X33ad

Annatess it is enough proof in a court of law Here is the biggest reasons why I would never consider the lds church 1)It is polytheist and not monotheist which means it is not a fulfillment of the Jewish faith 2) there is zero historic evedence for the belief system until 1800's 3) it is mixed with protesant beliefs which means it descendant from that 1500's heracy And not from 1st century teachings such as Mary is thekos Intersesion of the saints 73 books in the bible Mortal sin Confession to a priest Real presence in the Eucharist And .....

Since according to other threads the great apostasy occurred at the death of the last apostle (John 95ad). Or was it later since according to acts 1 mathias took the place of Judas and continued apostolic sussesion During my research from agnostic to evangelical and finally to roman catholic I found only Catholic beliefs in the first century and so on and then some Gnostic beliefs at the earliest in the third century but they where very limited

The first christains and even the first king James bible had 73 books it wasn't until the Presbyterians removed them finally in the late 1700's Macabees is referred to in John 10 and was in use in the first century Tobit, we have an actual copy form 70ad and the dead sea scrolls Why do the lds follow the Protestant tradition of 66 books and not the 1st century transition of 73?

Here is some early writings that proves apostolic sussesion at minimal as a belief by these men * Pope Clement I "Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians*42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).* * Hegesippus "When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius,*Ecclesiastical History*4:22 [A.D. 180]).*

Well then the catholic church stands alone in its following of the. I've which it created

I have studied August casely-Hayfords work Who specializes in ethipian studies and has done much Archelocical work first hand there There is enough Archelocical evidence for Judism being adopted as a state religion there 1000's of years before Christ by a queen with some sort of relationship to a Jewish king that would be permissible in a court of law.

The 90's that is a blip on the radar since the catholic church started 2000 years ago on the cross as a fulfillment of Jewish prophesy Show me anything dated during the age of pursicution before the edict of Milan not a modernist view Remember all christains denounced birth control (genisis 38) before 1930 and know the catholic and orthodox stand alone in truth and original teachings

You misunderstand what that verse is saying. Always look at scripture in context: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This says nothing about scripture not having personal interpretation, but that the prophecies that were given were not obtained or originated in the personal musings of the prophet (i.e. the prophecies did not originate with the man himself), but that the prophets came as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Yes and those holy men according to Jesus would be the the apostles and the unbroken line decendants of the Bible in acts 1 and Matt 16:18 Acts 1:26 Douay-Rheims 26*And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. Matthew 16:18 Douay-Rheims 18*And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The above lines indicate that Christ church can not fall into aposticy and will ever be with us

"Unfortunately, there is no other direct evidence [besides the Bible itself] that this great king ever lived. Biblical scholars have dated Solomon's reign to the 10th century B.C." Above came from your website which is an historical controdition Queen Sheba of Ethiopia was married to Solomon and there are records in Ethiopia The most marking reference is that the ethipian nation was a Jewish state from The time of Sheba until Christ in acts 8 and officially adopted catholic/ orthodox Christianity in the 300's ad So within the first 5 seconds I found an error in your web site, but I'll read more of it

The Permanence of Matrimony Share on twitter Share on email Share on print Share on gmail Share on stumbleupon More Sharing Services When Jesus came, he elevated matrimony to the same status it had originally possessed between Adam and Eve—the status of a sacrament. Thus, any valid marriage between two baptized people is a sacramental marriage and, once consummated, cannot be dissolved. Jesus, therefore, taught that if anyone so married divorces and remarries, that person is living in perpetual adultery, a state of mortal sin.* He said, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18; cf. Mark 10:11–12).* Paul was equally insistent on this fact, declaring, "Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive" (Rom. 7:2–3).* This applied, of course, only to sacramental marriages—those between baptized people. For marriages involving an unbaptized party, a different rule applied (1 Cor. 7:12–15).* In the midst of the Greco-Roman culture, which allowed for easy divorce and remarriage, the early Church Fathers proclaimed Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage—just as the Catholic Church does today in our modern, secular, easy-divorce culture (cf.*Catechism of the Catholic Church*1614–1615). Other denominations have modified their teachings to accommodate the pro-divorce ethos that dominates modern culture, but the Catholic Church preserves the teaching of Jesus and the early Christians.*

Jason I started to read it maybe you could help me find actual historical dates and extra biblical writings from anti nicene fathers or 1st century romans or Jews All I found was quoting scripture and that sounds like a circular argument from a baptist We all know bible alone isn't in the bible 1 Tim 3:15 15*But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And scripture can not have personal interpitation 2 Peter 1:20 20*Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

The church I belong to that Jesus founded would answer that all christains other than Catholics are in a degree of heresy that are not in union with the see of Peter the lds would just be denying the trinity where a baptist or Pentecostal would be denying James 2:24 and 1 Tim 3:15 along with john 6

The catholic church is the fulfillment of the Jewish scriptures and it also is the only church that is for all people at all times (rich, poor, any country, any iq, any age) So that is why I belong to the church Jesus Christ founde

We all know bible alone isn't in the bible so what ever lds beliefs you have please back them up with pre edict of Milan extra biblical writings

Anna Faith is built on historical facts and reason, just as I can have faith George Washington was the first president I can have greater faith Jesus Christ was crucified and rose again