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

Then to Jason I dismiss the lds faith because Christ came to fulfill the scriptures (law) not abolish them as stated in. Matt 5:17-20 And Judism is a monothesist religion along with historical Christianity where the lds is polytheist Also the great aposticy I need a date, (which I can't find) Also Matt 16:18 says the gates of hell will never prevail against his church so the aposticy theory controdicts scripture

* Hermas "[The Shepherd said:] ‘But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’" (The Shepherd*3:5:4 [A.D. 80]).* * Clement of Alexandria "In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" (Miscellanies*7:12 [A.D. 208]).* * Origen "But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep" (Prayer*11 [A.D. 233]).* * Cyprian of Carthage "Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy" (Letters*56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]).*

Can an lds prove from anti-nicene fathers, pre edict of Milan writings lds beliefs I can prove the catholic church

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.* While their ex-spouses are alive, the only time that a baptized couple can remarry after divorce is when a valid sacramental marriage never existed in the first place. For example, for a marriage to be contracted, the two parties must exchange valid matrimonial consent. If they do not, the marriage is null. If the competent authority (a diocesan marriage tribunal) establishes this fact, a decree of nullity (commonly called an annulment) can be granted, and the parties are free to remarry (CCC 1629). In this case there is no divorce followed by remarriage in God’s eyes because there*was no marriage*before God in the first place, merely a marriage in the eyes of men.*

To worship God John 6:54 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) 54*Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

Everything comes from God Read socrotes meets Jesus by Peter keeft

First of all, the First Commandment as stated in every Catholic book and classroom is: I am the LORD your God; you shall not have strange gods [or other gods] before Me. So that definitely forbids idolatry. The question is whether there is a separate commandment that goes "you shall not make any graven image" and that is apart from the 1st commandment. Seeing as the Jews went on to make, at God's behest, a number of graven images (Ex 25:18-19, Num 21:8-9, 1Kgs 6:23-29, 1Kgs 7:25-45, etc.) it would be ridiculous to say that there is a separate "no graven images" commandment because then God would be a sinner. Moreover the Fundamentalists who claim there is a separate commandment forbidding the making of and honoring the images of "dead people" are total and complete hypocrites. Why? Because all of them walk around with wallets full of images of dead people whom they honor. These images look like this: So, if they really believed what they accused the Church of then they should give all of their "graven images" to me for disposition. Seriously though... they clearly honor Washington and Jefferson and Franklin like every American does. And those honorees are dead. So how is carrying a $100 bill any different from carrying a holy card of the Blessed Virgin* (as George Washington himself did!)... Who is more honorable, the Mother of God or someone who denied the divinity of Jesus like Ben Franklin? * Bonus points if you answered, "of course it's different--Mary isn't dead!"

Compare beliefs on catholic.com It is officially sancationed by the Vatican They also have a apologetics line you can call That way you can have both sides of the story

Acts 4:30 Ask for saints intersesion in heaven Acts 4:32 Jesus founded the roman catholic church and we should be one Acts 4:37 We need to follow the decendants of the apostles today's Catholic bishops and pope Acts 5:3, 5:8, 5:9 Peter the first pope speaks with authority Those where just a couple notes in my Bible