Two churches- Church of Jesus Christ..and the great and abominable church?

[rameumptom]

SonInMe asked:

Ram

Did I misunderstand you?

Do you have a scriptural reference that "Jewish-Christians were expected to live the law of Moses"?

or that they were/are saved (my term) differently than Gentile Christians?

Check out Acts 15 as a precursor. It is where the apostolic council decided that the Jewish Christians would continue being circumcised and living the laws of Moses, while the Gentiles did not. Later in Acts and in many of his epistles, Paul would verbally attack the Jewish-Christians for still trying to get the Gentiles to follow the Mosaic Law. In fact, Paul accuses Peter of playing both sides. First Peter sat with the Gentile members and ate with them, but when others from Jerusalem showed up, he went back to the Jewish custom and sat only with the Jewish-Christians (Galatians 2). Paul told Peter he had to do one or the other, but could not do both without being a hypocrite. Later in Acts, Paul returned to Jerusalem and was directed by the apostles to cleanse himself and present himself at the temple, which he did.

All this shows that the early Church had two sets of rules: one for the Jewish Christians, and another for the Gentile Christians.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Check out Acts 15 as a precursor. It is where the apostolic council decided that the Jewish Christians would continue being circumcised and living the laws of Moses, while the Gentiles did not. Later in Acts and in many of his epistles, Paul would verbally attack the Jewish-Christians for still trying to get the Gentiles to follow the Mosaic Law. In fact, Paul accuses Peter of playing both sides. First Peter sat with the Gentile members and ate with them, but when others from Jerusalem showed up, he went back to the Jewish custom and sat only with the Jewish-Christians (Galatians 2). Paul told Peter he had to do one or the other, but could not do both without being a hypocrite. Later in Acts, Paul returned to Jerusalem and was directed by the apostles to cleanse himself and present himself at the temple, which he did.

All this shows that the early Church had two sets of rules: one for the Jewish Christians, and another for the Gentile Christians.

Thus, the beginning of the apostasy. As Mark E. Petersen says (paraphrasing) the apostles were taken away because the apostasy had begun, not the other way around.

And as Marion G. Romney says; "The Galatian saints were a small minority surrounded mostly by heathens and a few Jewish Christians who were called Judaizers because, although they professed to belief in Christ, they still insisted that the Judean law be observed. The pressures of these pseudo-Christians had induced the Galatians to conform to the requirements of “the law” notwithstanding the fact that Paul had taught them that Christ had fulfilled the law.

Upon hearing of their apostasy, Paul wrote his epistle. His purpose was to convince them, if he could, that the gospel of Jesus Christ was the one and only way to salvation. He sought to strengthen them against being seduced and corrupted by the false teachings to which they were exposed."

Guess he couldn't convince them, so the church starts to crumble.

[prisonchaplain]

Seminary, it seems that the heresies Paul contended against were of two kinds:

1. The Judaizers sought to require Gentiles to observe the Mosaic law.

2. Early pre-Gnostic teachings that promoted secret knowledge, and which denied the need for holiness--especially regarding sins against the body.

There may be others, but neither of these seemed to have become dominant in the early church. Gnostics were declared heretics, and purity and holiness have remained fairly constant teachings. Thus, I'm not sure you can say that the Great Apostasy came because Paul failed to convince the churches to stay with the Apostles' teachings.

[rameumptom]

The Church did not crumble because of the Law of Moses or the Jewish-Christians. While there were struggles by them, they were still very strongly a part of the Church. Just look at how Jewish-Christian is the epistle of James!

Serious LDS scholars see the real issues of apostasy occurring later than Paul. These were hits from the other side of issues, the Gentiles/Greeks, as the Church became Hellenized, adopting concepts such as Aristotle's one God made of pure substance other than anything else ever created.

It also came as a result of the push by Gnostic Christian groups that almost overcame the proto-orthodox Church in the 2nd-4th centuries. Because many of these were based on mysteries and continuing revelation, the early Church Fathers established a set canon and refused to allow anyone to add to or subtract from that canon with additional revelation.

The end of continuing revelation was a huge thing. Paul wrote in the 50-64AD period, before the Gnostics took hold or there ever was an effort to stop continuing revelation.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The Church did not crumble because of the Law of Moses or the Jewish-Christians. While there were struggles by them, they were still very strongly a part of the Church. Just look at how Jewish-Christian is the epistle of James!

Serious LDS scholars see the real issues of apostasy occurring later than Paul. These were hits from the other side of issues, the Gentiles/Greeks, as the Church became Hellenized, adopting concepts such as Aristotle's one God made of pure substance other than anything else ever created.

It also came as a result of the push by Gnostic Christian groups that almost overcame the proto-orthodox Church in the 2nd-4th centuries. Because many of these were based on mysteries and continuing revelation, the early Church Fathers established a set canon and refused to allow anyone to add to or subtract from that canon with additional revelation.

The end of continuing revelation was a huge thing. Paul wrote in the 50-64AD period, before the Gnostics took hold or there ever was an effort to stop continuing revelation.

I wasn't trying to say that was the only struggle. Was just going with the example you gave. ... and again, was just saying it was a sign of the beginning, i.e. - not completed.

I also don't see that Acts 15 addresses the issue of Jewish-Christians living the law of Moses, just that the gentiles didn't have to live the law of Moses but that is probably a topic for another thread.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Seminary, it seems that the heresies Paul contended against were of two kinds:

1. The Judaizers sought to require Gentiles to observe the Mosaic law.

2. Early pre-Gnostic teachings that promoted secret knowledge, and which denied the need for holiness--especially regarding sins against the body.

There may be others, but neither of these seemed to have become dominant in the early church. Gnostics were declared heretics, and purity and holiness have remained fairly constant teachings. Thus, I'm not sure you can say that the Great Apostasy came because Paul failed to convince the churches to stay with the Apostles' teachings.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that the Apostasy occurred because of Paul's inability to get everyone on the same page. I was more trying to say that the Apostasy was in the works because of these divisions or maybe the divisions reflected the movement towards apostasy is another way of saying that. As opposed to the idea that there are different sets of rules for different people. It wasn't from the top down, it was internal going outward.

There wasn't much Paul could do as it was already in the cards, the apostasy was going to happen no matter what Paul did. The Apostles job was to provide the testament and spread the word which they did.

The Greek word apostasia means something more along the lines of political rebellion and revolution. The apostasy was an internal issue. It was part of that prophesy given in Matthew 24; " 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.

10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."

"Offended" coming from the Greek word skandalizo, meaning, in the theological sense, giving up of one's faith or fall into sin, and "many" shall do it. In other words, the apostasy is caused by those that believe in Christ start to not believe in Christ. Not believing in Christ would include thinking that the law of Moses is still necessary. Thus, the events described in Acts 15, in part amongst many other divisions and worldly influences leads to the apostasy.

And John 2:18-19; " 18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

"The last time" = the apostasy is coming and "they went out from us" meaning they started to adopt their own set of rules and beliefs for themselves but that really isn't from the apostles - "but they were not of us". The church didn't direct different teachings for different people, straight is the gait.

[apexviper13]

Like one person said on here, you can relate it to what Jesus told Joseph Smith about the creeds being an abomination. One could say the church of the devil is the body of believers of the creeds since they're an abomination. The danger is many people seem to put more focus on the creeds than the Bible or Jesus Christ.

This is what I see: critics of the church will say we're not Christians strictly because we don't believe in the "trinity" doctrine. However, they won't say anything about believing in and following Jesus Christ himself making a person a Christian. That's something I find sad. While we LDS do put emphasis on doctrine we do not put them over Jesus Christ. People try to say the verses about the church of God and the abominable church is an attack against churches. The Bible teaches, plainly I might add, that a person cannot have 2 masters. Its either Christ or Satan.

[prisonchaplain]

Apex...in any discussion of doctrinal differences, the Trinity would be a pretty safe starting place. After, that is a discussion about who God is. As for what makes a Christian, LDS take that to mean how do we assure our blessings in the kingdom to come...of course, through faithful discipleship, growth, not tiring in doing good, etc. Evangelicals take the question to mean, "What does it take to convert?" To that, Billy Graham's famous song is correct, "Just as I am/Without one plea/But that thy blood was shed for me..."

[apexviper13]

Apex...in any discussion of doctrinal differences, the Trinity would be a pretty safe starting place. After, that is a discussion about who God is. As for what makes a Christian, LDS take that to mean how do we assure our blessings in the kingdom to come...of course, through faithful discipleship, growth, not tiring in doing good, etc. Evangelicals take the question to mean, "What does it take to convert?" To that, Billy Graham's famous song is correct, "Just as I am/Without one plea/But that thy blood was shed for me..."

There's a difference, in a way there's not and there is at the same time, between believing in the creeds and the trinity. Some trinitarians do believe in that concept solely because of the Bible and not creeds. Take Shawn McCraney for example. He's an ex-LDS who has this show called Heart of the Matter. Although I don't care for a show that's specifically against any kind of religion no matter what religion it is, I do give him credit for at least saying his belief in the trinity concept is from his interpretation of the Bible and not the Nicene Creed.

[Vort]

Take Shawn McCraney for example. He's an ex-LDS who has this show called Heart of the Matter. Although I don't care for a show that's specifically against any kind of religion no matter what religion it is, I do give him credit for at least saying his belief in the trinity concept is from his interpretation of the Bible and not the Nicene Creed.

In my opinion, this is not correct. I believe that no one could come up with the idea of the "Trinity" based solely on Biblical teachings. It is one possible interpretation of Biblical doctrine -- not a very convincing one, in my opinion -- but in any case, it is not an obvious interpretation, and I doubt anyone could come up with the Trinity doctrine based solely on the Bible. It is a traditional idea passed on for many hundreds of years, and its modern origin is in tradition, not the Bible. (Its ultimate origin appears to be in neoPlatonist ideals, but that is another topic.)

Edited September 30, 2011 by Vort

[dahlia]

When I took my lessons, I thought for sure this was the Catholic Church. It caused some tense moments with the elders.

[prisonchaplain]

In my opinion, this is not correct. I believe that no one could come up with the idea of the "Trinity" based solely on Biblical teachings. It is one possible interpretation of Biblical doctrine -- not a very convincing one, in my opinion -- but in any case, it is not an obvious interpretation, and I doubt anyone could come up with the Trinity doctrine based solely on the Bible. It is a traditional idea passed on for many hundreds of years, and its modern origin is in tradition, not the Bible. (Its ultimate origin appears to be in neoPlatonist ideals, but that is another topic.)

What came from the Bible and the apostles was that Jesus is God, and that there is only one God. These two truths were enough for about three generations. Then heresies began to arise about God's nature. Some said Jesus was not God, but something less. Others said that God was absolutely one, but manifest himself in three modes. Still others said that Jesus was never really human, and still others that Jesus was only human.

The Trinity doctrine is the Church's very defined response to all of these challenges. So, while I contend it is Bible-based, you are at least correct that it did not form in a vacuum, based only on reading the Bible. The teaching developed as a response to questions raised. Some of those questions were philosophical in nature. None of that detracts from the biblical foundations of the doctrine.

You can argue that they got it wrong, but not that they ignored the Bible in favor of philosophy. As for Shawn McCraney, I've only seen youtube clips, but he does not strike me as the kind of guy who studies ancient creeds. Ex-LDS converts to evangelicalism would likely be loathe to do such--even those of us raised in evangelism don't read creeds. I may have had one class out of more than 30 in my schooling that made reference to it.