and large amount of philosophies would muddle the matter on Paul's alleged words on celibacy. Thus... (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
(cont) from the standpoint of an Orthodox Christian, Catholic or otherwise, the matter remains disputed. Historical scholars disputed the words of Paul, so your position is unsettled. A cleric and scholar Frederick W. Farrar (1831-1903), stated "The tendency to disparage the wedded state and to exalt celibacy into a counsel of perfection - is not only discouraged in scripture but had its roots in dangerous heresies and runs counter to the express and repeated teachings of the Holy Writ"...(cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
(cont) - Newsweek said it this way, "Historically, there was no lack of precedent. Priests were married for Christianity's first 1000 years. Jesus' Apostles had wives and families.... The forces that pushed the church toward its 12th century stand on celibacy were political as well as spiritual, including the worry that sons of clergy would inherit church titles and property...so the Clergy became celibate". A view that Paul advocated celibacy was clearly a worldly man's view of the Bible (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
(cont) revelation is therefore imperative to resolve the issue. Hence the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of 1 Cor 7. The missing information is that Paul was addressing missionary work - " v29: 29 But I speak unto you who are called unto the ministry. For this I say, brethren, the time that remaineth is but short, that ye shall be sent forth unto the ministry. Even they who have wives, shall be as though they had none; for ye are called and chosen to do the Lord's work." (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
(cont) then the next verse "v32 - But I would, brethren, that ye magnify your calling. I would have you without carefulness. For he who is unmarried, careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord; therefore he prevaileth. (note v29:29 is a mistype, it is just v29). Placing Paul's words into the context of missionary work says, when on a calling, you are celibate. A single man called to missionary work is to remain celibate, not to marry during his calling. (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
(cont) thus when the calling ends, marriage is proper. Paul was advocating a single eye to the Lord when doing God's work. This is especially obvious in Paul's words in verse 30. So in context, Paul is saying that those who are married and do God's work, be as if unmarried and there is the celibacy he implied. // So here we have historic information that disputes yours and in addition, evidence that celibacy was sought by the early Catholic church to avoid loss of wealth. (cont)
viewer087 4 months ago
(cont) how does your issues about church wealth and political control now fair against the actual history of religious corruption? Do you really think that during the dark ages that even your Christian Orthodoxy denomination was righteous, that they had no such corruption? If you think so, you are living an illusion. For wealth and political control/power was a huge factor in all churches of those early days (after Christ Church fell). You would be a hypocrite to deny it.
viewer087 4 months ago
@viewer087 Orthodoxy has NEVER added, subtracted, or changed doctrines of the faith. They are the same doctrines Jesus taught to the original 12 Apostles.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@viewer087 You are wasting your time with this whole celibacy thing. I already told you it's not a doctrine of the Orthodox Church, and yet you keep on bringing it up. Marriage is not forbidden in Orthodoxy. Look up the heretics named the Encratites from the 2nd century who forbade marriage for everyone, and they also forbade eating means and drinking wine. This is probably what 1 Tim 4:1-3 is talking about. Oh and guess what, you guys forbid drinking wine. HERETIC ALERT!!!!!!!
magnus56j 4 months ago
@magnus56j : Forbidding wine. do you really believe that wine is imperative? Read D&C 27:1–4, God confirms wine is not imperative. Makes real common sense. Water instead of wine, the best thing, i.e: many Saints may have allergies against wine, or those of weaker faith caught in alcoholism etc. This change from wine to water goes with the "Word of Wisdom" which is a main reason to change and I agree with that change. God considers our health and temporal difficulties. He's wise, your not.
viewer087 4 months ago
@magnus56j : soon I will reply to the matter of the Trinity, so please wait for that.
viewer087 4 months ago
@viewer087 Obviously I am not wiser than God, that is why I see God as Mystery and unknowable. Mormons claim to know God absolutely perfectly and, well, I find that arrogant. Why sould we need to adequately understand the Creator? What a ridiculous demand that the creature, adequately understand the Creator.
magnus56j 4 months ago
@viewer087 "this raises concern as to missing text or context that would clarify what Paul said and meant." Oh yeah, like I am going to believe that poor argument. Where's your proof that there is missing text and context? Celibacy is not even a doctrine in the Orthodox Church, so I don't see why you are making a big deal about this when it is not even a doctrine of the Orthodox Church. You make it a doctrine in yours to get married. Now this is something I don't agree with.